Write a case study on a policy issue that is pertinent to your general topic (Forestry Policy related to sustainability in Pakistan). Deforestation of an area in Pakistan can be the case study. Analyz
DEFORESTATION 10
Deforestation in Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Introduction
Pakistan is a nation with various topographies. From valleys to mountains to cold deserts to deserts to plains, Pakistan is not a very forested country, although forests are very rampant in hilly/valley areas along the northern frontier of the country. Gilgit-Baltistan is a part of exciting northeastern Pakistan. It is home to four mountain ranges namely; the Pamir, Hindu Kush, Karakoram, and the Himalayas. Since it is a mountainous area, Gilgit-Baltistan is the primary source of forestry in Pakistan. Pakistan’s level of forestry falls in the group with the lowest amounts of forestry from 0-9% (Faiza et al., 2017). The level of deforestation is 0.6% annually, which is not a vast percentage at its surface; however, because Pakistan has such little fast coverage in the first place, even a small decrease is something to take action against. In Pakistan, 53% of the fuel used annually is from wood. Consequently, the uncertainty that occurs in Gilgit-Baltistan has the potential to affect the rest of Pakistan. Gilgit-Baltistan is occupied by many different traditions that each have their unique language and sometimes, culture.
Gilgit-Baltistan borders Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir. Jammu and Kashmir which is an area that is undecided between Pakistan and India, and thus, Gilgit-Baltistan’s nearness to the area means that instability is even further undesirable. The disputed Kashmir is also where many of Pakistan’s river basins start from, so if climatic changes would influence these basins, Pakistan’s water situation would be very considerably negatively affected (Qamer et al., 2016). Thus, analyzing and making necessary policies the deforestation in Gilgit-Baltistan is of utmost importance to sustain stability and growth in this country.
Although no economic paybacks were caring for the forests to humans, according to biocentric ethic, they should not be endangered. Biocentric ethics include the ecological conservational ethics that comprise the moral object status from humans to other living things in the environment (Wienhues, 2017). The anthropocentrism sets the policies aimed at conserving the forests. Anthropocentrism is the concept of humans making themselves to be different from, dominant over and superior to the other natural things across the globe, observing non-human species as resources whose main value is simply instrumental and thus conditional. Even though some people accept the biological connectedness with their nature, they as well conserve the forest for their interests. Biocentrism suggests that forests have an inherent value that offers it with merit for protection, the nonetheless distinct instrumental value that people assign to it. The basic argument of biocentrism is that caring for the environment should be done for its own sake and not just as a means to an end for humans (Wienhues, 2017). Some people view biocentrism as simply anti-human, but in my perspective, it is just honoring nature and other creatures. This paper, therefore, attempts to tackle the moral principles influencing forest policies against deforestation in Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan.
Moral commitments and Conflicts During Policy Formulations
When non-human species and humans have opposing interests, the present anthropocentric view has been used as a moral excuse to sacrifice the life of non-human species to serve the needs of humans, even for simple reasons. Regrettably, this has resulted in humans leading to mass killing extermination of species. Under biocentric ethics, non-human species would be taken similar to humans. Humans would always try to come up with alternative solutions to their needs and problems. The Utilitarianism theory is used by philosophers and other people in the community to determine if an action is wrong or right. To understand whether an action is right or wrong, utilitarianism focuses on the outcome of the actions (Anifowose & Ashiru, 2018). An action is right only if it produces the maximum happiness for the greatest number of people. When this approach is used to the issues of deforestation, certainly, the issue is not ethical. This is mainly because of deforestation affects the extreme number of individuals adversely. Indeed, humans need, food, water, lumber as well as medicines sourced from nature, but they also need other services offered by forests such as nutrient cycling, water filtration, and climate moderation. Many believe utilitarianism does not solely consider the benefits to humanity. It also considers the long-term survival of other living things in the community (Anifowose & Ashiru, 2018). However, the intent of early utilitarian thinkers was not to protect the global community for its own sake, but the benefit of humans.
Ethics seems different when used to protect forests for their own good instead of human good. The utilitarian approach may go so far as to demand respect for non-human community members but only since they are beneficial to human society. For the most part, one portion of the system cannot flourish alone, just as most ecosystems will not thrive when they do not have an integral part.
Unfortunately, humans do not benefit from this all-inclusive conservation of their environment, and people inspired only by material gains seldom support this approach of conservational ethics. As the above-mentioned, caring nature is justified by intrinsic value arguments. These, in most cases, use the appealing value of unhurt natural spaces or the essential value of the existence of a triflingly disturbing nature. This can easily be changed into a utilitarian argument through the ecotourism segment, which offers large income to many undeveloped and developing nations around the globe (Faiza et al., 2017). In these poor places, ecosystem preservation as a whole and not just its parts attracts visitors and is greatly beneficial for people with little to no means of income apart from subsistence farming. However, recognizing the value of ecosystems is respecting the rights to reproduction and life of all living organisms.
Conflict (Environmental Conservations Versus Life Impoverishment Dilemma
The main ethical and moral challenge and dilemma that faces the forest policy drafters in Pakistan is between the environmental conservation and impoverishing life of Pakistanis. It is not easy to think of deforestation as a moral and ethical issue for the people in Gilgit-Baltistan with higher standards of living. The high social class people in the country have a constant source of food, clean water, and shelter and this may easily lure them to believe that everybody in the region is similar to them. These people may forget there are those people who belong to low standards of living and rely on deforestation (clearing forests) activities for survival (Qamer et al., 2016). This dilemma raises a conflict between the forest policymakers between whether the policy should favor the poor who survive by clearing the forests or the high-class standards of living people who are angered by deforestation. It is thus a big moral challenge which has affected the policies made in Pakistan concerning the attempts to prevent deforestation because of the conflict. For long the conflict question has been who to sacrifice; the health of Pakistan's environment (which is very vital) or the people who depend and survive on deforestation.
