This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Jocelyn Stock Andy Rochen
Introduction Environmental issues effect every life on this planet from the smallest parasite to the human race. The reason for this is simple. A single disruption in the Earth?s delicate balance can mean certain destruction of the very place that cradles the lives of many species. What is not so simple is finding alternatives to the now dangerous and confronting acts of planet degradation that have been afflicted on the planet over recent years. One such issue that requires consideration is deforestation. Trees have been or are being cut down at increasingly high rates. If this is not stopped many unfavorable side effects could result. Why Trees Matter To understand why deforestation is such a pressing and urgent issue, forests must first be given credit for what they bring to global ecosystems and the quality of life that all species maintain. Tropical Rainforests presently give a place to call home for 50% - 90% of all organisms, 90% of our relatives, the primates, and 50 million creatures that can live no place but the rich rainforests (World Rainforest Movement 16). Not only are other species at risk, but the human race also benefits from what the trees give. From something as minor as the spices that indulge food to life giving medicines, the rainforests amplify and save lives. According to the World Rainforest Movement, 25% of medicines come from the forests (28). This is a number that does not do justice to all the cures that have yet to be discovered or that have been destroyed. The forests give life, not only to other species, but they help to prolong the human race. The forests have global implications not just on life but on the quality of it. Trees improve the quality of the air that species breath by trapping carbon and other particles produced by pollution. Trees determine rainfall and replenish the atmosphere. As more water gets put back in the atmosphere, clouds form and provide another way to block out the sun?s heat. Trees are what cool and regulates the earth?s climate in conjunction with other such valuable services as preventing erosion, landslides, and making the most infertile soil rich with life. Mother earth has given much responsibility to trees.
This map shows where deforestation is at its peak in the world with so much focus on the Amazon Region it is also best to know that some places in Europe, Asia, and Mexico also contribute. Source: http://www.igc.apc.org/wri/wr-96-97/lc_f3.gif Population Growth an Deforestation So this leads into a very confusing question of the 20th century. Why are these trees being torn down? The World Wide Forest Report found that when the Roman Empire was in control of Europe 90% of the continent was forested. Today 500,000 hectors vanish in a single week ("Logging is the Major Cause of Global Deforestation" 1). There is no one easy answer as there are many causes at the root of deforestation. One is overpopulation in cities and developing countries. Population is continually growing in the third world. Some had land until increases in population forced them off it and they became landless peasants that are forced to look for land in the untouched forests. This movement to the forests is in some ways a result of government pressures. In place of implementing programs to help the poor these governments concentrate on the cheapest, easiest, way to keep poverty out of sight and give the poor no other choice but to force other species out and themselves in. According to Norman Myers, bad land tenure, a shortage of modern agricultural tools, and government neglect of subsistence farmers have put an influx of human interference in the forests. (37) The poor are pushed in further and further and destroy more every time they must move on. What the poor do in the forests is the most devastating. In attempts to settle farmland, the poor become "shifted cultivators" and resort to using slash and burn methods of tree
removal. Slashing and burning involves what its name implies, trees are cut down and the remains are burned. The ash is used as a fertilizer and the land is then used for farming or cattle grazing, however, the soil that is cleared in slash and burn is left infertile, the nutrients in the soil are quickly absorbed by surrounding organisms ("Deforestation" 1). The farmers must move on sometimes to other areas and repeat this process and worthy land and trees become scarce. For farmers in places like Brazil, slash and burn methods are the only way to effectively clear land of parasites and unwanted organisms; chemical means contaminate water and soil and farmers continue to turn to slashing and burning ("Slash and Burn Agriculture" 1). It has become so much a dilemma that a leading researcher, Myers, sees it of all the causes of deforestation, to be the number one cause (Myers 32).
This is a specific example of how population growth and slash and burn agriculture is a terrible cycle that will destroy the forest. Source: http://www.gwdg.de/~jwiesen/images/anbau.jpg Logging and Deforestation The small farmer plays a big role, but it is modern industry that too cuts down the trees. The logging industry is fueled by the need for disposable products. 11 million acres a year are cut for commercial and property industries (Entity Mission 1). Peter Heller found that McDonald?s needs 800 square miles of trees to make the amount of paper they need
for a year?s supply of packaging, Entity Mission found that British Columbia manufactures 7, 500,000 pairs of chopsticks a day, and the demand for fuel wood is so high that predictions say that there will be a shortage by the year 2000. Logging does too have its repercussions. The logging industry not only tries to accomplish all this but it even indirectly helps the "shifted cultivators" and others to do more damage. The roads that the loggers build to access the forests and generate hydroelectric power create an easy way for many people to try to manipulate the forest resources. The amount of damage that this adds to the forests can not be measured nor can that of the illegal logging. Some importers may even be buying illegally logged wood and not even have known it ("Logging is the Major Cause of Global Deforestation ? New WWF Report" 2). Cattle Grazing and Deforestation Another of the more devastating forces behind deforestation is cattle grazing. With the international growth of fast food chains this seems to be an evident factor in the clearing of trees today. Large corporations looking to buy beef for hamburger and even pet food seek cheap prices and are finding them with the growth of cattle grazing (Heller 3). In the Amazon region of South America alone there are 100,000 beef ranchers (Heller 3). As the burger giants of industrialized society are making high demands for more beef, more forests are being torn down. Statistics from less than a decade ago, 1989, indicate that 15,000 km squared of forests are used expressly for the purpose of cattle grazing (Myers 32). Once the trees are gone the land is often overgrazed. In some places the government wants this to happen. Cattle grazing is big profit that can?t be turned down. Other Causes Beyond the major causes of deforestation lie some supplementary ones that too stack the odds against forests around the globe. Acid rain and the building of dams have their share of harmful effects. The race to produce cash crops such as fruit, spices, sugar tobacco, soap, rubber, paper, and cloth has given cause to many to try to farm them by using soil and other products that can be retrieved by destroying the forests. Even those in industrialized countries may participate in the destruction of forests in the 3rd world. The need for products in industrialized countries drives production in other poorer, less developed countries. This production is at the cost of the trees and the services that they provide.
In addition to deforestation around the globe, the most significant source of forest around the world is disappearing in every country where they are located. Source: http://www.igc.apc.org/wri/wr-96-97/lc_f4.gif The Effects Deforestation presents multiple societal and environmental problems. The immediate and long-term consequences of global deforestation are almost certain to jeopardize life on Earth, as we know it. Some of these consequences include: loss of biodiversity; the destruction of forest-based-societies; and climatic disruption. What is Lost Deforestation is causing a loss of biological diversity on an unprecedented scale. Although tropical forests cover only six percent of Earth?s land surface, they happen to contain between 70% and 90% of all of the world?s species (Myers, 12). As a result of deforestation, we are losing between 50 and 100 animal and plant species each day (Myers 12). Inevitably, the loss of species entails a loss of genetic resources. Many of these species now facing the possibility of extinction are of enormous potential to humans in many areas; especially medicine. As of 1991, over 25% of the world?s pharmaceutical products were derived from tropical plants (Myers). By contributing to the extinction of multiple species of plants and animals, we might be destroying the cures for many of the diseases that plague the human race today. The world?s forests, particularly tropical rainforests, are home to over 10 million members of the "last surviving intimately resource-based cultures" (GFF 3). Given the importance of forest products to the daily lives of forest peoples, the destruction of tropical forests entails the destruction of tribal populations as a whole. Aboriginal people
world-wide have had their land literally stolen from them by governments and industries, whose intent is to turn "natural capital into hard currency" (Dudley 11). As the Global Futures Foundation states, "there have been more extinctions of tribal peoples in this century than any other?Even in the rare cases when forest dwellers are compensated for this loss, the changes visited upon their cultures by the inexorable expansion of industrial culture are devastating." Without a doubt, deforestation has had a profound effect on cultural diversity throughout the forest regions, and ultimately, the world. Erosion The lushness of the world?s tropical forests is somewhat deceptive. Although these forests assume to be lush and full, the underlying soils are very poor, almost all the nutrients being bound up in the vegetation. The problem is that once forests have been cut down, essential nutrients are washed out of the soil all-together. This leads to soil erosion. As of now, about 80% of the soils in the humid tropics are acidic and infertile (Dudley 21). When there are no trees to keep the soil in place, the soil becomes ripe for erosion. It dries and cracks under the sun?s heat. Once the soil temperature exceeds 25 degrees centigrade, volatile nutrient ingredients like nitrogen can be lost, further reducing the fertility of the remaining soil (Myers 14). Furthermore, rainfall washes remaining nutrients into rivers. This means that replanting trees will not necessarily help to solve the problems of deforestation; by the time the trees have matured, the soil might be completely stripped of essential nutrients. Eventually, cultivation in the forest regions will be impossible, and the land will be useless. The soil erosion will lead to permanent impoverishment of huge land areas. The social impact of soil erosion can be quite severe. Those who settle into the forest regions are forced to move every year or so due to soil erosion. They find areas where they can cultivate. When those areas are no longer good for growing, they move to another region.
Erosion washes away valuable minerals. This process could be controlled if the rate of deforestation is reduced. Source: http://www.teleport.com/~sunybod/images/erosion.gif Flooding Flooding is a quite serious consequence of deforestation. Clearing the forest dramatically increases the surface run-off from rainfall, mainly because a greater proportion of the rain reaches the ground due to a lack of vegetation which would suck up the excess rainfall. "Tropical forests can receive as much rain in an hour as London would expect in a wet month, and a single storm has been measured as removing 185 tonnes of topsoil per hectare" (Dudley 21). In tropical regions where the forests are dense, flooding is not as serious a problem because there is vegetation to absorb the rainfall. It is in areas where there is little vegetation that there is a problem. Hence, to avoid the disastrous effects of flooding, tropical forests need to remain dense and lush. Climate Change
Although all consequences of deforestation are potentially serious, perhaps the most serious consequence is that of climate change due to the loss of trees. Earth has an atmosphere which contains a variety of gases, all in a delicate balance, to ensure life on Earth. One of these gases in Earth?s atmosphere is carbon dioxide; a gas which helps moderate heat loss to outer space. Insulating gases such as carbon dioxide are called "greenhouse gasses because their function is much like that of the glass in a greenhouse: they allow solar heat into the system, but discourage its escape" (GFF 3). Other greenhouse gases include methane, chlorofluorocarbons, nitrous oxide, and ozone. If there are additional greenhouse gases, there will be a gradual increase in temperature on Earth?s surface. This could lead to changes in weather patterns, sea levels, and other cycles in nature that directly affect life on Earth (GFF 3). The process of greenhouse gas increase is quite simple. Carbon dioxide levels increase for a number of reasons; but one of the main factors contributing to the increase of carbon levels is decay of woody material. The only way to help moderate the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is through plant life. Alive plants and trees absorb the carbon dioxide from decaying plants and trees. With a decrease in trees and plant life (due to deforestation) it is much harder to moderate these levels. Ultimately, the amount of carbon will increase due to a lack of plant life present to keep the carbon dioxide levels in check. This whole process leads to an "albedo effect which reflects more heat and light back into the atmosphere than would be the case if the sun shone on green trees?" (Dudley 23). The bottom line is that the increase in the carbon level and other greenhouse gas levels into the atmosphere leads to an increase in temperature, and eventually a change in climate and weather.
The effects of deforestation are widely ranging and can be irreversible if not stopped.
