|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Working
Paper 1 Abstract The resulting forest impoverishment from conversion of forested land to pasture for livestock production using large scale burning maintained on a regular, periodic basis has been widely observed as undesirable from an environmental / ecological perspective implying land uses that exclude fire as desirable. This study asks the question as to whether fire exclusion is also desirable from an economic perspective. By focussing on Cape York Peninsula, Queensland, Australia, two alternative land uses are compared using cost-benefit analysis (CBA); sustainable forestry with a policy of fire exclusion and pastoralism utilising fire on a regular basis. Samples of woody vegetation subject to the two opposing land uses enable quantitative comparison of ecosystem attributes in terms of biodiversity, and environmental functions in terms of carbon sequestration. No significant difference between the two land uses is observed in terms of biodiversity, however the rate of increase in levels of biodiversity is seen to be significantly higher in the absence of fire. Levels of carbon sequestration are also observed to be significantly higher in the absence of fire. The possibility of the presence of fire scars enabling biomass degradation by termites is also investigated but no correlation is observed. Inclusion within the CBA of benefits derived from carbon sequestration through greenhouse mitigation is problematic owing to wide discrepancies within the current literature regarding valuation. However, this does not affect the overall results of this study as sustainable forestry with a policy of fire exclusion yields a higher net present value (NPV) at all levels of analysis (with or without carbon benefits) thus rendering it preferable from an economic perspective. However, the presence of significant market and policy failures may well result in unsustainable forestry practices impeding the realisation of the full NPV of sustainable forestry. It is therefore imperative that such failures be addressed before an optimal land use distribution can be achieved.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Today
is:
Last Updated: Friday, December 2, 2005 Copyright © 2001 The Centre for Ecology Law and Policy, The Environment Department, The University of York, York, UK. For technical questions concerning the website contact: dwh5@york.ac.uk or st119@york.ac.uk |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||