Program to plant trees can curb rural poverty
Credit to Author: The Manila Times| Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2020 18:10:53 +0000
At its last meeting in Davos, the World Economic Forum launched an initiative to grow, restore and conserve a trillion trees. This global program aims to restore biodiversity and combat climate change. Interestingly, even United States President Donald Trump, a skeptic on climate change, expressed support.
Individuals, too, can support the forum’s program. One way is to join various local environmental groups, such as Haribon Foundation, which has tree-planting and conservation projects. People can also download the Plant-for-the-Planet app, where they can pledge small amounts for tree-planting programs around the world. The Plant-for-the-Planet Foundation was part of the United Nations Environmental Program’s Trillion Tree Campaign launched in 2006.
The Philippine government should also start its own program. Besides the environmental dividends, which some may foolishly deny, a tree-planting program offers economic benefits, as well. It can bolster employment.
Last year, President Rodrigo Duterte told The Manila Times that he wanted to focus on eradicating rural poverty during his remaining years in office. In that regard, he should consider a “New Deal” that taps the unemployed and underemployed in the countryside and remote areas to plant trees and conserve forests.
The Philippines has a massive area that can be replanted, which means there are plenty of jobs that can be generated. The planting program may not be limited to trees. Some local groups have been advocating for the propagation of bamboo, which is technically a grass.
Whether it is trees or bamboo, they are needed. The country has lost more than 75 percent of its original forest cover since the 1900s, according to Haribon Foundation citing government statistics. In fact, the country continues to lose forest area. Another report says the current rate of deforestation is 2 percent per year. That may be a substantial drop from 20 percent per year recorded in the 1990s, but the deceleration may simply mean that there are fewer trees to cut now than before.
A tree-planting and conservation program makes sense as a job-creating initiative. The work does not end after planting a seedling. It has to be nurtured and protected for several years until maturity. Even then, some of the trees planted may not survive.
Plant native trees
Planting indigenous or native species of trees and other plants makes sense because they have higher survival rates than foreign species. Haribon experts, who call that practice “rainforestation,” explain that native trees are more adaptive to our forests that need restoration. Moreover, local trees support other plants and wildlife.
Over the past decades, groups have been planting foreign tree species in the country.
Perhaps those well-meaning people were drawn to foriegn species because of their fast-growing qualities, while others were simply attracted by their exotic appeal.
Haribon warns that foreign trees can be invasive, meaning they can crowd out native trees and plants by creating imbalances in the soil nutrients. Also, foreign trees may not offer food and other support to local wildlife. And finally, those trees can be prone to local diseases and pests that can wipe out reforested areas — a waste of labor and resources.
In a related matter, Congress should pass a land use act, which would protect forests from development and agriculture. Of course, housing and growing food are important, but they should be balanced with the need for forests, which are also vital to human survival. Without forests, watersheds are unsustainable. And watersheds are essential to both households and farms.
Also, forests act as so-called lungs of the earth. Besides supplying oxygen for breathing, they also capture harmful gases that have been blamed for global warming.
Forests, moreover, mitigate flooding and landslides. Note that the poor are often the most vulnerable to such natural disasters. And they would be the first beneficiaries of this kind of government program.
In previous editorials, we have argued that a better way to help the poor is to enable them to help themselves. Offering them jobs is more dignified than giving doleouts. We cannot deny the benefits of handouts, but the job-creation program suggested here can be a complementary initiative rather than a replacement.