Re: THE DESTRUCTION OF TROPICAL FORESTS

Maybe Riesz is right, maybe he's wrong about the Amazon; others with
better knowledge can confirm -- but see accompanying post.

Anyway, not being a 'world' person nor widely travelled, I will only
speak of the little corner I come from.

It looks like my earlier statement about the fires was apparently
lost in the forest. So to repeat --

> Most tropical forests are still being logged selectively
> for the most valuable species, which though it is almost
> never complemented with measures for fostering the
> regeneration of such woods, does NOT DESTROY THE FORESTS.
> The real enemy is still the fire; remember the
> conflagration which devastated vast areas in Borneo and
> Sumatra 2 years ago!

Perhaps Borneo is not included in that "most". If so, then ignore.
But studies  indicate that the extent of forest destruction in
Bornean areas under such "selective" logging is of the order of 50%.
On paper, something like 6-10 trees per hectare are being taken. But
the process of accessing and removing those trees results in
widespread destruction -- from the roads, the skid trails, the
multiple entries before a block is 'closed down', etc. In the nature
of these forests, a 50-meter tree coming down also causes quite a bit
of 'collateral' damage to surrounding trees, and the act of pulling
out a log causes further 'collateral' damage.

There is also consequential loss of biodiversity, in the forest and
in the rivers. Sediment load in rivers have gone up ten to twenty
fold -- visually, it means going from a blue-green or tannin brown to
a reddish colour, from a visibility of 5/10 meters or more to
something like 10 centimeters and even less, resulting in a
considerable diminution of fish yields, etc. Incidentally, shifting
cultivation, properly done, results in successions that are less
diverse but richer (or whatever's the technical term) -- because more
food.

Additionally, the introduction of heli-logging means that areas
previously inaccessible to conventional logging, e.g. slopes of 45%
and more, hill tops, etc. are now logged. Depending on terrain and
area, to remove a single log, an area of perhaps 30 meters (or more)
radius has to be cleared to provide a clear sight for the heli's --
as these are areas that have never ever been touched previously,
commercially valuable trees are at least 50 meters tall.

All this contributes to reduced water retention/increased run-offs,
so that river levels fluctuate more severely.

I do not need to add that which is well-known about the ecology and
the nature of the soil in these tropical forests -- it's textbook
stuff.

I don't know about the Amazon, but clear-cutting is never allowed in
Borneo, except when the forest is to be converted for other uses.
However, I once met some US forestry officials on a visit to these
parts, and in their opinion -- possibly biased -- the 'selective'
logging here was worse than the clear-cutting in the US.

Finally, on the fires. To repeat, the fires in Kalimantan and Sumatra
3 years ago -- 1997 -- were primarily the result of burning for
plantation development, as well as fires in thinned-out forests in
the el nino conditions of that year. In a few instances, they could
have been due to 'sabotage' by local people because of conflicting
claims with the companies. Primary forests don't burn easy.

I'm no tree hugger, but it is a canard to say that what passes for
selective logging does not cause forest destruction. It would be
better if we acknowledge that, decide on the proportion of forests
whose revenue we figure we need, log them on a sustained yield basis
if possible and if not, then log them, invest the revenue wisely, and
convert the logged over forest to other uses. But I don't think that
something like 70-80% of the forest being put to the saw is the right
proportion.

BTW, RJ Barendse mentioned multinationals in Surinam. It might be
noted that at least some of those multinationals come from this part
of the world, the same as are to be found in PNG, the Solomons,
Guyana, etc.

kjkhoo