Source: http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/8126/deforfin.jpg Discussion We as human beings may not understand the severity of the possible consequences that deforestation poses. Since deforestation has had no severe effect on us yet, we ignore the problem. Everywhere you go, you see pieces of paper on the ground, people using multiple tissues to wipe their noses, and countless people pulling excessive amounts of brown paper out of the paper towel dispensers in lavatories. These are just few of the sources of paper that we use each day, without any thought whatsoever. What we must realize is that the paper products we use daily could have been a part of a forest which functioned to enrich and hold soil, absorb carbon dioxide, collect and recycle water, release oxygen, and regulate climate. Some companies do plant trees to produce the kinds of the products needed by industry to spare the older forests but many do not. By wasting paper products, we are wasting forests. The simple fact is that the more paper we use, the more forests need to be cut down to serve our paper needs. Many people might not consider the possible consequences of deforestation serious. They might say, "What if: a few people lose their homes; we experience a little flooding here and there; the temperature rises a little bit; we miss out on a few new medicines; we kill off a few species which we never knew existed in the first place; the soil loses its nutrients." Ignorant people like these do not realize the severity of these consequences. By destroying people?s homes, we are cheating ourselves out of having a more diverse world. Flooding will cause billions upon billions of dollars in repairs; and those repairs will most likely be done by the good old U.S., with our tax dollars. If the temperature rises a bit, this will throw mother nature totally off course. It will affect farming, the tourism industry, travel, sea levels, and much more. If what Myers found is correct and 25% of medicines come form the rain forests, then there is a big change that with modern technologies that many more could be found. Without knowing what is being destroyed, we might not be missing out on just a few new medicines. We might be killing our chances of finding the cures for diseases such as Cancer, Aids, Multiple Sclerosis, or a multitude of others. And if by chance we lose all of the nutrients in the soil because of soil erosion, cultivation will be next to impossible. After thinking about these consequences, try convincing anyone that the ramifications of deforestation will not prove to be quite disastrous. Forests were put on Earth for a reason; they help to maintain a delicate balance between all of nature?s elements. By destroying forests through ranching, logging, farming, industrial practice, etc., we are putting this delicate balance in jeopardy. There is no cure for deforestation. Sure, many people talk of reforestation; however that is just not a true solution. Although replanting the forests that have been destroyed seems like a good idea, it actually does no good. Often times the new trees are not the same species as the originals. Also, by the time the trees grow and mature, the soil has already
lost much of the nutrients it once had. Old forests and new forests are not the same and it is the old forest that need to be protected. The only way to ensure that we will not encounter any of the consequences of deforestation is to stop destroying the forests all together. We would have to stop cutting down all trees, no matter what our needs were. Since this is totally impractical as of now, the only thing we can do is use forest products in moderation. However this idea of moderation needs to be put into practice immediately. We as people should take care of this problem before it gets to the point where we can no longer fix it. Instead of putting the problem on the back burner until we can no longer ignore it, how about we remedy it now so it never threatens us to begin with. The sad fact is that once the forests are gone, we won?t be able to fix the damage which we have caused. Conclusion So where can we go from here? There is no one easy solution as deforestation is caused by many things. One option is decreasing the need for the amount of products that are harvested from the rainforests. If all countries, especially developed ones, enforced programs that used recycling, the need for disposable products would be diminished and the loggers would not have a business. If the demand is cut off, there is no need for the supply. Other solutions involve money. One that could help to alleviate deforestation is providing aide to foreign countries so they give homes to those who are at high risk of becoming "shifted cultivators". The trick is convincing tax payers to reach into their pockets. Another would be to appeal to the American public to settle for higher prices on the cash crops that are imported to this country for cheap prices especially that burger at the local fast food joint. If Americans are willing to pay more, corperations such as those in the fast food industry can stop petitioning other countries to farm the rainforests for the manufacture of the materials they need to make their products. The immediate effects of deforestation may not yet be felt, but if this generation doesn?t feel it the next generation and their children will be the ones to suffer. It is the actions of the human race that can make or break the future of the planet. In the end everyone loses unless a solution can be reached. This is easier said than done but the choices that lie ahead on this matter carry severe consequences that will forever change they way that all things live if they are able to live at all. Terms to Know Aboriginal People ? People who were the original inhabitants of the land. Atmosphere ? The outer layer of gases that surround a planet. Biodiversity ? The variation in life forms that exists on the planet. Developing/3rd World Nations ? Countries that do not have the economic resources that other, more economically powerful nations possess. Ecosystems ? Collection of life forms, the way they live and interact with each other. Erosion ? Land that becomes barre
[Hide this message] [Show more]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search This article is about the process of deforestation in the environment. For the program transformation in computer science, see Deforestation (computer science) .
Deforestation is the conversion of forested areas to non-forest land for use such as arable land, pasture, urban use, logged area, or wasteland. Generally, the removal or destruction of significant areas of forest cover has resulted in a degraded environment with reduced biodiversity. In many countries, massive deforestation is ongoing and is shaping climate and geography
Djouce Mountain, along with most of the island of Ireland, was systematically clear felled during the 17th and 18th centuries, in order to obtain wood mainly for shipbuilding.
Jungle burned for agriculture in southern Mexico.
Deforestation in the United States. Source of 1620, 1850, and 1920 maps: William B. Greeley, The Relation of Geography to Timber Supply, Economic Geography, 1925, vol. 1, p. 111.Source of TODAY map: compiled by George Draffan from road less of an area map in The Big Outside: A Descriptive Inventory of the Big Wilderness Areas of the United States, by Dave Foreman and Howie Wolke (Harmony Books, 1992)
Deforestation results from removal of trees without sufficient reforestation, and results in declines in habitat and biodiversity, wood for fuel and industrial use, and quality of life.
Since about the mid-1800s the Earth has experienced an unprecedented rate of change of destruction of forests worldwide. Forests in Europe are adversely affected by acid rain and very large areas of Siberia have been harvested since the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the last two decades, Afghanistan has lost over 70% of its forests throughout the country. However, it is in the world's great tropical rainforests where the destruction is most pronounced at the current time and where wholesale felling is having an adverse effect on biodiversity and contributing to the ongoing Holocene mass extinction. About half of the mature tropical forests, between 750 to 800 million hectares of the original 1.5 to 1.6 billion hectares that once covered the planet have fallen. The forest loss is already acute in [Southeast Asia], the second of the world's great biodiversity hot spots. Much of what remains is in the [Amazon basin], where the [Amazon Rainforest] covered more than 600 million hectares. The forests are being destroyed at an accelerating pace tracking the rapid pace of human population growth. Unless significant measures are taken on a world-wide basis to preserve them, by 2030 there will only be ten percent remaining with another ten percent in a degraded condition. 80 percent will have been lost and with them the irreversible loss of hundreds of thousands of species. Many tropical countries, including Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Bangladesh, China, Sri Lanka, Laos, Nigeria, Liberia, Guinea, Ghana and the Cote d'lvoire have lost large areas of their rainforest. 90% of the forests of the Philippine archipelago have been cut. In 1960 Central America still had 4/5 of its original forest; now it is left with only 2/5 of it. Madagascar has lost 95% of its rainforests. Atlantic coast of Brazil has lost 90-95% of its Mata Atlântica rainforest. Half of the Brazilian state of Rondonia's 24.3 million hectares have been destroyed or severely degraded in recent years. As of 2007, less than 1% of Haiti's forests remain, causing many to call Haiti a Caribbean desert. Between 1990 and 2005, the Nigeria lost a staggering 79% of its old-growth forests. Several countries, notably the Philippines, Thailand and India have declared their deforestation a national emergency.
• • • •
1 Cause 2 Impact on the environment 3 Economic impact 4 Characterization o 4.1 Definitions of deforestation o 4.2 Use of the term deforestation o 4.3 Levels of causation o 4.4 Theories of deforestation 5 Historical causes o 5.1 Prehistory o 5.2 Pre-industrial history 6 Deforestation today o 6.1 Ethiopia o 6.2 Madagascar o 6.3 Nigeria o 6.4 Brazil o 6.5 Indonesia o 6.6 United States 6.6.1 Species extinctions in the Eastern Forest o 6.7 Australia 7 Environmental effects
There are many causes, ranging from slow forest degradation to sudden and catastrophic clearcutting, slash-and-burn, urban development, acid rain, and wildfires. Deforestation can be the result of the deliberate removal of forest cover for agriculture or urban development, or it can be a consequence of grazing animals, primarily for agriculture. In addition to the direct effects brought about by forest removal, indirect effects caused by edge effects and habitat fragmentation can greatly magnify the effects of deforestation. While tropical rainforest deforestation has attracted most attention, tropical dry forests are being lost at a substantially higher rate, primarily as an outcome of slash-and-burn techniques used by shifting cultivators. Generally loss of biodiversity is highly correlated with deforestation.
 Impact on the environment
Generally, the removal or destruction of significant areas of forest cover has resulted in a degraded environment with reduced biodiversity. In many countries, massive deforestation is ongoing and is shaping climate and geography. Deforestation affects the amount of water in the soil and groundwater and the moisture in the atmosphere. Forests support considerable biodiversity, providing valuable habitat for wildlife; moreover, forests foster medicinal conservation and the recharge of aquifers. With forest biotopes being a major, irreplaceable source of new drugs (like taxol), deforestation can destroy genetic variations (such as crop resistance) irretrievably. Shrinking forest cover lessens the landscape's capacity to intercept, retain and transport precipitation. Instead of trapping precipitation, which then percolates to groundwater systems, deforested areas become sources of surface water runoff, which moves much faster than subsurface flows. That quicker transport of surface water can translate into flash flooding and more localized floods than would occur with the forest cover. Deforestation also contributes to decreased evapotranspiration, which lessens atmospheric moisture which in some cases affects precipitation levels downwind from the deforested area, as water is not recycled to downwind forests, but is lost in runoff and returns directly to the oceans. According to one preliminary study, in deforested north and northwest China, the average annual precipitation decreased by one third between the 1950s and the 1980s. Long-term gains can be obtained by managing forest lands sustainable to maintain both forest cover and provide a biodegradable renewable resource. Forests are also important stores of organic carbon, and forests can extract carbon dioxide and pollutants from the air, thus contributing to biosphere stability and probably relevant to the greenhouse effect. Forests are also valued for their aesthetic beauty and as a cultural resource and tourist attraction.
 Economic impact
Historically utilization of forest products, including timber and fuel wood, have played a key role in human societies, comparable to the roles of water and cultivable land. Today, developed countries continue to utilize timber for building houses, and wood pulp for paper. In developing countries almost 3 billion people rely on wood for heating and cooking. The forest products industry is a large part of the economy in both developed and developing countries. Short-term economic gains made by conversion of forest to agriculture, or over-exploitation of wood products, often leads to loss of long-term income. Both West Africa and Southeast Asia have experienced lower revenue because of declining timber harvests. Illegal logging causes billions of dollars of losses to national economies annually. 
Throughout most of history, humans have considered forest clearing as necessary for most activities besides forestry. In most countries, only after serious shortages of wood and other forest products are policies implemented to ensure forest resources are used in a sustainable manner. Typically in developed countries, as urbanization and economic development increases, land previously used for farming is abandoned and reverted to forests. Today, in the developed world, most countries are experiencing forest restoration and most losses in forest land are primarily driven by expanding urban areas.