Most of the reasons are generally the only means of impoverishing some families' financial aid in the region. On the other hand, there are dire consequences of clearing the region’s forests too devastating for ignorance even at the cost t of the lives of the citizens. Clearing the forests means reductions or loss of habitats of millions, causes climatic changes and upsurges the level or amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The continuous depletion of forests at the current rate, will undoubtfully in Pakistan and her neighbors’ environment forever (Ahmad et al., 2018). Deforestation can lead to drought and famine in society due to lack of sufficient forest coverage which eventually is a way of social unrest. Even if the society is ready for such occurrences, one cannot deny that deforestation in Gilgit-Baltistan and Pakistan as a whole is gradually killing the environment which translates to killing the population.
On the other hand, it is a moral unthinkable issue, which is difficult to justify not standing with human beings who must clear trees for their survival and shelter. The policymakers find it difficult to value their lives more than the people who live off the land, by sacrificing their well being for their objectives. Consequently, the politicians in Gilgit-Baltistan fear any legislative enactment that may brand them as killers for ignoring the livelihood of many people in the region (Faiza et al., 2017). These, therefore, justifies the argument that deforestation will continue to be a disturbing matter in Gilgit-Baltistan until the society shall come up with a balanced solution, which takes care of the environment and the needs of the people how to live on forest clearing.
Personal Position
I think clearing forests is an issue that should be addressed because trees provide us with required oxygen and also, it's the natural habitat for wild animals. However, I believe that the forest clearers would be provided with an alternative source of income, the policies would largely succeed. To some degree, I think of deforestation in Gilgit-Baltistan to be a good practice. Many people may fail to understand that trees degrade when they grow older. Aged trees towards or during the last decade begin to release gases such as carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as they decay.
Besides, some of the points presented in this paper provide an apathetic look at the conflicts. I believe that deforestation should not be allowed at run at a fast rate, though it should be kept in check since it’s a source of job and income for families. It is also a source of land for others. Instead of completely banning the cutting down of trees in Gilgit-Baltistan, I would propose allowing it to the point at which it won’t endanger the lives of the wild animals. The government should on the other hand increase the initiatives and campaigns for planting more trees to replace the ones cleared. I would advocate for deforestation because its advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
Conclusion
Gilgit-Baltistan is an area of Pakistan that is oft-neglected and put aside as another rural area; however, the value of Gilgit-Baltistan is underappreciated in a way that can be detrimental to Pakistani society as a whole, intrinsic effect. Being the point of four mighty ranges, Gilgit-Baltistan is an area that houses rivers, basins, plateaus, and glaciers that all provide sustenance and resources to the rest of Pakistan. Deforestation in this area is vital to the integrity of Pakistan because as a country that falls into the lowest category of forested land, Pakistan's limited forests must be protected. Local and national usage of timber and wood as fuel are reasons that deforestation is increasing, so provincial and federal governments must understand the reality of local and population needs. Furthermore, the geopolitical stance of Gilgit-Baltistan is an issue that should be rectified by the Pakistani government and given the utmost priority. In addition to political representation, civilians and provincial governments must create initiatives that will help sustain the future of the government. Because Pakistan has experience in deforestation mitigation, as seen in KPK , the country can apply these initiatives to Gilgit-Baltistan, but it is rather a want to do so.
Nevertheless, the rights of forests and nature discoursed above, conservation needs as well as deforestation tragedy, the demand of human beings cannot be tossed aside. A lot of people in Pakistan live in abject poverty and may experience starvation. Frequently these people depend on forest resources to survive. Most viewpoints in the ecological field do not provide rules for such issues and where priorities should lie in the event of conflicting needs. Indeed, the need for families surpasses those of rare species, and the duty to protect our community cannot be equated with that of caring for the forests. However, the people who depend on forests for survival can be assisted through the development and beginning of industries to substitute their dependence on natural places and forests. As seen in the paper, conserving the forests is important to both the current and the future generations. Thus, the government can intercede and move the people out of poverty and place them into socially and economically sound areas where preservation of forests and other natural surroundings is possible.
References
Ahmad, A., Liu, Q. J., Nizami, S. M., Mannan, A., & Saeed, S. (2018). Carbon emission from deforestation, forest degradation, and wood harvest in the temperate region of Hindukush Himalaya, Pakistan between 1994 and 2016. Land use policy, 78, 781-790.
Anifowose, O. A., & Ashiru, T. O. (2018). CHALLENGES OF DEFORESTATION IN NIGERIA: AN ETHICAL PERSPECTIVE. Nnamdi Azikiwe Journal of Philosophy, 11(1).
Faiza, N., Weiguo, J., Aijun, Y., & Wenxing, S. (2017). Giant deforestation leads to drastic eco-environmental devastating effects since 2000; a case study of Pakistan. J Anim Plant Sci, 27(4), 1366-1376.
Qamer, F. M., Shehzad, K., Abbas, S., Murthy, M. S. R., Xi, C., Gilani, H., & Bajracharya, B. (2016). Mapping deforestation and forest degradation patterns in western Himalaya, Pakistan. Remote Sensing, 8(5), 385.
Wienhues, A. (2017). Sharing the Earth: A biocentric account of ecological justice. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 30(3), 367-385.
