Techniques Of Forest Restoration In Guyana
Locally, Guyana’s land surface is 19.7 million hectares, but of this portion, 16.5 million hectares has forest cover and 14.4 million hectares is designated as production forest (FAO, 2015). 79.1% of the forest area is under the management and control of the Government of Guyana; of which 59.5% is State Forest under the remit of the Guyana Forestry Commission and 19.6% State Land under the responsibility of the Lands and Surveys Commission. The remainder is mainly privately owned, titled Amerindian Lands (15.5%) and a combination of 5 protected areas (5.4%) (FAO, 2015). According to the Guyana Forestry Commission (2017), Guyana has multiple management plans to ensure that its forest is not destroyed in an unsustainable manner. However, the above mention techniques can also be in cooperated into the management plan to ensure that the quality and quantity of Guyana’s forest is restored at a fast rate. All four of the techniques mentioned can be implemented in Guyana. However, the most feasible techniques would be Native tree planting and removal of non-native species. This exercise will ensure that the right type of forest is replanted in such a way that it does not drive biodiversity away.
Approximately 85% of Guyana is still forested, containing a rich diversity of plants and animals. This is primarily because of the type of forest since it creates a home for thousands of Guyana’s biodiversity (EPA, 2010). To ensure that this number of Biodiversity is kept, native tree planting would ultimately produce this same forest that once stood and the removal of non-native species will allow the native ones to flourish, species such a Greenheart, Purpleheart, Walaba, etc. Native tree planting would ensure Guyana’s biodiversity remains intact, which is important for Guyana’s Tourism and the economy at large.
Analysis of remote sensing data has shown clearly, that there is forest degradation associated with mining activity in Guyana (Brown & Mahmood, 2016). Mining companies such as Tory Resources participates in Native Tree Planting in the Karouni Area, Region 7. Areas that are deforested for mining are replanted by employees that are recruited from the nearby village to complete this task (Personal Communication, 2019). Similarly, other deforested areas in Guyana can also apply this restoration technique. Seeds and seedlings can be collected and kept in a nursery; after mining and logging has taken place in the interior locations, and seeds can be replanted to ensure the exact species remain in the area.
On another note, Guyana is currently underwater levels, thus mangrove is planted on the coast to aid in defense from oncoming waves from tidal seasons. Even though this technique is already implemented on the coast of Guyana, much area is still in need of this restoration technique. Areas such as Kitty Seawall, Anna Catherine and Dantzig are just a few villages which are currently suffering from water damage due to tidal seasons.
In terms of feasibility, native plants (Such as mangroves and Hardwood) are equipped with natural protections, which makes them resistant to common diseases and pests. As such, growers typically don’t need to use the necessary pesticides that non-native plants require. Additionally, the native plants are durable, and thus, they grow easily with local conditions. On the coastal area of Guyana, this technique can be done by villagers who are mostly affected by the raging water. According to the Minister of Public Infrastructure, Mr. Patterson, Guyana’s Sea defense needs $14 billion dollars in urgent repairs between 2020 and 2022 (Stabroek News, 2019). Failing to see to these repair will result in much more damages than what is similarly seen in the Mahaicony area. However, this cost would not have been so drastic if this sea defense would have been protected with mangrove plants. Therefore, in terms of feasibility, it would cost much less to plant native mangrove plants instead of now spending billions of dollars to repair sea defense infrastructure. Moreover, in the interior location, nucleation technique is time-consuming while Natural regeneration happens, but timing and outcomes are uncertain. Additionally, native tree planting can also create jobs for local persons.
Even though these techniques are somewhat beneficial, there may be a few challenges as well. One benefit of forest restoration is (Editor Chief, 2016) that it provides a habitat for wildlife. Wildlife habitats are areas of land that provide resources such as food, cover, water and environmental conditions such as precipitation and soil types that affect occupancy of individuals or populations of species, allowing those species to survive and reproduce (Morrison et al. 2006; Beck 2009). The occupancy of species in a forest is all dependent on the type of forest, and the type of forest is all dependent on the species of plants making up the forest (Dinnetz et al, 2016). Therefore, while restoration is indeed important for the soil and plantation in order to obtain timber, it is by far more important for wildlife since it provides them with a home, which indirectly adds to the eco-tourism aspect for a country. Moreover, the restoration of forest can provide other benefits inclusive of Timber and other forestry products. It is recognized that the destruction of the forest provides major income for a country (The World Bank, 2013). Given that there are existing wood products, removals for personal and commercial use and interest in utilizing the by-products for other purposes, the rate at logging continues to rise however, forest restoration compensates for the destruction of the forest and as such rebuilds the habitat. What’s more, if done at a sustainable manner (Inclusive of forest restoration), restored land can produce more timber and non-timber forest products (such as fruits and nuts, fish and game, medicinal plants, barks and fibres) (Bonn Challenge, n.d). The timber harvested in restoration plantings has the potential to cover the opportunity cost of reducing the availability of land for cattle-ranching. In Sao Paulo Brazil, there is a 3 years’ restoration planting designed to produce native timber in a 10-year harvesting cycle. It has been shown that this is likely to generate greater returns for farmers than extensive cattle-ranching (Brancalion et al, 2012). Timber plantations could play a critical role in scaling up restoration efforts in human-dominated tropical landscapes worldwide (Lamb, 1998; Brancalion et al, 2012).