In developing countries, human-caused deforestation and the degradation of forest habitat is primarily due to expansion of agriculture, slash and burn practices, urban sprawl, illegal logging, over harvest of fuel wood, mining, and petroleum exploration. It has been argued that deforestation trends follow the Kuznets curve  however even if true this is problematic in so-called hot-spots because of the risk of irreversible loss of non-economic forest values for example valuable habitat or species loss. The effects of human related deforestation can be mitigated through environmentally sustainable practices that reduce permanent destruction of forests or even act to preserve and rehabilitate disrupted forestland (see Reforestation and Treeplanting). These methods help the cause and provide a sustainable growth of forests and allow lumber to become a renewable resource
 Definitions of deforestation
Deforestation defined broadly can include not only conversion to non-forest, but also degradation that reduces forest quality - the density and structure of the trees, the ecological services supplied, the biomass of plants and animals, the species diversity and the genetic diversity. A narrow definition of deforestation is: the removal of forest cover to an extent that allows for alternative land use. The United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) uses a broad definition of deforestation, while the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) uses a narrow definition.
Definitions can also be grouped as those which refer to changes in land cover and those which refer to changes in land use. Land cover measurements often use a percent of cover to determine deforestation. This type of definition has the advantage in that large areas can be easily measured, for example from satellite photos. A forest cover removal of 90% may still be considered forest in some cases. Under this definition areas that may have few values of a natural forest such as plantations and even urban or suburban areas may be considered forest. Land use definitions measure deforestation by a change in land use. This definition may consider areas to be forest that are not commonly considered as such. An area can be lacking trees but still considered a forest. It may be a land designated for afforestation or an area designated administratively as forest.
 Use of the term deforestation
It has been argued that the lack of specificity in use of the term deforestation distorts forestry issues. The term deforestation is used to refer to activities that use the forest, for example, fuel wood cutting, commercial logging, as well as activities that cause temporary removal of forest cover such as the slash and burn technique, a component of some shifting cultivation agricultural systems or clearcutting. It is also used to describe forest clearing for annual crops and forest loss from over-grazing. Some definitions of deforestation include activities such as establishment of industrial forest plantations are considered afforestation by others. It has also been argued that the term deforestation is such an emotional term that is used "so ambiguously that it is virtually meaningless" unless it is specified what is meant.  More specific terms terms include forest decline, forest fragmentation and forest degradation, loss of forest cover and land use conversion. The term also has a traditional legal sense of the conversion of Royal forest land into purlieu or other non-forest land use.
 Levels of causation
The causes of deforestation are complex and often differ in each forest and country. It may be difficult to determine the cause of deforestation in a particular forest. For example, a rise in the price of soybeans may result in soybean farmers displacing cattle ranchers in order to expand their farms. This might cause cattle ranchers to shift to land previously used by slash and burn farmers. The farmers in turn shift further into the forest that has been made accessible by roads built by loggers. In this case it may not be clear who "caused" deforestation. In this case it could be claimed that while the loggers caused forest degradation and that the slash and burn farmers were agents of deforestation, the cause was demand for farm land. The underlaying causes may be poverty or the trade in international commodities.
 Theories of deforestation
Three schools of thought exist with regards to the causes of deforestation: the Impoverishment school, which believes that the major cause of deforestation is "the
growing number of poor," the Neoclassical school, which believes that the major cause is "open-access property rights," and the Political-ecology school which believes that the major cause of deforestation is that the "capitalist investors crowd out peasants". The Impoverishment school sees smallholders as the principal agents of deforestation, the Neoclassical school sees various agents, and the Political-ecology school sees capitalist entrepreneurs as the major agents of deforestation. Actual data support the first two theories as widespread numerical impacts.
 Historical causes
Further information: Timeline of environmental events
Deforestation has been practiced by humans since the beginnings of civilization. Fire was the first tool that allowed humans to modify the landscape. The first evidence of deforestation shows up in the Mesolithic. It was probably used to drive game into more accessible areas. With the advent of agriculture, fire became the prime tool to clear land for crops. In Europe there is little solid evidence before 7000 BC. Mesolithic foragers used fire to create openings for red deer and wild boar. In Great Britain shade tolerant species such as oak and ash are replaced in the pollen record by hazels, brambles, grasses and nettles. Removal of the forests led to decreased transpiration resulting in the formation of upland peat bogs. Widespread decrease in elm pollen across Europe between 8400-8300 BC and 7200-7000 BC, starting in southern Europe and gradually moving north to Great Britain, may represent land clearing by fire at the onset of Neolithic agriculture.
 Pre-industrial history
In ancient Greece, Tjeered van Andel and co-writers summarized three regional studies of historic erosion and alluviation and found that, wherever adequate evidence exists, a major phase of erosion follows, by about 500-1000 years the introduction of farming in the various regions of Greece, ranging from the later Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age. The thousand years following the mid-first millennium BCE saw serious, intermittent pulses of soil erosion in numerous places. The historic silting of ports along the southern coasts of Asia Minor (e.g. Clarus, and the examples of Ephesus, Priene and Miletus, where harbors had to be abandoned because of the silt deposited by the Meander) and in coastal Syria during the last centuries BC. The famous silting up of the harbor for Bruges, which moved port commerce to Antwerp, also follow a period of increased settlement growth (and apparently of deforestation) in the upper river basins. In early medieval Riez in upper Provence, alluvial silt from two small rivers raised the riverbeds and widened the floodplain, which slowly buried the Roman settlement in alluvium and gradually moved new construction to higher ground; concurrently the headwater valleys above Riez were being opened to pasturage.
A typical progress trap is that cities were often built in a forested area providing wood for some industry (e.g. construction, shipbuilding, pottery). When deforestation occurs without proper replanting, local wood supplies become difficult to obtain near enough to remain competitive, leading to the city's abandonment, as happened repeatedly in Ancient Asia Minor. The combination of mining and metallurgy often went along this selfdestructive path. Meanwhile most of the population remaining active in (or indirectly dependent on) the agricultural sector, the main pressure in most areas remained land clearing for crop and cattle farming; fortunately enough wild green was usually left standing (and partially used, e.g. to collect firewood, timber and fruits, or to graze pigs) for wildlife to remain viable, and the hunting privileges of the elite (nobility and higher clergy) often protected significant woodlands. Major parts in the spread (and thus more durable growth) of the population were played by monastical 'pioneering' (especially by the benedictine and cistercian orders) and some feudal lords actively attracting farmers to settle (and become tax payers) by offering relatively good legal and fiscal conditions – even when they did so to launch or encourage cities, there always was an agricultural belt around and even quite some within the walls. When on the other hand demography took a real blow by such causes as the Black Death or devastating warfare (e.g. Genghis Khan's Mongol hordes in eastern and central Europe, Thirty Years' War in Germany) this could lead to settlements being abandoned, leaving land to be reclaimed by nature, even though the secondary forests usually lacked the original biodiversity. From 1100 to 1500 AD significant deforestation took place in Western Europe as a result of the expanding human population. The large-scale building of wooden sailing ships by European (coastal) naval owners since the 15th century for exploration, colonization, slave – and other trade on the high seas and (often related) naval warfare (the failed invasion of England by the Spanish Armada in 1559 and the battle of Lepanto 1577 are early cases of huge waste of prime timber; each of Nelson's Royal navy war ships at Trafalgar had required 6000 mature oaks) and piracy meant that whole woody regions were over-harvested, as in Spain, where this contributed to the paradoxical weakening of the domestic economy since Columbus' discovery of America made the colonial activities (plundering, mining, cattle, plantations, trade ...) predominant. In Changes in the Land (1983), William Cronon collected 17th century New England Englishmen's reports of increased seasonal flooding during the time that the forests were initially cleared, and it was widely believed that it was linked with widespread forest clearing upstream. The massive use of charcoal on an industrial scale in Early Modern Europe was a new acceleration of the onslaught on western forests; even in Stuart England, the relatively primitive production of charcoal has already reached an impressive level. For ship timbers, Stuart England was so widely deforested that it depended on the Baltic trade and looked to the untapped forests of New England to supply the need. In France, Colbert
planted oak forests to supply the French navy in the future; as it turned out, as the oak plantations matured in the mid-nineteenth century, the masts were no longer required. Norman F. Cantor's summary of the effects of late medieval deforestation applies equally well to Early Modern Europe:
"Europeans had lived in the midst of vast forests throughout the earlier medieval centuries. After 1250 they became so skilled at deforestation that by 1500 AD they were running short of wood for heating and cooking. They were faced with a nutritional decline because of the elimination of the generous supply of wild game that had inhabited the now-disappearing forests, which throughout medieval times had provided the staple of their carnivorous high-protein diet. By 1500 Europe was on the edge of a fuel and nutritional disaster, [from] which it was saved in the sixteenth century only by the burning of soft coal and the cultivation of potatoes and maize."
Specific parallels are seen in twentieth century deforestation occurring in many developing nations.
 Deforestation today
The largest cause as of 2006 is slash-and-burn activity in tropical forests. Slashand-burn is a method sometimes used by shifting cultivators to create short term yields from marginal soils. When practiced repeatedly, or without intervening fallow periods, the nutrient poor soils may be exhausted or eroded to an unproductive state. Slash-andburn techniques are used by native populations of over 200 million people worldwide. While short-sighted, market-driven forestry practices are often one of the leading cause of forest degradation, the principal human-related causes of deforestation are agriculture and livestock grazing, urban sprawl, and mining and petroleum extraction. Growing worldwide demand for wood to be used for fire wood or in construction, paper and furniture - as well as clearing land for commercial and industrial development (including
road construction) have combined with growing local populations and their demands for agricultural expansion and wood fuel to endanger ever larger forest areas. Agricultural development schemes in Mexico, Brazil and Indonesia moved large populations into the rainforest zone, further increasing deforestation rates. One fifth of the world's tropical rainforest was destroyed between 1960 and 1990. Estimates of deforestation of tropical forest for the 1990s range from about 55,630 to 120,000 square kilometres each year. At this rate, all tropical forests may be gone by the year 2090.
The main cause of deforestation in Ethiopia, located in East Africa, is a growing population and subsequent higher demand for agriculture, livestock production and fuel wood. Other reasons include low education and inactivity from the government, although the current government has taken some steps to tackle deforestation. Organizations such as Farm Africa are working with the federal and local governments to create a system of forest management. Ethiopia, the third largest country in Africa by population, has been hit by famine many times because of shortages of rain and a depletion of natural resources. Deforestation has lowered the chance of getting rain, which is already low, and thus causes erosion. Bercele Bayisa, an Ethiopian farmer, offers one example why deforestation occurs. He said that his district was forested and full of wildlife, but overpopulation caused people to come to that land and clear it to plant crops, cutting all trees to sell as fire wood. Ethiopia has lost 98% of its forested regions in the last 50 years. At the beginning of the 20th century, around 420,000 km² or 35% of Ethiopia's land was covered with forests. Recent reports indicate that forests cover less than 14.2% or even only 11.9% now. Between 1990 and 2005, the country lost 14% of its forests or 21,000 km².
Massive deforestation with resulting desertification, water resource degradation and soil loss has affected approximately 94% of Madagascar's previously biologically productive lands. Most of this loss has occurred since independence from the France, and is the result of local people trying merely to subsist. The country is currently unable to provide adequate food, fresh water and sanitation for its fast growing population.
