Background:-
If you say this to anyone that “more trees made Europe warmer instead of cooling it“, one might not think twice before concluding that you are insane -at least temporarily and on this occasion , also one would not hesitate to tag you as an illiterate – at least as a climate illiterate.
Even though most of us think that we are climate literate , there are chances that our preconceived notion of certain things , our understanding of certain things might not always be true.The study below does exactly that- it has the capacity to alter our knowledge on climate and trees.
Editorial :-
Trees do wonders when it comes to cooling Earth. They suck planet-warming carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, locking it into their trunks, leaves, and roots to the tune of about 2.4 billion metric tons of carbon each year. But a new study has found, somewhat counter-intuitively, that more trees might not always mean a cooler planet. In fact, researchers examining 260 years of changes in European forest management found that—despite a 10% increase in wooded land—the continent’s forests have actually caused a slight increase in regional temperatures since 1750.From 1750 to 2010, the continent added almost 200,000 square kilometers of forest, and created a 0.12°C rise in temperature.
A new study published in the journal Science has shown that forests can function as effective carbon sinks only when sustainable forest management practices are followed. The study has claimed that more than 250 years of wood extraction and other unsustainable practices in European forests had led to the accumulation of 3.1 billion metric tonnes of carbon debt despite considerable afforestation. This afforestation drive, which favoured non-native conifer species over native broad-leaved species, caused these forests to fail at addressing the challenges of climate change.
The study reconstructed the land-use history of Europe from 1750 to examine the effects of these changes on the climate. It says that while deforestation removed nearly 200,000 square kilometres of forest cover in Europe between 1750 and 1850, subsequent reforestation efforts not only made up for the losses, but actually resulted in a net gain in Europe’s overall forest cover during the study period.
But the study also noted that these reforestation efforts mainly favoured conifer trees over broad-leaved species which had dominated the European landscape earlier. This resulted in an increase in the conifer species cover by over 633,000 square kilometres, while broadleaf species cover decreased by 436,000 square kilometres.
Replacing broad-leaved forests with conifers had another unintended warming effect. Since conifer leaves tend to be darker than broad-leaved ones, it resulted in an increase in the absorption of sunlight, adding to global warming. The study adds that conifers are more conservative with water, which leads to less evapotranspiration, and to drier air which further contributed to a warming effect on climate. Overall, air temperature over the forests increased by an average of about 0.12°C during the study period. Another observation made by the study was that in the past 250 years, approximately 85 per cent of Europe’s forests came under human management and have remained under practices such as wood extraction, thinning and litter raking, reducing the climate efficacy of afforestation.
The conifers are worse for the climate because they absorb more light with their dark color, trapping heat that would otherwise be reflected back into space. They also release less cooling water into the atmosphere through evaporation. Together, these two factors were to blame for 0.08°C of the region’s warming. Foresters removing trees for wood products contributed another 0.02°C by releasing carbon that would otherwise be stored in forest debris and soil.
“European forests have failed to realise a net (CO2) removal from the atmosphere, and this is due to the fact that humans extracted wood from unmanaged forests by bringing these forests under management,” Even a well-managed forest today stores less carbon than its natural counterparts in 1750.”
The study concludes that forest management in Europe over the past 250 years has not been climate-friendly. The researchers involved in the study suggest that “the political imperative to mitigate climate change through afforestation and forest management…risks failure, unless it is recognized that not all forestry contributes to climate change mitigation”.
Lessons for India
The findings of this study are relevant to natural forests in India which have been subjected to large-scale species conversion over past several decades. For instance, vast stretches in the Himalayas have been converted to monocultures of conifers such as pines and cedars mainly during the British colonial rule. These species are not only exotic but they also provide fewer non-timber forest products (NTFPs) or other ecosystem services to local people. They have also been found ineffective in soil and moisture conservation when compared to native broad-leaved species such as oak and rhododendron.
But Indian governments and foresters have not yet learned their lessons and continue to promote monocultures and plantation of exotic species in natural forests. Recent guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) are also problematic since they propose handing over of open forests and natural scrub areas of the country for captive plantations by wood-based industries. Monoculture plantations over these forestlands will create large-scale ecological, economic and social problems while frequent commercial harvests of unnatural species will further reduce the climate effectiveness of our forests, as suggested by the study.
It’s also tempting to extend these results to other regions. But Europe’s temperature increase was in large part due to the continent’s specific history of forestry, its location, and the kind of tree species that are present there. The tropics, especially, play by different rules—there, slowing deforestation is almost certain to contribute to cooling, because trees in the tropics release comparatively more water into the atmosphere, seeding clouds that reflect light. The European model does indicate, however, that we should be cautious about the promise of forests to solve our climate woes.
