With an estimated 4 billion acres of forests worldwide covering 30 per cent of the earth’s land area, the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) has reported overall progress in recent years in the utilization of sustainable forest management practices. As we saw in earlier columns the FAO has estimated that between 1990 and 2005, the earth has lost 3 per cent of its forest cover, or about 120 million acres. However, it hopes that the discerned progress in sustainable forest management practices would yield a significant reduction in the net rate of deforestation.
Uneven progress
Further, the FAO report has observed that the progress has been very unevenly distributed across regions and continents. Generally speaking, sustainable forest management practices have stabilized or increased net forest cover in rich regions with temperate climates like Europe and most of North America. On the other hand, however, in the poorer tropical rainforest regions like ours (Latin America and the Caribbean) as well as Africa, forest cover has been decreasing.
As I have previously observed, two important considerations lie behind this thumbnail sketch of what has been happening to the world’s forests. One is that while the forest data are compiled on a national basis and then aggregated; in many countries national programmes for monitoring and inventorising forest are recent occurrences. Consequently, the FAO estimates for 1990-2005 are unlikely to be error free. Indeed these estimates are able to stand scrutiny only because of their very high level of aggregation. National estimates need to be taken with more than a grain of salt, especially for poorer countries with weak institutional and resource capacities. This admonition would of course apply to Guyana.
The second consideration is that although multiple factors have contributed to national weaknesses in monitoring forests, in particular two stand out. One is the distribution of available resources (human, financial and technical), which could be directed to these tasks. In general, the poorer the country or region, the less can be afforded for sustainable forest management. The other is that dedicated institutions, organisations, policy frameworks, legislation, and programmes for sustainable forest management are also unevenly distributed across regions and countries.
As would be expected, such deficiencies are caused in large measure due to the lack of resources. However, it is also the case that political willingness to drive sustainable forest management and the pursuit of environmental-friendly low carbon development options are also unevenly distributed across regions and countries.
It should be recalled that, forests and climate change have two profoundly different relations with each other. On the one hand climate change negatively affects forests in myriad of ways. For example, it can lead to severe forest damage through wildfires, pests, and the spread of diseases. While, on the other hand, the ‘carbon sink’ properties of forests can help to modulate climate change through their sequestration of otherwise damaging greenhouse gases emissions.
In recent years there have been striking advances in forest monitoring, reviewing and reporting. The introduction of satellite sensing imagery and photo interpretation have allowed for more accurate assessment at the national level. Better criteria and indicators are now used to measure/monitor progress towards sustainable forest management practices, which permit better global validation of the fulfilment of national commitments and obligations.
What is Guyana’s forest cover?
For the same assessment period as the global study (1990-2005), the FAO reports that Guyana has had no change in its net forest cover. More specifically, the LCDS reports that Guyana’s forest cover remains in excess of 15 million acres, roughly the same as in 1990. The LCDS goes on to attribute this to the systematic pursuit of sustainable forest management practices. From what I know of Guyana and what I have also read about its forests, I remain deeply sceptical of this claim. Rather I believe that this might well be an instance of the many weaknesses in the national data, from which the FAO’s global and regional estimates are compiled.
Proof of this concern is seen in the varied indications of Guyana’s total forest cover. These can be found across specialist publications on the subject of Guyana’s forests, and just as frequently within the same publication, as is the case with the LCDS.
Variation in the use of such a basic indicator is bound to raise scepticism in regard to the analytic/scientific rigour of the document. Thus on page 8 of the LCDS the claim is made: “almost 80 per cent of Guyana’s territory consists of tropical rainforest that is still virtually untouched.” Based on an area of 21.5 million hectares, this equals approximately 17.2 million hectares. But earlier in the document, (Executive Summary page 4) the figure given is approximately 15 million hectares, which is over 2 million hectares less. For the uninitiated, it is hard to fathom what could be the explanation for such an obvious discrepancy in this the most basic data.
Further the total of forested area given above contrasts with the total of 18.6 million hectares utilized for calculation of the rate of deforestation in Guyana cited in related documentation on the LCDS and Guyana forest-based websites.
What is perhaps of greater concern is that because of this basic variation other variations and discrepancies in the forest data follow. We become, as it were, lost in the forests. In particular I would point out the estimation of 1) the size the state forest sector 2) the area under Amerindian title 3) the area deemed unproductive in the calculation of the economic value to the nation (EVN) of its forests for purposes of the cost-benefit analysis that is at the core of the LCDS 4) area to be reserved for the preservation of biodiversity and 5) the total greenhouse gases emission offsets, which Guyana’s rainforest is expected to provide.
Conclusion
Next week I shall continue the discussion of the LCDS from this observation. In particular I will remind readers that Janette Bulkan in her earlier excellent and informative 10-part series on the LCDS (July-August, 2009) had raised the issue of differing figures on the size of Guyana’s forests used in official documents (see in particular articles 6 and 7). Her earlier expressed concerns and mine now have a direct bearing on the confidence readers should place in the FAO’s assessment that there has been no net change in Guyana’s forest cover between 1990 and 2005, and the reasons being offered for this outcome.