According to the FAO Nigeria has the world's highest deforestation rate of primary forests. It has lost more than half of its primary forest in the last five years. Causes cited are logging, subsistence agriculture, and the collection of fuelwood.
Main article: Deforestation in Brazil
In Brazil the rate of deforestation is largely driven by commodity prices. Recent development of a new variety of soybean has led to the displacement of beef ranches and farms of other crops, which, in turn, move farther into the forest. Certain areas such as the Atlantic Rainforest have been diminished to less than 10% of their original size and the Amazon Rainforest is awaiting the same fate at 600 fires daily. Although much conservation work has been done, few national parks or reserves are efficiently enforced.
There are significantly large areas of forest in Indonesia that are being lost as native forest is cleared by large multi-national pulp companies and being replaced by plantations. In Sumatra millions of hectares of forest have been cleared often under the command of the central government in Jakarta who comply with multi national companies to remove the forest because of the need to pay off international debt obligations and to develop economically. In Kalimantan the consequences of deforestation have been profound and between 1997 and 1998 large areas of the forest were burned because of uncontrollable fire causing atmospheric pollution across SouthEast Asia. A major source of deforestation is the logging industry, driven spectacularly by China and Japan. 
 United States
Prior to the arrival of European-Americans about one half of the United States land area was forest, about 4 million square kilometers (1 billion acres) in 1600. For the next 300 years land was cleared, mostly for agriculture at a rate that matched the rate of population growth. For every person added to the population, one to two hectares of land was cultivated. This trend continued until the 1920s when the amount of crop land stabilized in spite of continued population growth. As abandoned farm land reverted to forest the amount of forest land increased from 1952 reaching a peak in 1963 of 3,080,000 km² (762 million acres). Since 1963 there has been a steady decrease of forest area with the exception of some gains from 1997. Gains in forest land have resulted from conversions from crop land and pastures at a higher rate than loss of forest to development. Because urban development is expected to continue, an estimated 93,000 km² (23 million acres) of forest land is projected be lost by 2050 , a 3% reduction from 1997. Other qualitative issues have been identified such as the continued loss of oldgrowth forest, the increased fragmentation of forest lands, and the increased urbanization of forest land..
 Species extinctions in the Eastern Forest
According to a report by Stuart L. Pimm the extent of forest cover in the Eastern United States reached its lowest point in roughly 1872 with about 48 percent compared to the amount of forest cover in 1620. Of the 28 forest bird species with habitat exclusively in that forest, Pimm claims 4 become extinct either wholly or mostly because of habitat loss, the passenger pigeon, Carolina parakeet, Ivory billed woodpecker, and Bachman's Warbler.
Victoria and NSW's remnant red gum forests, including the Murray River's BarmahMillewa, are increasingly being clear-felled using mechanical harvesters, destroying already rare habitat. Macnally estimates that approximately 81% of fallen timber has been removed from the southern Murray Darling basin, and the Mid-Murray Forest Management Area (including the Barmah and Gunbower forests) provides about 80% of Victoria's red gum timber.
 Environmental effects
 Atmospheric pollution
Deforestation is often cited as one of the major causes of the enhanced greenhouse effect. Trees and other plants remove carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere during the process of photosynthesis. Both the decay and burning of wood releases much of this stored carbon back to the atmosphere. A. J. Yeomans asserts in Priority One that overnight, as trees consume the sugars that they produced during the day, a stable forest releases exactly the same quantity of carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. Others state that mature forests are net sinks of CO2 (see Carbon dioxide sink and Carbon cycle). Deforestation caused by humans is estimated to contribute to one-third of all carbon dioxide. The water cycle is also affected by deforestation. Trees extract groundwater through their roots and release it into the atmosphere. When part of a forest is removed, the region can not hold as much water and can result in a much drier climate.
Some forests are rich in biological diversity. Deforestation can cause the destruction of the habitats that support this biological diversity, thus causing contributing to the ongoing Holocene extinction event. Numerous countries have developed Biodiversity Action Plans to limit clearcutting and slash and burn agricultural practices as deleterious to wildlife and vegetation, particularly when endangered species are present.
 Loss of research potential
The diverse species within rainforests has long been a useful area for research and learning. Apes and other primates in their natural environment are a source of notable research. Numerous significant medications have been developed from genetic materials within forests, many of which pertain to endangered species. Deforestation can subject some of these genetic materials to irreversible loss.
 Hydrologic cycle and water resources
Trees, and plants in general, affect the hydrological cycle in a number of significant ways:
their canopies intercept precipitation, some of which evaporates back to the atmosphere (canopy interception); their litter, stems and trunks slow down surface runoff; their roots create macropores - large conduits - in the soil that increase infiltration of water; they reduce soil moisture via transpiration; their litter and other organic residue change soil properties that affect the capacity of soil to store water.
As a result, the presence or absence of trees can change the quantity of water on the surface, in the soil or groundwater, or in the atmosphere. This in turn changes erosion rates and the availability of water for either ecosystem functions or human services. The forest may have little impact on flooding in the case of large rainfall events, which overwhelm the storage capacity of forest soil if the soils are at or close to saturation.
 Soil erosion
Undisturbed forest has very low rates of soil loss, approximately 0.02 metric tons per hectare. Deforestation generally increases rates of soil erosion, by increasing the amount of runoff and reducing the protection of the soil from tree litter. This can be an advantage in excessively leached tropical rain forest soils. Forestry operations themselves also increase erosion through the development of roads and the use of mechanized equipment. China's Loess Plateau was cleared of forest millennia ago. Since then it has been eroding, creating dramatic incised valleys, and providing the sediment that gives the Yellow River its yellow color and that causes the flooding of the river in the lower reaches (hence the river's nickname 'China's sorrow'). Removal of trees does not always increase erosion rates. In certain regions of southwest US, shrubs and trees have been encroaching on grassland. The trees themselves enhance the loss of grass between tree canopies. The bare intercanopy areas become highly erodible. The US Forest Service, in Bandelier National Monument for example, is studying how to restore the former ecosystem, and reduce erosion, by removing the trees.
Tree roots bind soil together, and if the soil is sufficiently shallow they act to keep the soil in place by also binding with underlying bedrock. Tree removal on steep slopes with shallow soil thus increases the risk of landslides, which can threaten people living nearby. However most deforestation does not affect the trunks of tree's allowing for the roots to stay rooted negating the landslide.
 Controlling deforestation  Farming
New methods are being developed to farm more intensively, such as high-yield hybrid crops, greenhouse, autonomous building gardens, and hydroponics. These methods are often dependent on massive chemical inputs to maintain necessary yields. In cyclic agriculture, cattle are grazed on farm land that is resting and rejuvenating. Cyclic agriculture actually increases the fertility of the soil. Intensive farming can also decrease soil nutrients by consuming at an accelerated rate the trace minerals needed for crop growth.
 Forest management
Efforts to stop or slow deforestation have been attempted for many centuries because it has long been known that deforestation can cause environmental damage sufficient in some cases to cause societies to collapse. In Tonga, paramount rulers developed policies designed to prevent conflicts between short-term gains from converting forest to farmland and long-term problems forest loss would cause, while during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in Tokugawa Japan the shoguns developed a highly sophisticated system of long-term planning to stop and even reverse deforestation of the preceding centuries through substituting timber by other products and more efficient use of land that had been farmed for many centuries. In sixteenth century Germany landowners also developed silviculture to deal with the problem of deforestation. However, these policies tend to be limited to environments with good rainfall, no dry season and very young soils (through volcanism or glaciation). This is because on older and less fertile soils trees grow too slowly for silviculture to be economic, whilst in areas with a strong dry season there is always a risk of forest fires destroying a tree crop before it matures.
In the People's Republic of China, where large scale destruction of forests has occurred, the government has in the past required that every able-bodied citizen between the ages of 11 and 60 plant three to five trees per year or do the equivalent amount of work in other forest services. The government claims that at least 1 billion trees have been planted in China every year since 1982. This is no longer required today, but March 12 of every year in China is the Planting Holiday. In western countries, increasing consumer demand for wood products that have been produced and harvested in a sustainable
manner are causing forest landowners and forest industries to become increasingly accountable for their forest management and timber harvesting practices. The Arbor Day Foundation's Rain Forest Rescue program is a charity that helps to prevent deforestation. The charity uses donated money to buy up and preserve rainforest land before the lumber companies can buy it. The Arbor Day Foundation then protects the land from deforestation. This also locks in the way of life of the primitive tribes living on the forest land. Organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, World Wide Fund for Nature, Conservation International, African Conservation Foundation and Greenpeace also focus on preserving forest habitats.
 Forest plantations
To meet the worlds demand for wood it has been suggested by forestry writers Botkins and Sedjo that high-yielding forest plantations are suitable. It has been calculated that plantations yielding 10 cubic meters per hectare annually could supply all the timber required for international trade on 5 percent of the world's existing forestland. By contrast natural forests produce about 1-2 cubic meters per hectare, therefore 5 to 10 times more forest land would be required to meet demand. Forester Chad Oliver has suggested a forest mosaic with high-yield forest lands interpersed with conservation land. The Jewish National Fund states that the only country to come out of the Twentieth Century with more trees than it had at the start of the period was Israel. n of nutrients and the soil literally "erodes" and is swept away by the elements. Evapotranspiration ? Water is removed from the environment by transpiration and evaporation, transpiration being the taking in of water by leaves on trees. Global Warming ? The temperature increase in the earth?s climate that is caused by an increased number of gases such as methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide that retain heat in the earth?s atmosphere. Greenhouse Gasses ? Gasses that trap heat and hold it in the Earth?s atmosphere, helping to contribute to global warming. Industrialized Countries ? Powerful countries that have economic and technological resources that other countries do not have. Shifted Cultivators ? People forced off their land who resort to making homes and farms in the tropical forests.
shoguns developed a highly sophisticated system of long-term planning to stop and even reverse deforestation of the preceding centuries through substituting timber by other products and more efficient use of land that had been farmed for many centuries. In sixteenth century Germany landowners also developed silviculture to deal with the problem of deforestation. However, these policies tend to be limited to environments with good rainfall, no dry season and very young soils (through volcanism or glaciation). This is because on older and less fertile soils trees grow too slowly for silviculture to be
economic, whilst in areas with a strong dry season there is always a risk of forest fires destroying a tree crop before it matures.
In the People's Republic of China, where large scale destruction of forests has occurred, the government has in the past required that every able-bodied citizen between the ages of 11 and 60 plant three to five trees per year or do the equivalent amount of work in other forest services. The government claims that at least 1 billion trees have been planted in China every year since 1982. This is no longer required today, but March 12 of every year in China is the Planting Holiday. In western countries, increasing consumer demand for wood products that have been produced and harvested in a sustainable manner are causing forest landowners and forest industries to become increasingly accountable for their forest management and timber harvesting practices. The Arbor Day Foundation's Rain Forest Rescue program is a charity that helps to prevent deforestation. The charity uses donated money to buy up and preserve rainforest land before the lumber companies can buy it. The Arbor Day Foundation then protects the land from deforestation. This also locks in the way of life of the primitive tribes living on the forest land. Organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, World Wide Fund for Nature, Conservation International, African Conservation Foundation and Greenpeace also focus on preserving forest habitats.
