Hypothesized relationship
A pressing question that arises from last week’s brief introduction to the forest transition hypothesis is whether it offers useful guidance as regards future trends in Guyana’s extractive forest sector. In a nutshell that discussion of forest transition is focused on what may be termed, a hypothesized long-term historical relationship between any given country’s net forest loss/deforestation and the performance of its real per capita GDP over similar long periods of time.
According to the hypothesis, in the early phases of “modern economic growth” (that is, after a country moves beyond subsistence or near-subsistence levels of functioning); net forest loss/deforestation increases. Such increases in deforestation can also be generalized as reflecting an overall decline in a country’s environmental quality (increased pollution and waste, loss of biodiversity, and so on). The hypothesis suggests that, beyond some level of per capita income/wealth, this deforestation reverses itself. The point of inflection, where deforestation stops and reforestation begins, cannot be predicted a priori. When it does arrive though, it typically coincides with a turnaround in society’s (and government’s) approach towards the forests and broader environment.
The separate treatment in the hypothesis of the period when subsistence or near-subsistence modes of production prevail essentially underscores the limitations of two key components of such modes of production. These are their production capabilities or means available, and their social and technical relations. Subsistence-type modes embody low levels of labour skills, limited tools and equipment, lack of appropriate technologies, limited knowledge and access to raw materials. Their prevailing social structures, institutional arrangements, laws and property relations are also not conducive to intensive commercial exploitation of the forests, the environment, or indeed natural resources generally.
Multiple research studies have further revealed the relationship between economic growth and the maintenance of the forest cover (whether positive or negative), is not fixed along a given development path. It changes both at different periods of time and for income levels, thereby indicating that public policies do play crucial roles in the outcomes. And, if that is the case, it follows that, public awareness and advocacy, are vital ingredients in shaping societal outcomes.
Environmental curve
Last week I alluded to the observed relationship between economic growth and the rate of net forest loss/deforestation, as similar to what is termed in economics, the ‘Kuznets curve’. This curve depicts the relationship between economic growth and inequality. And similarly several forest and environmental analysts refer to an environmental Kuznets curve (EKC). This purports to show the relationship between indicators of environmental degradation and income per capita.
Apart from regular Food and Agricultural Organization’s (FAO) global forest resources assessments, a considerable number of countries and regions have had their forests studied, over long expanses of time. These studies have taken place on virtually all continents, significant forested areas, large and small, as well as developed and developing countries. The empirical data is truly outstanding.
Four stages of transition
Although the forest transition hypothesis refers to a universal pattern of change in forest cover, there are four broad stages, which it is claimed constitute the transition. These changes should not be interpreted as being deterministic and always occurring. Instead, the claim is simply made that, there is a likelihood of their occurrence.
In summary, for the first stage, forested areas are quite extensive and relatively undisturbed. In this virgin state, rates of deforestation/net forest loss are low.
Extraction of forest resources occurs without undue concern over negative impacts on the future availability of forest cover. Indeed, the perception is that, the forests are effectively unlimited! Additionally, the forested area may also be highly inaccessible to commercial exploitation, thereby providing what is termed as ‘passive protection’ of the forest stock.
As time elapses, however, infrastructure development (roads, communications), settlements, economic growth, trade, investment flows, all taken together improve access to the forests, thereby leading to the second stage. At this stage, net forest loss/deforestation rates accelerate. Forest scarcity becomes a concern, as over time the forest cover diminishes.
Sadly, this trend of clearing the forest tends to continue until the forest cover reaches what society considers to be the “absolute minimum”. At this juncture, the choice society is faced with is to let the forest cover be completely exhausted or implement policies in support of reforestation. This is the turnaround point of the third stage. Here typically, deforestation slows and forest cover stabilization and regeneration starts. At this point also the broader society accepts that its forest resources are finite.
At this juncture also, the prices of forest products increase because of their relative scarcity. This leads to a fall in the demand for these items. This is the fourth stage. Policy emphasis is now placed on reforestation. Planted forests and sustainable forest management are introduced in the broader context of improved environmental policies, which become policy priorities. The forest cover shows signs of increasing.
Observations
It is important that readers take note of a few observations related to the above depiction of the four stages of forest transition theory from a Guyanese perspective. One is that the hypothesis depicts recurring regularities in the relationship between forests and societies, and it can therefore happen in Guyana. However, the “precise form, slope and turning point of the transition curve is unpredictable”.
Second, country specific circumstances, like the degree of population pressure, pace of economic growth, extent of forest cover, environmental awareness, and policy/institutional environment largely determine the specific outcomes for any given country, including Guyana. And, thirdly, attention to the forests is invariably best approached as one aspect, albeit a very important part of society’s overall environmental commitments, as we so readily observe in Guyana today.
Next week after a few brief remaining remarks on the hypothesis, I shall discuss the economic profile of Guyana’s extractive forestry sector.
