Forest Degradation

In a survey, Lund (2009) found more than 50 definitions of forest degradation, formulated for various purposes.

Perceptions of forest degradation are many and varied, depending on the driver of degradation and the goods or services of most interest. For example, a manager from a timber company who replaces a natural forest with a plantation to supply desired wood products is unlikely to perceive his forest as degraded. On the other hand, his plantation is less capable of providing many of the goods and services that a fully functioning natural forest would provide on the same site, partly because of the reduced biodiversity generally associated with plantations, which to others would constitute a degraded state. Other example, a wildlife enthusiast may see an impoverished forest, while a forester sees a productive forest regenerating after logging. Similarly, a forester may see a degraded forest while a shifting cultivator sees a piece of prime agricultural land. Almost inevitably, ‘degradation’ is in the eye of the beholder. Not all landholders or managers will necessarily agree that degradation has occurred; even if they do, they may disagree about the most appropriate response. These contrasting perceptions make it hard to define and measure degradation, and to obtain definitive statistics on its regional, national or global scale”(Lamb & Glilmour 2003).

What is the necessity to measure it and what to measure?

The measurement of degradation requires the establishment of a reference state – a baseline or ‘ideal state’ – against which change can be assessed. Given that forests are always changing, and that forest condition is partly a matter of perspective, establishing a baseline is not an easy task if many question are asked in its relation. The key consideration at the centre of question is how much relative value people place on the past and current systems, and may relate to loss of, or change in, particular ecosystem characteristics.

When a patch of land is currently a forest but is known historically to have been a grassland, is the forest a degraded state in need of restoration? Conversely, if a current heathland may once have been a forest, is it a degraded state or something worth conserving in its own right? And if the heathland starts spontaneously changing to a forest when fire and grazing management change, should that be viewed as degradation in progress?

Given their role in human well-being, the state of the forests is important to us all. We need to know if forests are being degraded and, if so, what the causes are, so that steps can be taken to arrest and reverse the process. Good information on forest condition and the extent of forest degradation will enable the prioritization of human and financial resources to prevent further degradation and to restore and rehabilitate degraded forests.

Why does it matter to us and why not?

Forest degradation is a serious environmental, social and economic problem. Quantifying the scale of the problem is difficult, however, because forest degradation has many causes, occurs in different forms and with varying intensity, and is perceived differently by different stakeholders. The International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO, 2002) estimated that up to 850 million hectares of tropical forest and forest lands could be degraded. The Global Partnership on Forest Landscape Restoration (GPFLR, undated) suggested that more than one billion hectares of deforested and degraded forest land worldwide are suitable and available for restoration.

Forest degradation today

Deforestation has changed from a “state-initiated” process to an “enterprise-driven” one. The major agents of deforestation are corporations that analyze it as an economic alternative, and choose it instead of other options because it is advantageous in terms of Rupees and paisa.

In our view, deforestation is not an irrational act, in the contexts in which it takes place. People and corporations often clear the forest for good reasons, usually economic ones. That is not to say that we see the agents of deforestation as examples of Homo economicus or their decisions as being made in a “free market,” for the economy is embedded in a political and cultural context that may often lead to deforestation even when it is not the course that leads to the maximum long-term profit. It is simply to acknowledge that money plays a critical role in deforestation in the twenty-first century