 Forest plantations
To meet the worlds demand for wood it has been suggested by forestry writers Botkins and Sedjo that high-yielding forest plantations are suitable. It has been calculated that plantations yielding 10 cubic meters per hectare annually could supply all the timber required for international trade on 5 percent of the world's existing forestland. By contrast natural forests produce about 1-2 cubic meters per hectare, therefore 5 to 10 times more forest land would be required to meet demand. Forester Chad Oliver has suggested a forest mosaic with high-yield forest lands interpersed with conservation land. The Jewish National Fund states that the only country to come out of the Twentieth Century with more trees than it had at the start of the period was Israel.
OSHA 3074 2002 (Revised)
This informational booklet provides a generic, non-exhaustive overview of a
particular topic related to OSHA standards. It does not alter or determine compliance responsibilities in OSHA standards or the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. Because interpretations and enforcement policy may change over time, you should consult current administrative interpretations and decisions by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission and the Courts for additional guidance on OSHA compliance requirements. This publication is in the public domain and may be reproduced, fully or partially, without permission. Source credit is requested but not required. This information is available to sensory impaired individuals upon request. Voice phone: (202) 693–1999; Teletypewriter (TTY) number: (877) 889–5627.
U.S. Department of Labor Elaine L. Chao, Secretary Occupational Safety and Health Administration John L. Henshaw, Assistant Secretary OSHA 3074 2002 (Revised)
What is occupational noise exposure? ............................................. 1 What monitoring is required? ......................................................... 2 What is audiometric testing? .......................................................... 3 What is a baseline audiogram? ....................................................... 4 What are annual audiograms? ........................................................ 4 What is an employer required to do following an audiogram evaluation? ............................................... 5 When is an employer required to provide hearing protectors? ............................................................ 6 What training is required? .............................................................. 7 What exposure and testing records must employers keep? .................................................................... 7
OSHA Assistance, Services, and Programs
How can OSHA help me? .............................................................. 9 How does safety and health management system assistance help employers and employees? ...................................... 9
What are state programs? ............................................................ 10 What is consultation assistance? ................................................... 10 What is the Safety and Health Achievement Recognition Program (SHARP)? .................................................. 10 What are the Voluntary Protection Programs (VPPs)? ......................................................................... 11 How can a partnership with OSHA improve worker safety and health? ............................................... 12 What is OSHA’s Strategic Partnership Program (OSPP)? ....................................................... 13 What occupational safety and health training does OSHA offer?................................................. 13
What is the OSHA Training Grant Program? ............................... 14 What other assistance materials does OSHA have available? ......................................................... 14 What do I do in case of an emergency or to file a complaint? ................................................. 15
OSHA Regional and Area Office Directory ............................................ 16 OSHA-Approved Safety and Health Plans ...................................... 20 OSHA Consultation Projects ............................... 24
What is occupational noise exposure?
Noise, or unwanted sound, is one of the most pervasive occupational health problems. It is a by-product of many industrial processes. Sound consists of pressure changes in a medium (usually air), caused by vibration or turbulence. These pressure changes produce waves emanating away from the turbulent or vibrating source. Exposure to high levels of noise causes hearing loss and may cause other harmful health effects as well. The extent of damage depends primarily on the intensity of the noise and the duration of the exposure. Noise-induced hearing loss can be temporary or permanent. Temporary hearing loss results from short-term exposures to noise, with normal hearing returning after period of rest. Generally, prolonged exposure to high noise levels over a period of time gradually causes permanent damage. OSHA’s hearing conservation program is designed to protect workers with significant occupational noise exposures from hearing impairment even if they are subject to such noise exposures over their entire working lifetimes. This publication summarizes the required component of OSHA’s hearing conservation program for general industry.
It covers monitoring, audiometric testing, hearing protectors, training, and recordkeeping requirements.
What monitoring is required?
The hearing conservation program requires employers to monitor noise exposure levels in a way that accurately identifies employees exposed to noise at or above 85 decibels (dB) averaged over 8 working hours, or an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA). Employers must monitor all employees whose noise exposure is equivalent to or greater than a noise exposure received in 8 hours where the noise level is constantly 85 dB. The exposure measurement must include all continuous, intermittent, and impulsive noise within an 80 dB to 130 dB range and must be taken during a typical work situation. This requirement is performance-oriented because it allows employers to choose the monitoring method that best suits each individual situation. Employers must repeat monitoring whenever changes in production, process, or controls increase noise exposure. These changes may mean that more employees need to be included in the program or that their hearing protectors may no longer provide adequate protection. Employees are entitled to observe monitoring procedures and must receive notification of the results of exposure monitoring. The method used to notify employees is left to the employer’s discretion. Employers must carefully check or calibrate instruments used for monitoring employee exposures to ensure that the measurements are accurate. Calibration procedures are unique to specific instruments. Employers should follow the manufacturer’s instructions to determine when and how extensively to calibrate the instrument.
What is audiometric testing?
Audiometric testing monitors an employee’s hearing over time. It also provides an opportunity for employers to educate employees about their hearing and the need to protect it. The employer must establish and maintain an audiometric testing program. The important elements of the program include baseline audiograms, annual audiograms, training, and followup procedures. Employers must make audiometric testing available at no cost to all employees who are exposed to an action level of 85 dB or above, measured as an 8-hour TWA. The audiometric testing program followup should indicate whether the employer’s hearing conservation program is preventing hearing loss. A licensed or certified audiologist, otolaryngologist, or other physician must be responsible for the program. Both professionals and
trained technicians may conduct audiometric testing. The professional in charge of the program does not have to be present when a qualified technician conducts tests. The professional’s responsibilities include overseeing the program and the work of the technicians, reviewing problem audiograms, and determining whether referral is necessary. The employee needs a referral for further testing when test results are questionable or when related medical problems are suspected. If additional testing is necessary or if the employer suspects a medical pathology of the ear that is caused or aggravated by wearing hearing protectors, the employer must refer the employee for a clinical audiological evaluation or otological exam, as appropriate. There are two types of audiograms required in the hearing conservation program: baseline and annual audiograms.
What is a baseline audiogram?
The baseline audiogram is the reference audiogram against which future audiograms are compared. Employers must provide baseline audiograms within 6 months of an employee’s first exposure at or above an 8-hour TWA of 85 dB. An exception is allowed when the employer uses a mobile test van for audiograms. In these instances, baseline audiograms must be completed within 1 year after an employee’s first exposure to workplace noise at or above a TWA of 85 dB. Employees, however, must be fitted with, issued, and required to wear hearing protectors whenever they are exposed to noise levels above a TWA of 85 dB for any period exceeding 6 months after their first exposure until the baseline audiogram is conducted. Baseline audiograms taken before the hearing conservation program took effect in 1983 are acceptable if the professional supervisor determines that the audiogram is valid. Employees should not be exposed to workplace noise for 14 hours before the baseline test or wear hearing protectors during this time period.
What are annual audiograms?
Employers must provide annual audiograms within 1 year of the baseline. It is important to test workers’ hearing annually to identify deterioration in their hearing ability as early as possible. This enables employers to initiate protective followup measures before hearing loss progresses. Employers must compare annual audiograms to baseline audiograms to determine whether the audiogram is valid and whether the employee has lost hearing ability or experienced a standard threshold shift (STS). An STS is an average shift in either ear of 10 dB or more at 2,000, 3,000, and 4,000 hertz.
What is an employer required to do
following an audiogram evaluation?
The employer must fit or refit any employee showing an STS with adequate hearing protectors, show the employee how to use them, and require the employee to wear them. Employers must notify employees within 21 days after the determination that their audiometric test results show an STS. Some employees with an STS may need further testing if the professional determines that their test results are questionable or if they have an ear problem thought to be caused or aggravated by wearing hearing protectors. If the suspected medical problem is not thought to be related to wearing hearing protection, the employer must advise the employee to see a physician. If subsequent audiometric tests show that the STS identified on a previous audiogram is not persistent, employees whose exposure to noise is less than a TWA of 90 dB may stop wearing hearing protectors. The employer may substitute an annual audiogram for the original baseline audiogram if the professional supervising the audiometric program determines that the employee’s STS is persistent. The employer must retain the original baseline audiogram, however, for the length of the employee’s employment. This substitution will ensure that the same shift is not repeatedly identified. The professional also may decide to revise the baseline audiogram if the employee’s hearing improves. This will ensure that the baseline reflects actual hearing thresholds to the extent possible. Employers must conduct audiometric tests in a room meeting specific background levels and with calibrated audiometers that meet American National Standard Institute (ANSI) specifications of SC-1969.
When is an employer required to provide hearing protectors?
Employers must provide hearing protectors to all workers exposed to 8-hour TWA noise levels of 85 dB or above. This requirement ensures that employees have access to protectors before they experience any hearing loss. Employees must wear hearing protectors: ■ For any period exceeding 6 months from the time they are first exposed to 8-hour TWA noise levels of 85 dB or above, until they receive their baseline audiograms if these tests are delayed due to mobile test van scheduling; ■ If they have incurred standard threshold shifts that demonstrate they are susceptible to noise; and ■ If they are exposed to noise over the permissible exposure limit of 90 dB over an 8-hour TWA. Employers must provide employees with a selection of at least one variety of hearing plug and one variety of hearing muff. Employees should decide, with the help of a
person trained to fit hearing protectors, which size and type protector is most suitable for the working environment. The protector selected should be comfortable to wear and offer sufficient protection to prevent hearing loss. Hearing protectors must adequately reduce the noise level for each employee’s work environment. Most employers use the Noise Reduction Rating (NRR) that represents the protector’s ability to reduce noise under ideal laboratory conditions. The employer then adjusts the NRR to reflect noise reduction in the actual working environment. The employer must reevaluate the suitability of the employee’s hearing protector whenever a change in working
conditions may make it inadequate. If workplace noise levels increase, employees must give employees more effective protectors. The protector must reduce employee exposures to at least 90 dB and to 85 dB when an STS already has occurred in the worker’s hearing. Employers must show employees how to use and care for their protectors and supervise them on the job to ensure that they continue to wear them correctly.
What training is required?
Employee training is very important. Workers who understand the reasons for the hearing conservation programs and the need to protect their hearing will be more motivated to wear their protectors and take audiometric tests. Employers must train employees exposed to TWAs of 85 dB and above at least annually in the effects of noise; the purpose, advantages, and disadvantages of various types of hearing protectors; the selection, fit, and care of protectors; and the purpose and procedures of audiometric testing. The training program may be structured in any format, with different portions conducted by different individuals and at different times, as long as the required topics are covered.
What exposure and testing records must employers keep?
Employers must keep noise exposure measurement records for 2 years and maintain records of audiometric test results for the duration of the affected employee’s employment. Audiometric test records must include the employee’s name and job classification, date, examiner’s name, date of the last acoustic or exhaustive calibration, measurements of the background sound pressure levels in audiometric test rooms, and the employee’s most recent noise exposure measurement.
Beginning January 1, 2003, employers also will be required to record work-related hearing loss cases when an employee’s hearing test shows a marked decrease in overall hearing. Employers will be able to make adjustments for hearing loss caused by aging, seek the advice of a physician
or licensed health-care professional to determine if the loss is work-related, and perform additional hearing tests to verify the persistence of the hearing loss.
OSHA Assistance, Services, and Programs
How can OSHA help me?
