Deforestation in New Zealand - Report Example

Deforestation in New Zealand xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Name xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Course xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Lecturer xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date Introduction Despite the continuous improvements in environmental management in New Zealand, it still faces challenging issues affecting the environment. It is under considerable pressure from different groups and teams such as the livestock rearing and land use, urban expansion and climate change to prevent deforestation. Deforestation development has taken massive change to the environment. These changes are both beneficial and problematic to the environment but at different magnitudes. These issues are discussed in this report by use of cost benefit analysis of deforestation in New Zealand. This human activity continues to worsen the environment partly because of poor implementation of environmental protection policies in place. Transparency in management and decision making is therefore required if these worsening effects are to be curbed. People very often (however not always) use hyperbolical discount to discount the effects to the environment. This use of time declining interest rates, however, justification for adoption of time declining interest rates remains to be discussed in this report. Deforestation in New Zealand According to Vajda et al, (2001), there are a range of approaches that have been developed by economists to evaluate the value of intangible or non market impacts. They share a familiar feature of making use of market behavior and information to infer the economic value of the linked non market impact. The market goods are bundles of characteristics, hedonic pricing take this advantage because of the different conceptual bases they have. The non market valuation of this deforestation in this place is enough to quantify the benefits of conservation. The quantifiable benefits of forestation in this area may outweigh the negative impacts of the non market valuation of the henceforth impacts. The non market valuation makes for the case of conservation of the environment. By focusing on creating benefits and incentives, it would create better environment management. The implementation of non market valuation of information, there would be better management and consequently conservation of the same. Creating options for the exploitation of forests would serve to conserve forests rather than destroying them. With the consideration of the aquatic life that would be affected by deforestation, the best option to pursue is to do away with deforestation. By foregoing it, the grazing fields will be conserved; livestock and wild animals that depend wholly on the forests will have enough fields for deriving their food stuff. This is not forgetting the animals and birds that use the forests as their home and habitats. Avoiding deforestation will be working and pursuing the best objectives and course of action for the host of all parties that are affected (nearly everything in the society), (McGlone 1983). In addition, deforestation is such a magnitude of an activity that takes up most of the vegetation on the earth surface. As seen from deforestation sites in New South Wales, there are large and bare grounds that have been left without being planted trees. It is true that the economic benefits of deforestation are great, but the long lasting non market valuation effects of the same are outweighing. This therefore calls for restraining of deforestation for whatsoever reason. A recent report carried out by the GES (government economy survey) in year 2011 indicates that there are difficult economic conditions; there is increasing pressure on the exploitation of global resources as well as the environment. The amounts of resources are decreasing at an alarming rate, these calls for the better use of these natural resources. This will benefit the environment as there would be conservation of the same. Conserving the environment provides for value for money benefits and effectively delivers the greater incentives to the surrounding communities. It is therefore important to ensure that the forests are protected. This however cannot be done by the forestry organizations only, but by each and every member of society. Deforestation is not the only environmental issue that can harm the environment, there are others including the very disposal of polythene wastes, (Derose et al, 1993). On the other hand, deforestation involves the commitment of large amount of capital to finance planting of trees after forest destruction, on top of this, on the contrary conserving the forests incurs very little costs, that is, if there are any. This costs and use of funds can be committed to other revenue generating activities which are not environmental dangerous. The opportunity benefit of doing this would surpass deforestation. Deforestation has enormous effects on the quality of underground water and other water resources, (McGlone & Wilmshurst 1999). Water is very essential to human beings and other living organisms as we cannot survive without water nor can living organisms do. Poor quality water is source of diseases and also incurs a lot of costs to treat it. It is therefore good to preserve the forests. Furthermore, deforestation affects negatively economic regeneration; it increases climate change as people pull down trees and forests. This is not forgetting the destruction of archaeological, heritage and the natural landscape of the environment. Deforestation would destroy the archaeological sites which are a rich source of history and education. To prevent this from happening, it is better to conserve forests by not allowing deforestation to take place. According to Gillespie & Kragt (2012) though the deforestation in New Zealand has contributed in the increases of business travel on the other hand, it has negatively affected on tourism. The high value of New Zealand dollar places the country at a competitive disadvantage in the international visitation. The advantage is for New Zealand’s to travel abroad than domestic. In addition, many leisure tourists both local and international lack attractive sites particularly on mine site. Deforestation in New Zealand poses not only economical threat but also environmental threat which calls for immediate action. Deforestation in New Zealand poses a serious threat to the environment due to cutting down of trees. Deforestation operations have devastated most of New Zealand field. Most of forests are cleared for the establishment of industry or for the need of timbers and woods for machines. It also exterminates New Zealand wildlife in return affecting many people who rely on beasts and birds for pleasant food or as a tourism attraction (Mudd 2007). Further, the contaminated water from industries is channeled to brooks and streams poisoning them. This leads to death or exit to inhabitable environment of thousands of water living beings like fish and crocodiles. (Mudd 2007) noted that, the deforestation always demands for primary sources supply such as energy, water and land. These demands requires for deforestation for its realization. Post deforestation rehabilitation methods used to make the former mine site useful again is questionable. There are no proper approaches and ways to ensure the mined land is useful by both the locals and deforestation. The company and government does very little to address a former site to a sustainable rehabilitation. The distribution and sharing of the deforestation benefits such as monetary profits by the government, deforestation and the local occupants has never been fair. With the local community who bears the more menace during and after deforestation getting insufficient share. The results from the survey indicate that most and the respondents have the opinion that the government and all relevant parties involved should conserve. References Analysis of underground coal deforestation in New South Wales, New Zealand," and Their Environmental Implications for the Future. Research Report No RR5, Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University and Mineral Policy Institute, Derose, C., Trustrum, N., A., & Blaschke, P., 1993, Post‐deforestation soil loss from steepland hillslopes in Taranaki, New Zealand, Earth surface processes and landforms, 18(2), 131-144. Gillespie, R. & M. E. Kragt (2012). "Accounting for nonmarket impacts in a benefit-cost Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis 3(2): article 4. McGlone, M., S., 1983, Polynesian deforestation of New Zealand: a preliminary synthesis. Archaeology in Oceania, 18(1), 11-25. McGlone, S., & Wilmshurst, M., 1999, Dating initial Maori environmental impact in New Zealand, Quaternary International, 59(1), 5-16. Mudd, G M, 2007, The Sustainability of Deforestation in New Zealand: Key Production Trends October 2007. Vajda, V., Raine, I., & Hollis, C., J., 2001, Indication of global deforestation at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary by New Zealand fern spike, Science, 294(5547), 1700-1702. Read More