DD100. TMA02 Describe what Tables 1 and 2 tell us about the variations in the new planting and restocking in forests and woodlands in the UK over the period 2003-07

Yvette O’Rourke DD100 – TMA 02 A4570644

Part (a)

Describe what Tables 1 and 2 tell us about the variations in the new planting and restocking in forests and woodlands in the UK over the period 2003-07

Looking at Table 1 we can see that in 2003 new planting for both conifers and broadleaves across the UK totalled 13.5 thousand hectares but steadily declines in 2004 to 12.4 and to 11.9 in 2005 with a drastic decline in 2006 down to 8.7 thousand hectares being planted. Figures for 2007 then rise to 10.7 but are still below what was planted in 2003.

Looking closely at the figures across 2003-2007 more broadleaves than conifers were planted overall and that carries across all regions of the British Isles. We can also point out that for England the number of hectares planted for both conifers and broadleaves decreased year on year from 2003 to 2007 where as Scotland showed a decrease from 2003 to 2006 then a rise in 2007. Wales however did no new planting for conifers but for broadleaves showed a rise in 2004 through to 2006 then a small decrease in 2007 with Northern Ireland showing a decrease in planting conifers in 2004 to no new plantation in 2005 – 2007 but an increase in broadleaves from 2004 and small decline in 2005 then a rise in plantation for 2006 and again a small decline in 2007.

Looking at Table 2 we see that the overall restocking of plantation in the UK rose from 14.5 thousand hectares in 2003 to 14.9 in 2004 and then remained consistent for 2005 and 2006 with a further rise to 17.7 in 2007. A difference from table 1 is that across all regions more conifers were restocked (in table 1 we noted that more broadleaves were planted). The restocking of broadleaves was steadily rising from 2.5 in 2003 to 3.5 in 2007 where as for the conifers 2003 -2006 the figures were fairly consistent at 12.0/12.1 falling in 2006 to 11.6 then rising in 2007 to 14.2.

For England we can see that restocking levels fell in 2004-2005 for conifers (with broadleaves staying consistent) both conifers and broadleaves peaking in 2006 but the both declining again in 2007. In Scotland restocking levels rose in 2004 and 2005, falling in 2006 then rising again in 2007. The welsh restocking of conifers declines from 2003 to 2005 rising in 2006 and 2007, their restocking of broadleaves however was very up and down each year. Northern Ireland had very different levels with the restocking of conifers rising in 2004-2005 but declining in 2006-2007 but showing a very similar pattern with ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

We note that more planting and restocking were done in England and Scotland compared with Wales and Northern Ireland.

References:

N/A

Word count – 439

Part (b)

Show how selective logging can be seen as an impact of the market economy on the environment. Discuss the range of possible solutions that there might be to this problem.

This essay will discuss selective logging and the impact that this action has on the environment and the market economy and will discuss the possible solutions that may be available to us.

How can selective logging make impact the market economy? Firstly a market economy is an economy that relies on buyers and sellers to determine the price, the goods/services and the resources of where those goods/services come from, buyers and sellers can range from private individuals to companies, institutions and governments, the type of market will depend on the commodity being sold or exchanged (here we look at an exhaustible resource – timber, which as part of the environment is not protected in a market economy) nearly all markets are governed by a regulatory body whom ensure trading rules and regulations are adhered to however this can be very difficult when the commodity is a free resources such as air and water etc. Selective logging is where the logging companies rather than clear a forest of trees have been thinning the forests out (choosing trees selectively) so as not to be as easily detectable.

The impact of selective logging is very rarely be seen or felt by those who cause it, this is mainly due to the fact that agents (loggers / timber merchants) will base the costs to them or their company and the buyer (these are known as private costs) rather than on the cost to the environment (known as social costs) the main reason for this is most social costs do not have a monetary value and are not always taken into consideration.

A simple and innocent act such as having a deck built in our garden can have an impact. As a consumer we look at the monetary cost and the benefit to us, as do the builders/carpenters, timber merchants. Loggers depending on the demand for their product also look at their costs and depending on the market price decides where they obtain their resources from. We can assume that due to the high demand for wood and the fact that most companies are profit driven some of these companies have taken to selective logging to minimize cost both private and social. As the end user we control who we buy from which in turn controls where and how they obtain the resources we require. In the majority of cases we look for the most cost effective purchase and do not consider the cost or impact on the environment as do the logging companies who provide the wood we use causing some to turn to selective logging as this is not as easily detectable and therefore provides the market with a false economy as the true extent of the social cost is unknown or under estimated and allows the market to stay at a lower price to sustain the economy but if we knew how low our exhaustible supply of trees were we would have to pay more causing some of use to purchase less and therefore that would lead to a downturn in the market economy.

This has come to light since scientists in the US have been using satellite images to reveal the true extent of the damage being caused. The images indicate 5,000 sq miles is disturbed by selective logging every year, researchers also found that from 1999 to 2002 the total volume of harvested trees would have removed as much as 15 million metric tonnes of carbon from the ecosystem, representing 25 percent in the overall flow of carbon from the Amazonian forest to the atmosphere. There are also other impacts on the ecosystem to take into account such as the destruction of vegetation; forests as they are being thinned out provide less shade allowing them to become drier and more flammable therefore increasing the increasing risk of natural disasters (adapted from Lister 2005).

But what can we do to limit the impact of selective logging? Taking the Amazon rain forest and privatising it could be an option. The owning company/government or institution could provide selected areas of land for the loggers to log and by giving preference to those prepared to pay more to accommodate the replenishment of the trees would although raise the price of the market but would mean those companies not taking social costs into consideration would have limited stock forcing customers to go to companies that are more environmentally friendly. However there would need to be a regulatory body involved to ensure that the trees that were removed were replenished sufficiently and we would have to bear in mind that not everyone can afford to pay that little bit more to protect the environment and may go to companies who are willing to obtain there stock by continuing to selectively log. Another option would be for the end consumers to be made aware of how the were impacting on the environment and encourage them to go to more environmentally friendly companies, slowly forcing the other companies to become more environmentally friendly but again there would still be a proportion of people who wanted the produce without the means to pay the extra to cover the social cost of their purchase and would still turn to companies who use selective logging as a means to cut costs.

So in conclusion to the question of how selective logging impacts on the market economy of the environment we can draw that end consumers, purchasers and sellers alike will all need to make an active and informed decision to ensure they consider the social cost to the environment and together make a turn in the market economy but due to some social class’s earning less than others this will impede on their choice of produce which will not always be realistically acceptable but if consumers together with companies institutions and governments work towards the same goal we can aim to reduce the need for selective logging and therefore reduce the negative externalities (the difference between private cost and social cost) on the Amazon rain forest and prevent future damage to the environment.

References:

Lister, S. (2005) adapted from ‘Amazon’s illegal loggers know we cant see the wood for trees’, The Times, October 21.

Word count – 1011

Self Evaluation – TMA02 : DD100