OSHA can provide extensive help through a variety of programs, including assistance about safety and health programs, state plans, workplace consultations, voluntary protection programs, strategic partnerships, alliances, and training and education. An overall commitment to workplace safety and health can add value to your business, to your workplace, and to your life.
How does safety and health management system assistance help employers and employees?
Working in a safe and healthful environment can stimulate innovation and creativity and result in increased performance and higher productivity. The key to a safe and healthful work environment is a comprehensive safety and health management system. OSHA has electronic compliance assistance tools, or eTools, on its website that “walk” users through the steps required to develop a comprehensive safety and health program. The eTools are posted at www.osha.gov, and are based on guidelines that identify four general elements critical to a successful safety and health management system: ■ Management leadership and employee involvement, ■ Worksite analysis, ■ Hazard prevention and control, and ■ Safety and health training.
What are state programs?
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) encourages states to develop and operate their own job safety and health plans. OSHA approves and monitors these plans and funds up to 50 percent of each program’s operating costs. State plans must provide standards and enforcement programs, as well as voluntary compliance activities, that are at least as effective as Federal OSHA’s. Currently, 26 states and territories have their own plans. Twenty-three cover both private and public (state and local government) employees and three states, Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York, cover only the public sector. For more information on state plans, see the list at the end of this publication, or visit OSHA’s website at www.osha.gov.
What is consultation assistance?
Consultation assistance is available on request to employers who want help establishing and maintaining a safe and healthful workplace. Funded largely by OSHA, the service is provided at no cost to small employers and is delivered by state authorities through professional safety and health consultants.
What is the Safety and Health Achievement Recognition Program (SHARP)?
Under the consultation program, certain exemplary employers may request participation in OSHA’s Safety and Health Achievement Recognition Program (SHARP). Eligibility for participation includes, but is not limited to, receiving a full-service, comprehensive consultation visit, correcting all identified hazards, and developing an effective safety and health program management program.
Employers accepted into SHARP may receive an exemption from programmed inspections (not complaint or accident investigation inspections) for 1 year initially, or 2 years upon renewal. For more information about consultation assistance, see the list of consultation projects at the end of this publication.
What are the Voluntary Protection Programs (VPPs)?
Voluntary Protection Programs are designed to recognize outstanding achievements by companies that have developed and implemented effective safety and health management programs. There are three levels of VPPs: Star, Merit, and Demonstration. All are designed to achieve the following goals: ■ Recognize employers that have successfully developed and implemented effective and comprehensive safety and health management programs; ■ Encourage these employers to continuously improve their safety and health management programs; ■ Motivate other employers to achieve excellent safety and health results in the same outstanding way; and ■ Establish a cooperative relationship between employers, employees, and OSHA. VPP participation can bring many benefits to employers and employees, including fewer worker fatalities, injuries, and illnesses; lost-workday case rates generally 50 percent below industry averages; and lower workers’ compensation and other injury- and illness-related costs. In addition, many VPP sites report improved employee motivation to work safely, leading to a better quality of life at work; positive
community recognition and interaction; further improvement and revitalization of already-good safety and health
programs; and a positive relationship with OSHA. After a site applies for the program, OSHA reviews an employer’s VPP application and conducts a VPP onsite evaluation to verify that the site’s safety and health management programs are operating effectively. OSHA conducts onsite evaluations on a regular basis, annually for participants at the demonstration level, every 18 months for Merit, and every 3 to 5 years for Star. Once a year, all participants must send a copy of their most recent annual internal evaluation to their OSHA regional office. This evaluation must include the worksite’s record of injuries and illnesses for the past year. Sites participating in VPP are not scheduled for regular, programmed inspections. OSHA does, however, handle any employee complaints, serious accidents, or significant chemical releases that may occur at VPP sites according to routine enforcement procedures. Additional information on VPP is available from OSHA national, regional, and area offices listed at the end of this booklet. Also, see “Cooperative Programs” on OSHA’s website.
How can a partnership with OSHA improve worker safety and health?
OSHA has learned firsthand that voluntary, cooperative partnerships with employers, employees, and unions can be a useful alternative to traditional enforcement and an effective way to reduce worker deaths, injuries, and illnesses. This is especially true when a partnership leads to the development and implementation of a comprehensive workplace safety and health management program.
What is OSHA’s Strategic Partnership Program (OSPP)?
OSHA Strategic Partnerships are agreements among labor, management, and government to improve workplace safety and health. These partnerships encourage, assist, and recognize the efforts of the partners to eliminate serious workplace hazards and achieve a high level of worker safety and health. Whereas OSHA’s Consultation Program and VPP entail one-on-one relationships between OSHA and individual worksites, most strategic partnerships build cooperative relationships with groups of employers and employees. There are two major types of OSPPs. Comprehensive partnerships focus on establishing comprehensive safety and health management systems at partnering worksites. Limited partnerships help identify and eliminate hazards associated with worker deaths, injuries, and illnesses, or have goals other than establishing comprehensive worksite safety and health programs.
For more information about this program, contact your nearest OSHA office or visit the agency’s website.
What occupational safety and health training does OSHA offer?
The OSHA Training Institute in Arlington Heights, IL, provides basic and advanced training and education in safety and health for federal and state compliance officers, state consultants, other federal agency personnel, and privatesector employers, employees, and their representatives.
What is the OSHA Training Grant Program?
OSHA awards grants to nonprofit organizations to provide safety and health training and education to employers and workers in the workplace. Grants often focus on high-risk activities or hazards or may help nonprofit organizations in training, education, and outreach. OSHA expects each grantee to develop a program that addresses a safety and health topic named by OSHA, recruit workers and employers for the training, and conduct the training. Grantees are also expected to follow up with students to find out how they applied the training in their workplaces. For more information contact OSHA Office of Training and Education, 2020 Arlington Heights Road, Arlington Heights, IL 60005; or call (847) 297– 4810.
What other assistance materials does OSHA have available?
OSHA has a variety of materials and tools on its website at www.osha.gov. These include eTools such as Expert Advisors and Electronic Compliance Assistance Tools, information on specific health and safety topics, regulations, directives, publications, videos, and other information for employers and employees. OSHA also has an extensive publications program. For a list of free or sales items, visit OSHA’s website at www.osha.gov or contact the OSHA Publications Office, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, N-3101, Washington, DC 20210. Telephone (202) 693–1888 or fax to (202) 693–2498. In addition, OSHA’s CD-ROM includes standards, interpretations, directives, and more. It is available for sale
from the U.S. Government Printing Office. To order, write to the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, or phone (202) 512–1800.
What do I do in case of an emergency or to file a complaint?
To report an emergency, file a complaint, or seek OSHA advice, assistance, or products, call (800) 321–OSHA or
contact your nearest OSHA regional, area, state plan, or consultation office listed at the end of this publication. The teletypewriter (TTY) number is (877) 889–5627. Employees can also file a complaint online and get more information on OSHA federal and state programs by visiting OSHA’s website at www.osha.gov.
The Protection of Trees and Wildlife
Trees and woodland not only provide beauty, a sense of place, and a valuable wildlife habitat but also help to diminish pollution. In order to ensure that our most valuable trees are retained, the Council can protect them by making a Tree Preservation Order. Anyone wishing to carry out work to a tree protected by such an Order, must make a formal application to the Council. The importance of trees to the character of an area is also acknowledged by the fact that all trees within Conservation Areas are afforded protection.
Free advice and application forms, for works to protected trees, including woodland management schemes, are available from the Council's Ecology Officer. Remember, before doing any work to a tree, check with the Council to see if it is protected.
Many species of wildlife, such as bats, barn owls and badgers are specifically protected by Acts of Parliament. Consequently any proposals for development must be considered against this legislation. It is against the law to remove most countryside hedgerows without permission. If you wish to remove a hedgerow, then you must contact the Council's Ecology Officer so that the importance of the hedgerow can be evaluated and the correct procedures followed.
Pruning Deciduous Broadleaf Trees
In the wild, trees manage well enough, so why do we prune them? The first reason is simple: safety. Trees are big and when pieces fall off, they can do considerable damage. Another reason, particularly for fruit trees, is to stimulate flowering and fruit production. Occasionally, pruning may be needed to remove disease or malformed branch work. Rarer still, pruning is sometimes needed for timber production, such as veneer wood. But, the most common reason of all is to control the growth and appearance of the tree for aesthetic reasons (particularly in cultivated varieties) or to control a perceived nuisance. This leaflet refers only to deciduous broadleaf trees in general, as evergreens and conifers often have different requirements. Also, it should be noted that even the trees dealt with here may have their own very specific requirements. The following is no more than a guide; if in doubt, seek expert advice. THE TREE AS A VISUAL AMENITY Deciduous broadleaf trees are the most commonly found in England. They range from our native Oak to exotic species such as the Tulip Tree, from America. They all lose their leaves in winter. A mature tree that has never been pruned will have a complicated arrangement of branches which may be seen best in winter. The shape of the tree is dictated by the structural framework of the main branches. If those are pruned, the shape of the tree will be changed.
A mature deciduous broadleaf tree without pruning
In urban areas, trees used to be pruned by lopping and topping, a technique now generally frowned upon. It leaves an unsightly pole of a tree. The regrowth often leaves weaknesses where branches could snap away and the risk of rot in the main stem is increased. Lime trees can tolerate this treatment better than most, but the result is often unattractive to look at. Other trees, such as Beech, can be killed by this treatment.
An extreme form of Lopping and Topping
Crown reduction gives a far more pleasing result where the overall size of a tree has to be reduced. Even trees that have been subjected to dramatic pruning in the past can sometimes be restored to a reasonable shape by this procedure. Crown reduction involves the overall reduction of just the crown of the tree, so there is little change in the overall height. Such reductions are usually quoted as percentages, the usual maximum, being 30% (in the USA the limit is set at 25%). Greater reductions usually entail changes to the structural framework of the tree and can cause undue stress to the tree Only exceptionally will a larger reduction be justified. Most reductions will be in the 10% – 20% range, if the tree is amenable to such works in the first place.
Crown Reduction and Thinning
Where crown reduction would leave a dense mass of branches, thinning may also be carried out. Again, a guideline maximum is 30%.This procedure is best carried out in winter when it is easier to select the branches to be pruned. An exception to this is thinning selectively to decrease shade (see summer pruning). Crown reduction in excess of 30% is often referred to now as pollarding, so-called after the old practice of pruning trees at 2-3 metres, still seen in riverside Willows. Nowadays, pollarding is often applied to any heavy reduction work that changes the structural framework of the tree. Amenity Pollarding can be used to describe a modern alternative to the discredited lopping and topping. While not the procedure of choice, it is often the only option available for trees that have been badly managed in the past. Unless there are essential reasons, it should not be initiated on a tree, except as formative pruning when young.
If amenity pollarding is the only viable option, care must be taken to avoid creating a tree that is more eyesore than amenity. High pollarding is one such mistake. The resulting tree looks quite unnatural. However, it does have a place in a formal avenue, particularly of Planes, or Limes. This is more usually seen on the continent, as are other specialist pruning techniques, such as pleaching, annual pollarding, and umbrella pruning. A last major category of pruning is crown lifting. As its name implies, this technique is used to increase the bare stem height below the crown. Crown lifting may be done for a number of purposes. The most common is to obtain clearance above highways (up to 6 metres) and footpaths (up to 2.5 metres). It is also quite frequently employed in garden renovation, to free up ground below the tree, either for access, or to increase ambient light. None of these works should normally require removal of structural branches. More controversial reasons are when the tree is on a development site, or if the work is to increase vistas. Both these cases often require the removal of large low limbs of considerable age. It is often hard to justify works to a mature tree just for a view, particularly when the pruning may require the loss of major branches. This can result in a poor looking tree and the wounding involved may unnecessarily shorten the life of the tree.
