Quantum Forest

Dilemma comes from the Greek meaning ‘two propositions’, and normally refers to a situation when one must choose between two unpleasant mutually exclusive propositions. It is often heard in arguments involving the environment; we either conserve this forest (or waterfront, lake, etc.) or we make money out of it.

In general terms, it is not possible to have a given point in space simultaneously producing and conserving. For example, one extreme of forest practice is single-tree harvesting, where a single tree is extracted from the forest. Even in that case, there are effects (some positive, some negative) on that specific part and time of the forest. One way of overcoming this ‘exclusive uses approach’ is to think at a different level, for example landscape level. Thinking of this way, it is possible to have in the same landscape parts that are dedicated to production and conservation.

As an example, parts of the forest may be managed for production, leaving streamside reserves and wildlife habitat strips that will allow fauna and flora to recolonise previously harvested areas. Additional restrictions (visual impact, threatened species, etc.) can be imposed over this conservation and production mosaic, extending or reducing each type of area. Different parts of the landscape will be production and conservation areas at different times. Other areas can be restricted to always be either production or conservation areas, depending on the qualities of each site.

Land management involves balancing protection of the ecosystems under management — guaranteeing that future users will have a range of management options — with production to satisfy current population needs. Australia, as most countries, has an increasing demand for wood derived products used in housing, paper, fuel, etc. We are in a position where we must (and we can) find the right balance for conservation and production.

PS. 2004-11-15. I discuss false dilemmas from the other side.