9.7.3 Implications of mitigation options on water, biodiversity and soil
The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) aim at poverty reduction, and to improve health, education, gender equality, sanitation and environmental sustainability to promote Sustainable Development. Forest sector can significantly contribute to reducing poverty and improving livelihoods (providing access to forest products such as fuelwood, timber, and non timber products). Land degradation, access to water and food and human health remained at the centre of global attention under the debate on the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). A focus on five key thematic areas was proposed (Water, Energy, Health, Agriculture, and Biodiversity -WEHAB), driving attention to the fact that managing the natural resources like forest in a sustainable and integrated manner is essential for sustainable development. In this regard, to reverse the current trend in forest degradation as soon as possible, strategies need to be implemented that include targets adopted at national and, where appropriate, regional levels to protect ecosystems and to achieve integrated management of land, water and living resources associated to forest areas, while strengthening regional, national and local capacities.
Literature describing in detail the environmental impacts of different forest activities is still scarce and focuses mostly on planted forests. For these reasons, the discussion focuses more on plantations. It is important to underline that while benefits of climate change mitigation are global, co-benefits and costs tend to be local (OECD, 2002) and, in accordance, trade-offs have to be considered at local level.
Water cycle: Afforestation may result in better balance in the regional water cycle balance by reducing run-off, flooding, and control of groundwater recharge and watersheds protection. However, massive afforestation grasslands may reduce water flow into other ecosystems and rivers, and affect aquifers layer and recharge, and lead to substantial losses in stream flow (Jackson et al, 2005). In addition, some possible changes in soil properties are largely driven by changes in hydrology.
Soils: Intensively managed plantations have nutrient demands that may affect soil fertility and soil properties, for example leading to higher erosion of the uncovered mineral soil surface (Perez-Bidegain et al., 2001; Carrasco-Letellier et al., 2004); and biological properties changes (Sicardi et al., 2004) if the choice of species is not properly matched with site conditions. Regarding chemical properties, increased Na concentrations, exchangeable sodium percentage and soil acidity, and decreased base saturation have been detected in many situations. (Jackson, et al., 2005).In general, afforestation of low soil carbon croplands may present considerable opportunities for carbon sequestration in soil, while afforestation of grazing land can result in relatively smaller increases or decreases in soil carbon (Section 18.104.22.168). Most mitigation options other than monoculture plantations conserve and protect soils and watersheds.
Biodiversity: Plantations can negatively affect biodiversity if they replace biologically rich native grassland or wetland habitats (Wagner, et al., 2006). Also, plantations can have either positive or negative impacts on biodiversity depending on management practices (Quine and Humphrey, 2005). Plantations may act as corridors, source, or barriers for different species, and a tool for landscape restoration (Parrota, 2002). Other forestry mitigation options such as reducing deforestation, agro-forestry, multi-species plantations, and sustainable native forest management lead to biodiversity conservation.
Managing plantations to produce goods (such as timber) while also enhancing ecological services (such as biodiversity) involves several trade-offs. Overcoming them involves a clear understanding of the broader ecological context in which plantations are established as well as participation of the different stakeholders. The primary management objective of most industrial plantations traditionally has been to optimize timber production. This is not usually the case in small-scale plantations owned by farmers, where more weight is given to non-timber products and ecological services. A shift from a stand level to a broader forest and non-forest landscape level approach will be required to achieve a balance between biodiversity and productivity/profitability.
The literature seems to suggest that plantations, mainly industrial plantations, require careful assessment of the potential impacts on soils, hydrological cycle and biodiversity, and that negative impacts could be controlled or minimized if adequate landscape planning and basin management and good practices are introduced. Carbon sequestration strategies with afforestation of non-forest lands should consider their full environmental consequences. The ultimate balance of co-benefits and impacts depends on the specific site conditions and previous and future land and forest management.