A Mature Tree
Crown lifted for Highways, For light and access,
There are a number of cases where pruning requirements are for particular problems. A few examples are given below. Clearance pruning may be required when the canopy of a tree is very close to a building, especially to the north side. If the wind and sun cannot get to the building, the exterior becomes permanently damp and this encourages algae and moss to grow, which
in turn increases the dampness. Clearance pruning should always be just of young growth. Depending on the individual circumstances, 1 – 2 metres clearance between a building and the tree canopy should allow a reasonable airflow. This pruning may be required at regular intervals. There should not be an aesthetic problem here as the tree and building would be viewed in their totality, rather than as individual elements in the landscape. Formative pruning is the procedure carried out on young specimen trees to remove foreseeable problems, such as tightly forked and rubbing stems; and to create the structural framework for the mature tree. In some ways it is akin to shrub pruning, but on a grander scale. There is no reason why such pruning should not be carried out from an early age until the desired final shape of the tree forms. Trees heal far better when young. This is when choosing a good specimen from a nursery pays dividends. BRACING Another past practice was bracing to prevent the forces of the wind taking their natural course. The problem is that once a tree is braced, by wire, chain or rod, it may be impossible to assess how safe it will remain. There is, however, a new flexible form of bracing that allows some natural movement in the tree, but reduces the worst effects of the wind. It also allows the controlled fall of a branch or stem if one does snap. Fruit pruning is highly specialised and is beyond the scope of this leaflet. Useful information should be found in the appropriate gardening books. Note that non-commercial fruit trees are no longer exempt from the legislative controls for Conservation Areas. This may be related to the fact that people grub out old fruit trees on the basis that they are no longer productive, ignoring their amenity value. When pruning out dead branches it is important to realise that the tree was aware of the dead branch long before it became visible to humans. The tree has probably already taken the necessary compensatory steps to protect further dieback. It follows that dead wood removal should be just that. Never cut beyond deadwood without taking expert advice, or you could undo all of the tree’s good works. WOUND PAINT The issue of wound paint is simple: trees have been around for millions of years losing branches and stems in storms and to the attentions of animals. Popular twenty years ago, it is now recognised that wound paint probably does nothing except promote disease by maintaining a humid atmosphere for fungi and bacteria to thrive in.
Summer pruning is recommended for some trees that weep copious amounts of sap. Species prone to this include Walnut, Hornbeam, Mulberry, Birch, Lime, Acers and some Poplars. It is also recommended for those trees that could otherwise suffer from infections prevalent in springtime, such as silver leaf of Prunus. It can also be useful when thinning for ambient light. It should, of course, be remembered that most trees can be pruned in the summer. The main obstacles to work being carried out at this time is the tree surgeons ability to see the structure of the tree, the fact that wood is difficult to cut when the sap is flowing and, last but by no means least – birds and bats may be using the tree for nesting or roosting!
This is not something to take lightly as disturbing nesting birds or a bat roost is an offence. Trees and wildlife will be the subject of another note. However, as far as the health of a tree is concerned, the only time pruning should never be done is during the spring growth period. Generally, this is March to June when the buds are swelling, bursting and then the new leaves are growing to their full size. The tree is investing stored energy at this time and can ill-afford to have it wasted. IVY DOES NOT STRANGLE TREES
Ivy is very beneficial for wildlife. It is a natural component of the countryside providing food, roosts, nesting and hibernation sites for a wide variety of wildlife. Ivy can cause damage, however, if it establishes in the crown or on limbs. The tree has developed in tune with its own weight. When Ivy gets high up into the tree, the extra loading it puts on branches can cause them to snap, particularly in high wind. More importantly, in the long term, Ivy can cover up problems in the stem of a tree. A good rule of thumb is that Ivy needs controlling once it appears as a mass in the crown.
The precise methods of pruning for homeowners are dealt in another leaflet, but if you are seeking information now, the keyword for searching in books, or on the internet is ‘target pruning’. This is a technique that complements the tree’s natural processes. The local authority often gets asked to recommend tree surgeons. We do not do this as it interferes with free competition. However, it is strongly recommended that you always turn down the ‘today only’ offer from the uninvited caller, however much a bargain you may seem to be offered. More often than not the result is expensive butchery. Any tree surgeon worth his salt does not need to tout door-to-door for business. If you need to trim trees near overhead cables, always employ a professional tree surgeon. Bringing down a telephone cable may be expensive, but shorting out electricity cables may be deadly. We hope that you have found this information helpful. This is one of a series of leaflets on trees and wildlife. While we have tried to cover the broad outlines, there maybe something that we have missed. If you wish to comment on this leaflet, please contact Nick Delaney on 01304 872481,
Introduction This paper focuses on the integration of 'conservation of forest genetic resources' with 'development aimed at local people', and the potential role of seed centres in conserving useful tree species. It is based on an earlier paper by Kjaer and Nathan (2000). The objective of the paper is to suggest how tree seed centres can contribute to conserving and domesticating tree species which would otherwise fall between conservation in national parks and industrial tree improvement programmes. This paper does not give an exhaustive account either of measures to conserve tree genetic resources or of models for integrated conservation and development. Deforestation and frontier forests Eighty percent of the forests that originally covered the earth have been cleared, fragmented or otherwise degraded. Those that remain are found in only a few places, mainly in the Amazon Basin, Central Africa, Canada and Russia (WRI 2001). The World Resources Institute (WRI) has described the remaining large and intact forest ecosystems as 'frontier forests'. These forests are remote and large enough to maintain all of their biodiversity, including viable populations of the wide-ranging species associated with each forest type (WRI 2001). Globally, tropical deforestation is estimated at 12.6 million hectares per year, or 0.7% of the total forested area (FAO 1997). The depletion and degradation of existing forests and woodlands are major causes of concern. One of the main reasons for this concern is that deforestation and forest degradation dramatically reduce our present and future options for using forests. Remaining frontier forests can be categorized by the degree of threat they face. In threatened frontier forests, human activities such as logging, agricultural clearing and mining are degrading ecosystems. Low-threat, potentially vulnerable frontier forests are not considered under pressure from degradation. However, because they are unprotected and contain valuable natural resources, or because human encroachment is likely, most of these forests are vulnerable to future degradation and destruction. Nonfrontier forests are dominated by secondary forests, plantations, degraded forest and smaller patches of primary forest. Such forests are a high priority for conservation and also provide a wide range of economic goods and services. Little frontier forest is left in Southeast Asia, and most of what remains is under threat (Figure 1 and Table 1). Figure 1. Frontier forests in Asia. Source: WRI (2001). Circles indicate frontier forests highlighted by WRI: Ratanakiri Province, Cambodia; Sundarbans, Bangladesh and India; and North Heilongjiang Province, China. Note: a colour version of this map can be found at http://www.igc.org/wri/ffi/maps/asia.htm Table 1. Frontier forests in selected Southeast Asian countries. Source: WRI (2001).
Frontier forest lost (%) Frontier forest threatened (%) Lost It All Philippines On The Edge -
Lao PDR Thailand Vietnam Not Much Time Myanmar Cambodia Indonesia Malaysia
98 95 98 94 90 72 85
100 100 100 56 100 54 48
Conservation approaches As a result of continued forest loss, approaches to conservation have changed from 'pure conservation' (usually in national parks) to 'conservation through use' (for example see FAO 1975). Creating national parks to preserve whole ecosystems represents the pure conservation approach. Pure conservation is necessary if populations of large animals and intricate food webs are to be maintained (Bawa 1994; Soule & Terborgh 1999). As Figure 1 demonstrates, it is well justified. Kjaer and Nathan (2000) discussed three different approaches or models for integrating conservation and development: i) Prevent the use of natural resources (the 'hands-off' model); combine with buffer zone compensation for local communities. ii) Reduce the use of natural resources in a manner compatible with both conservation and development objectives (the 'sustainable harvest' model). Resources will be protected by regulating their use in a genetically sustainable manner. iii) Increase the use of valuable genetic resources, thereby conserving them (the 'use it or lose it' model). Planting valuable species or seed sources in forest areas or on farmland can both improve access to their products for rural people and raise their conservation status. Our concern in this paper is with the third approach-'use it or lose it'-because the livelihoods of millions of rural people in tropical countries depend on access to products and services from trees and forests. These people are now forced to live in the fragmented landscapes of non-frontier forests, from which they obtain products such as timber, building materials, fuelwood, food, medicine, fodder and important services such as shade, shelter, erosion control, watershed protection and soil enrichment. When forests and trees disappear, rural people lose a vital source of livelihood. Biodiversity of species in use Biodiversity consists of variation at many levels-diversity between ecosystems, species and genes (CBD 1992). A loss of diversity at any of these levels means a loss of options for future use. Many species used by local people in non-frontier forests are not protected by the formal national parks system (see Graudal et al. 1999), and are often underutilized in the sense that their full potential is not recognized nor conserved.