However, an important limitation to the production of native timber in restoration plantings is the time required for an economic return. Additionally, tropical forests provide a huge range of Non-wood forest products – such as foods, medicines and building materials – the harvest and processing of which often constitute a major source of income and livelihoods for local people, especially in developing countries such as Brazil (Wunder, 1998; Brancalion et al, 2012). Furthermore, forest restoration can also assist to mitigate Climate change. The forest is one of the largest carbon sinks (Smith, 2012), they contribute one-sixth of the global carbon emission (FAO, 2019). Since the forest can release oxygen in the atmosphere, it can, therefore, reduce the concentration of CO2 by absorbing 2.4 billion tons every year and storing billions more (Smith, 2012). Restoring trees can help to reduce the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, thus eliminating the possibility of the Earth warming up (CONAF, n.d). With increasing temperature, the Antic and Antarctic ice caps are melting, producing water that are flooding most low lying countries. It is therefore essential that we increase our restoration effort so that we can reduce the emissions of carbon in the atmosphere. While the leaves may be important for the carbon sequestering, the roots also play a part in preventing soil erosion
It is with this increased water, that tidal seasons damage most coastal areas with flood. Restoring the mangrove forest reduce impact of waves, which over flows or breaks away the man-made sea defense.
Additionally, waves and water current sometimes bringing sediments to the coast but sometimes causing erosion and the loss of land. Mangroves roots generally reduce erosion and enhance sedimentation. Furthermore, the large stilt roots hold together most of the sediments and leaf litter that builds up the soil profile. The mangrove vegetation reduces wave energy and slows the flow of water over the soil surface, reducing the water’s capacity to dislodge sediments and carry them out of the mangrove area. At the same time, the slower water flows can allow already suspended sediments to settle out from the water, resulting in increased deposition of sediment (Wetlands and the nature conservancy, 2014).
On the other hand, there are quite a few challenges of forest restoration. The most significant challenge would be cost. A typical example would be, in Brazil where the estimated cost for forest restoration in mangrove forest is $2880 per hectare and in tropical forest is $3,450 per hectare (Strassburg & Latawiec, 2014)
While this may be affordable by some countries, others are left to disregard restoration approaches or resort to affordable substitutes. A study done in Tutuila Island, American Samoa show that mangrove restoration cost was USD $13,030 ha for one year, and the majority of that cost (84%) was labour expenses. However, in the same study, Gilman & Ellison (2007) stated that if this project was replicated in developing countries the cost would be much less since there will be a lower wage level. While cost may be an important drawback, time also provides a challenge in forest restoration.
Aforementioned, the Bonn Challenge is a global effort to begin restoring 350 million hectares of degraded forest landscapes by 2030, was launched in 2011 however, critics argue that restoration takes too long, costs too much, and produces too few benefits to justify public or private expenditures (Verdone & Seidl, 2017). For the forest to be restored to what it once was, plants need to be left and grow on their own. This takes a long period, especially in the tropical forest which is dominated by hardwood species such as purpleheart and greenheart, etc, (Prince, 1973). Additionally, there may also be a risk for damage to forest and wildlife while undergoing forest restoration. Understanding of what has been lost, and what is at risk of being lost, should be the basis for any forest restoration that has biodiversity conservation amongst its aims. This needs to be amplified with an understanding of what type or quality of the forest is needed to maintain biodiversity (Mansourian et al, 2005). Under poor management, this method can result in a reduction of biodiversity in the local ecosystem; introduction of potentially invasive and non-native species; modification of particular biomes; reduced streamflow; and loss of agricultural revenue (Mansourian et al, 2005; Editor Chief, 2016).
Furthermore, spatial and temporal heterogeneity, presents a major challenge because of difficulties with identifying restoration targets and measures of success, and also because of the need to ensure that restored forests can vary naturally into the future. Forest structure and function change over time as a result of the interplay between population processes, disturbance or stress and other external factors (Glenn-Lewin et al. 1992). While forest successional development is often characterized by gradual composition change over time following disturbance, this is not always the case. There are examples showing that a forest ecosystem could exist in a given forested state for millennia and then, as a result of natural disturbance (Asselin & Payette 2005b) or a change in climate (Berg et al. 2009), shift rapidly to a dramatically different ecosystem type (Burton & Macdonald, 2011).
Despite some of the challenges noted above, forest restoration activities seem to be increasingly popular. With that being said, the human population must work together to ensure that approaches such as the Bonn challenge is of priority to execute. The cost may be high but there are quite a few restoration techniques that can be implemented in either developed, developing or underdeveloped countries, which will alternatively secure a better earth for the future.