Recent Posts
- In the Large States category (overall), Chhattisgarh ranks 1st, followed by Odisha and Telangana, whereas, towards the bottom are Maharashtra at 16th, Assam at 17th and Gujarat at 18th. Gujarat is one State that has seen startling performance ranking 5th in the PAI 2021 Index outperforming traditionally good performing States like Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, but ranks last in terms of Delta
- In the Small States category (overall), Nagaland tops, followed by Mizoram and Tripura. Towards the tail end of the overall Delta ranking is Uttarakhand (9th), Arunachal Pradesh (10th) and Meghalaya (11th). Nagaland despite being a poor performer in the PAI 2021 Index has come out to be the top performer in Delta, similarly, Mizoram’s performance in Delta is also reflected in it’s ranking in the PAI 2021 Index
- In terms of Equity, in the Large States category, Chhattisgarh has the best Delta rate on Equity indicators, this is also reflected in the performance of Chhattisgarh in the Equity Pillar where it ranks 4th. Following Chhattisgarh is Odisha ranking 2nd in Delta-Equity ranking, but ranks 17th in the Equity Pillar of PAI 2021. Telangana ranks 3rd in Delta-Equity ranking even though it is not a top performer in this Pillar in the overall PAI 2021 Index. Jharkhand (16th), Uttar Pradesh (17th) and Assam (18th) rank at the bottom with Uttar Pradesh’s performance in line with the PAI 2021 Index
- Odisha and Nagaland have shown the best year-on-year improvement under 12 Key Development indicators.
- In the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Goa and Tamil Nadu and, the bottom three performers are Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and Bihar.
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers were Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim and Mizoram; and, the bottom three performers are Manipur, Assam and Meghalaya.
- Among the 60:40 division States, Orissa, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh are the top three performers and Tamil Nadu, Telangana and Delhi appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland; and, the bottom three performers are Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh
- Among the 60:40 division States, Goa, West Bengal and Delhi appear as the top three performers and Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Bihar appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Himachal Pradesh and Tripura were the top three performers and Jammu & Kashmir, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh were the bottom three performers
- West Bengal, Bihar and Tamil Nadu were the top three States amongst the 60:40 division States; while Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan appeared as the bottom three performers
- In the case of 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Assam and Tripura were the top three performers and Nagaland, Jammu & Kashmir and Uttarakhand featured as the bottom three
- Among the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Orissa and the bottom three performers are Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand and Goa
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Mizoram, Sikkim and Nagaland and the bottom three performers are Manipur and Assam
In a diverse country like India, where each State is socially, culturally, economically, and politically distinct, measuring Governance becomes increasingly tricky. The Public Affairs Index (PAI 2021) is a scientifically rigorous, data-based framework that measures the quality of governance at the Sub-national level and ranks the States and Union Territories (UTs) of India on a Composite Index (CI).
States are classified into two categories – Large and Small – using population as the criteria.
In PAI 2021, PAC defined three significant pillars that embody Governance – Growth, Equity, and Sustainability. Each of the three Pillars is circumscribed by five governance praxis Themes.
The themes include – Voice and Accountability, Government Effectiveness, Rule of Law, Regulatory Quality and Control of Corruption.
At the bottom of the pyramid, 43 component indicators are mapped to 14 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that are relevant to the States and UTs.
This forms the foundation of the conceptual framework of PAI 2021. The choice of the 43 indicators that go into the calculation of the CI were dictated by the objective of uncovering the complexity and multidimensional character of development governance
The Equity Principle
The Equity Pillar of the PAI 2021 Index analyses the inclusiveness impact at the Sub-national level in the country; inclusiveness in terms of the welfare of a society that depends primarily on establishing that all people feel that they have a say in the governance and are not excluded from the mainstream policy framework.
This requires all individuals and communities, but particularly the most vulnerable, to have an opportunity to improve or maintain their wellbeing. This chapter of PAI 2021 reflects the performance of States and UTs during the pandemic and questions the governance infrastructure in the country, analysing the effectiveness of schemes and the general livelihood of the people in terms of Equity.
Growth and its Discontents
Growth in its multidimensional form encompasses the essence of access to and the availability and optimal utilisation of resources. By resources, PAI 2021 refer to human resources, infrastructure and the budgetary allocations. Capacity building of an economy cannot take place if all the key players of growth do not drive development. The multiplier effects of better health care, improved educational outcomes, increased capital accumulation and lower unemployment levels contribute magnificently in the growth and development of the States.
The Pursuit Of Sustainability
The Sustainability Pillar analyses the access to and usage of resources that has an impact on environment, economy and humankind. The Pillar subsumes two themes and uses seven indicators to measure the effectiveness of government efforts with regards to Sustainability.
The Curious Case Of The Delta
The Delta Analysis presents the results on the State performance on year-on-year improvement. The rankings are measured as the Delta value over the last five to 10 years of data available for 12 Key Development Indicators (KDI). In PAI 2021, 12 indicators across the three Pillars of Equity (five indicators), Growth (five indicators) and Sustainability (two indicators). These KDIs are the outcome indicators crucial to assess Human Development. The Performance in the Delta Analysis is then compared to the Overall PAI 2021 Index.
Key Findings:-
In the Scheme of Things
The Scheme Analysis adds an additional dimension to ranking of the States on their governance. It attempts to complement the Governance Model by trying to understand the developmental activities undertaken by State Governments in the form of schemes. It also tries to understand whether better performance of States in schemes reflect in better governance.
The Centrally Sponsored schemes that were analysed are National Health Mission (NHM), Umbrella Integrated Child Development Services scheme (ICDS), Mahatma Gandh National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SmSA) and MidDay Meal Scheme (MDMS).
National Health Mission (NHM)
INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (ICDS)
MID- DAY MEAL SCHEME (MDMS)
SAMAGRA SHIKSHA ABHIYAN (SMSA)
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME (MGNREGS)