Trees are genetically diverse organisms. In many tree species, substantial genetic differentiation is found between populations and between single trees within populations (Mouna 1990). Better growth, quality and adaptability can be achieved, therefore, through careful selection of the best seed sources when raising seedlings for a given planting purpose. The selection of superior individuals (genetic improvement) can increase the productivity of trees considerably (for example see Foster et al. 1995 and Graudal & Kjaer 2000). Improvements-even marginal improvements-in the survival rate and productivity of trees will often be of particular importance to subsistence farmers or other tree planters. Selection, however, requires the presence of genetic diversity (Namkoong et al. 1988). In this sense, a loss of biodiversity reduces the options for future use. Similarly, genetic variation within and between species is important to the long-term natural adaptation of species (Falk & Holsinger 1991). Populations under stress may respond through natural selection, but only if genetic variation exists with regard to breeding fitness (Fisher 1958). Within species, low levels of genetic diversity can lead to inbreeding depression and affect growth, survival and adaptation (Kjaer 1997). At the level of ecosystems, species compete and interact constantly. Rapid co-adaptation and development, therefore, are necessary for any species to avoid extinction in the long run (Van Valen 1973). In this sense, too, conservation of biodiversity is important for preserving future options. Conservation of trees and biodiversity is thus important to development at local and national levels. Conservation and development are linked further in that successful conservation often requires integration with short-term benefits for local people. The need to protect and conserve natural resources in tandem with social and economic development has been widely acknowledged. It is the experience of the Danida Forest Seed Centre (DFSC) that development and conservation efforts can be improved by integrating conservation with short-term benefits for local users of natural resources. It is also DFSC's experience that conservation and development for people have rarely been integrated fully in the past. A need still exists, therefore, to discuss different ways of integration. Efforts to conserve forest genetic resources usually begin after a threat to these resources is identified. The nature of such threats, and the options for conservation, both institutional and social, will vary from place to place. The availability of trained staff and financial resources are other critical factors to consider when implementing conservation plans in the field (for example see Graudal et al. 1997 and Thomson et al. 2001). Conservation strategies and techniques should be selected on the basis of a careful assessment of the context. Increased use Tree species often become rare and endangered because they provide valuable wood or non-wood products, and consequently are much sought after. In such cases, one option could be to increase the use of the endangered tree species. Increased use of genetic resources in terms of planting in forest areas, watershed areas, degraded areas and, not least, farms, can be a very efficient way of protecting valuable genetic
resources. Cultivation of a valuable but endangered tree species can result in the multiplication and distribution of its germplasm. Moreover, planting and using a rare species can often reduce exploitation pressures on its natural populations. From the point of view of rural people, the clear advantage of this model is that cultivation of threatened high-value species can help to meet local needs for tree products and services, or for cash income. The 'increased use' model can also be effective for tree species with less valuable products. It can be used in planting programmes for land rehabilitation or watershed management. Local species may be suited to such purposes because they have adapted to local conditions and so carry less risk of die-back due to biotic or abiotic factors. Moreover, they will often be suited to mixed species plantations where future management can be reduced to a minimum. Like other models, the 'use it or lose it' approach has a range of problems. These relate to the genetic resource as well as to people. From a purely genetic perspective, the model involves a series of processes that can (though not do not necessarily) have implications for genetic diversity. Many random as well as intended selections take place during seed collection, seed production, planting, tending and harvesting (El-Kassaby & Namkoong 1997). Hybridization between species can also be a problem. Genetic diversity can be reduced if seed is collected only from a few easily accessible trees (Simons 1996). Seeds may also be moved around different ecological zones without keeping records of their origin. Using a plant species, therefore, is not a guarantee of protection of its genetic resources. Any usage must be based on genetically sound principles, otherwise domestication could deplete the genetic resource and lead to a situation where conservation measures are needed simply to avoid the negative effects of domestication. Provided that genetic considerations are taken into account, genetic diversity can be protected effectively within domesticated plantings (see Namkoong 1984). Other constraints to overcome are mainly technical in nature. Valuable tree species are sometimes not planted because farmers do not have access to their germplasm. A practical solution to this problem could be to mobilize the genepool (for example by establishing locally available seed sources). Another solution could involve improved methods for collecting and handling seed. If the problem concerns marketing of a product, then support for storage, transport or trade may be useful (see Hansen and Kjaer (1999) for a more detailed discussion of technical constraints and options). In Southeast Asia, two valuable timber species that have been heavily exploited in natural stands and are now being recognized for their planting potential are Dalbergia cochinchinensis and Chukrasia tabularis. D. cochinchinensis is one of the indigenous priority species identified by the Danidasupported Indochina Tree Seed Programme (ITSP). ITSP, in collaboration with the Lao Department of Forestry, has incorporated this species into planting programmes in Lao PDR in a number of different ways. The wood is extremely valuable, and its value per unit area far exceeds that of fast-growing eucalypts or Acacia mangium (often by a factor of ten). Planting D. cochinchinensis as an alternative to eucalyptus can thus both provide greater income and protect the genetic resources of the species. In order to provide access to the germplasm, ITSP supports identification of good seed sources and
provides support to genetically broad seed collections from natural populations in collaboration with provincial authorities. Part of the seed is reserved for plantings that will serve as seed sources for future commercial seed procurement (Thomsen 2000). Such plantings may form the basis for future domestication of the species across large areas of the country. It is important, therefore, that at this initial stage seeds are not collected from a few random trees. C. tabularis/velutina is another valuable timber species distributed throughout Southeast Asia. The species is now being investigated by a collaborative project between CSIRO (Australia) and Vietnam, Thailand, Lao PDR and Malaysia (A. Kalingare pers. comm.; Thomson, Midgley, Pinyopusarek & Kalinganire in these proceedings). Eco-geographic surveys have been made in Lao PDR, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam, and provenance tests have been established in Australia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam (Kalinganire & Pinyopusarerk 2000). Compared with the total number of tree species in the region, the number of species currently under a formal domestication programme is low. It is unlikely that forestry departments or tree seed centres in the region will have the capacity to launch formal domestication programmes for large numbers of tree species. It may be possible, however, to conserve many species by using more informal seed source establishment and seed distribution programmes, which rely less on direct intervention by government staff and more on collaboration between seed centres and local people. Such programmes should be based on sound genetic principles and a decentralized structure that empowers local seed supply organizations and seed source owners. Decentralized establishment of seed sources and seed distribution-an example from Nepal The importance and rarity of the most-valued fodder species In Nepal, Danida is supporting the Tree Improvement and Silviculture Component (TISC) of a larger sectoral programme, the Natural Resources Management Sector Assistance Programme. One of the main objectives of TISC is to organize the distribution of seed of indigenous tree species to farmers. Livestock malnutrition is a major constraint to agricultural development in Nepal, and tree fodder is an indispensable part of the livestock system. Tree fodder is thus an important tree product in Nepal, and holds a special key to poverty alleviation. The most highly valued fodder tree species are now rare in natural forests, and survive mainly on private farmland (Table 2). In much of Nepal, therefore, community management of natural forests does not provide the quantity and quality of leaf fodder that would otherwise be expected from Nepal's indigenous species. Similarly, on private land, few agencies are working to provide farmers with access to improved material. Extension services for fodder trees and the diffusion of species among farmers are limited. Furthermore, it is likely that inbreeding reduces the efficiency of tree fodder production on private farmland (Lillesø et al. 2001a).
Table 2. Frequency of species in Nepal's national forest inventory. The inventory recorded 266 species. Source: Data were kindly made available by the Director General, Department of Forest Research and Survey, Kathmandu.
Two most common species Shorea robusta Quercus sp. Fodder species Total 24 highly valued fodder species 4 Percentage of all stems 16 10
In terms of biomass, fodder is one of the most heavily used tree and forest products in Nepal. The species used for fodder should appear in a forest inventory if they are contributing substantially to fodder production. What is interesting, however, is that only a few of the most highly valued fodder species actually appear in the national forest inventory (see Table 2 above). A total of 266 species (including unidentified species) in 545 plots were registered in the inventory. The two most common species and genera are Shorea robusta (sal) from the upper tropical zone and Quercus spp. from the temperate (and alpine) zone. Both S. robusta and Quercus spp. are dominant members of particular forest types and their commonness is to be expected. The 24 most highly valued fodder species together account for about 4% of the stems recorded in the plots. This finding runs counter to the fact that fodder tree leaves, in terms of biomass, are the most important products from the accessible forests of Nepal. The two most obvious explanations for this discrepancy are: i) Fodder from forests generally does not come from the most highly valued tree species because these are rare in natural forests. ii) A large volume of fodder does in fact come from private land (farmland trees). Given the intense exploitation pressure on forests in Nepal, it is probable that many of the most heavily used (most highly valued) species have become rare in accessible forests. Furthermore, it is likely that fodder species still survive on private farmland, where they are tended by landowners. This scenario raises two new questions: i) What is the actual and potential productivity of farmland fodder species? If farmers are moving wildlings around their land and tending natural regeneration, it is likely that the trees are inbred and that even simple domestication measures (such as bringing together unrelated individuals in seed orchards) could increase production significantly within a few years, and that more intensive selection could raise production even further. ii) What is the conservation status of these species? Given the lack of seed distribution mechanisms for the most highly valued fodder species (Dhakal & Lillesø 2000; Dhakal et al. 2001; Lillesø et al. 2001a), and the highly diverse ecological conditions in Nepal, it is likely that populations adapted to different parts of the species' environmental range
are becoming extinct locally (and that maladapted populations may be used in their place). Conservation through use TISC has prepared a nationwide vegetation map (Shrestha et al. 2001) that provides the best understanding so far of the ecology of Nepal, and has prepared planting zones in the most densely populated ecological zones for use in a decentralized seed distribution system (Lillesø et al. 2001b). The distribution of individual tree species across planting zones can be estimated and seed sources planned accordingly (Figure 2 is an example of a distribution map across ecological zones). Figure 2. Potential distribution and planting sites for Bauhinia purpurea in Nepal A substantial number of fodder species are being planted, but many 'new' species cannot be used by farmers because they are not available on the market. This situation is often represented-inaccurately-as a lack of demand for new fodder seeds. In fact, bringing 'new' fodder species onto the market would be the only test of such demand. The market in fodder seeds is distorted because alternatives are not available and cannot tested for their acceptance by tree growers (Dhakal et al. 2001). TISC expects decentralized entities such as farmers' associations or seed cooperatives to be the main tool for distributing tree seed (two seed cooperatives are already functioning and more are expected to follow), and will support the introduction of 'new' species. The objectives of the seed cooperatives will be: i) to collect and supply seeds of known origin and broad genetic base to a transparent market; and ii) to conserve the gene resource base of economically important farmland tree species and improve the desired traits of these species (Dhakal et al. 2001). The five main aspects of the programme are as follows (Dhakal et al. 2001): i) Seed sources should be established in each of the relevant zones in the tree planting zoning system. This system has been established to represent environmental variation in the country. It attempts to minimize genotype by environment (GxE) interactions between seed sources and planting sites. ii) A relatively large number of species will be distributed through the system. iii) The domestication intensity for individual species should reflect the demand for the species. Intensities will range from farmland seed sources to the establishment of different types of breeding seedling orchards. iv) The process should be demand-driven and decentralized, led by local farmers' associations or seed cooperatives. v) TISC will provide technical assistance for seed source establishment, seed handling and networking. The main areas in which TISC will support the seed cooperatives are:
Species-site matching (seed zoning system); Establishment, registration and certification of seed sources of the best fodder species; • Assistance to organize seed collection and provision of technical advice; • General extension and awareness raising on the use of quality seeds; and • Creation of a forum for production and sale of seed. This will involve: Marketing species and seed stands; Creating a network for sale and purchase of seed; and Extension and raising awareness on the use of quality seeds. The current status of fodder species on farmland in Nepal is largely unknown, but a clearer picture is expected to emerge through the networking of the seed cooperatives. Through the use of fodder species (and from an evaluation of indigenous knowledge on these species), their population structures, flowering and seed production will be analysed. From a conservation point of view, the decentralized distribution system will ensure the survival of fodder species through use. For poor farmers, the quality and quantity of their fodder production will increase, thereby improving their livelihood. Conservation measures will be carried out for a large number of species simultaneously, but without setting up a network of ex situ conservation stands that would have to be maintained by government staff. Conclusions There are no simple guidelines for conservation. In this paper, we have discussed the model strategy 'use it or loose it', and have presented an example from Nepal in which this strategy is being implemented. Other models and strategies exist, but have not been mentioned here. In our experience, strategies based on integrated conservation and development are the most promising in terms of both conservation of a large number of valuable species and local economic development. The focus of this paper should not distract attention from the importance of selecting models and strategies based on careful assessments of social and ecological contexts. Different models of conservation can often complement each other. For example, a large number of species cannot be protected by planting schemes either because they cannot be cultivated or because they cannot meet the needs of rural communities. Such species will require protection in a network of protected areas (model 1) or managed areas (model 2), or a completely different model, depending on what is technically and socially feasible and appropriate. Nevertheless, we maintain that, compared with the hands-off and sustainable harvest models, the 'increased use model' receives less attention than it deserves. This is true in theory as well as in practice. Moreover, as the example in this paper illustrates, true
integration of conservation and development objectives will remain a challenge whatever model is selected.