Tree's a Crowd: Conflicting Opinions on Deforestation

One of the crucial issues surrounding deforestation (and indeed other environmental issues) is the conflicting opinions of different 'stakeholders'. In this blog post I plan to look at the views of different stakeholders before examining a case study in Madagascar and concluding whether deforestation is worth the costs in this location. It fits in with the running theme of is deforestation a necessary evil?

A summary of public opinions on deforestation can be found at Debate which has found that 81% of people think we should stop deforestation.

The Stakeholders

• Conservationists - the ecosystems of the rainforest are unique, precious and could hold the solutions to current and future diseases. Deforestation causes irreversible damage to the face of the planet. They would argue that deforestation should not occur under any circumstances. However, wood is a vital for building and as fuel (it has been for thousands of years) so we could never not stop deforestation. Furthermore, can someone really claim to be a "conservationist" when the very fabric of everyday life is created through environmental destruction (whether deforestation, fossil fuel combustion, pollution)?
• Rural Individual - they have grown up surrounded by the forest. It is part of their livelihoods and culture. They value and understand the rainforest but still require wood for fuel and shelter. Is their chopping down of trees more justified than large scale deforestation? 
• Sustainable Logging Company - deforestation on a large scale. However,  they fell tall trees to allow smaller trees to grow or removes non-native tree species. This has beneficial effects on the rainforest. This has shown to be very effective with companies such as Georgia-Pacific and Stimson Lumber . On the other hand it is incredibly costly and inefficient. Often these companies only have a few sustainable projects in certain locations.  
• Soy Bean Farmer - increased demand means more produce is needed and therefore more money is available. The rainforest is just a "waste" and the believe it should be chopped to allow expansion of farming. It is driven by profit. However, the world's population is predicted to reach 9.22 billion by 2075 (UN)so we are going to have to find space to meet the future demand for food. 

Work to be done - large scale logging companies in Borneo (source)

A summary of arguments for and against deforestation can be found at this interesting blog which discusses controversies. Just discussing a small selection of stakeholders (when in reality there are numerous more) shows the conflicting questions and issues that surround this topic. It is awful to think of the destruction of the natural world but do we really have a choice? Its a choice between tackling population growth with controversial anti-natal policy or sacrificing large portions of the natural world to feed the planet. 

Case Study: Madagascar

Is deforestation justified in this location?

Farmers walk through part of a forest destroyed through slash-and-burn in rural Madagascar (source)

Madagascar is an island nation of the East Coast of Africa known for its diverse and unique wildlife. It has been estimated that between 80-90% of forest has been lost since the arrival of humans several thousand years ago (McConnell and Kull 2014) with 50% of forest lost by 1950 (Alnutt et al. 2008). There is an expanse of academic literature into deforestation within Madagascar (Agarwal et al. 2005; Brinkmann et al. 2014; Brooks et al. 2009).  Deforestation is such a problem in Madagascar because of increases in illegal logging driven by extreme poverty and corrupt local governments. It is easy money for poor local people and a lack of monitoring and bribery means people are rarely caught or get away with it. Conservation is therefore difficult because of complex politics which involve different stakeholders with different values (Scales 2012). An interesting concept put forward by Scales in his research into deforestation in Western Madagascar is whether indigenous/local people in Madagascar value the environment more than Western society. It is often assumed that because they have more "traditional" livelihoods that they appreciate and understand the environment and how precious it is. However, in Western Madagascar this is not the case with most local people exploiting the rainforest for private gain - but is this because they have no other choice? 

Scales (2012) and Kull (2000) both reflect upon how population growth and poverty are exemplified as the causes of deforestation in Madagascar within conservation discourse. However, from reading these articles there is no interconnection between conservation practice and community development - surely the best way to stop deforestation is to remove poverty and provide an income for local people? Conservationists and people concerned with development should work together rather than in isolation. 

Madagascar is different from the Amazon and Borneo in that illegal logging occurs on a smaller scale, undertaken by local people for a small source of income. In my opinion, it is entirely justified that poor individuals try to create an income for their family (even at the expense of the environment). It is bad practice by NGOs to try and conserve the environment prior to solving the causes of environmental degradation - trying to reduce poverty would solve more problems than putting a wire fence around a forest. It is important to continue to monitor and educate local people about deforestation so they understand the consequences that their actions are having. I am not suggesting that conservation is not important but rather that it should be incorporated into other development practices. 

Will Madagascar's forests be lost forever? (source)

This blog post has explored the complex issues surrounding different opinions of stakeholders within deforestation. It has partially answered whether deforestation is justified through the use of Madagascar as a case study. You can see why a poor individual in Madagascar (or any other part of the world) would resort to logging to feed their families and I don't think the use of a discourse to brand them "evil" is right. We should be helping. 

I think from writing this blog I have discovered how entwined humans (in terms of development) and the natural world is. 

Man and Tree: The relationship between deforestation and humans in Africa

Modern humans have occupied the continent of Africa for over 200,000 years and their relationship with nature is quite interesting. In this blog post I will talk about the relationship between deforestation and humans in Africa and also explain the current trends in deforestation.

Humans are deeply implicated in deforestation in Africa (source)

There is a long history of human interactions with the forests of Africa and despite a reliance on wood for fuel there are generally low rates of deforestation. Two articles by Malhi et al. (2013) and Rudel (2013) act as the basis for this blog post. Both academic papers document deforestation in Africa extensively and thoroughly whilst also successfully comparing it to other deforestation prone areas of the world such as Latin America and Borneo.

Malhi et al. talk about how 1900 years BP there as a population collapse following centuries of deforestation and burning (similar to what happened to the Maya?). As a result the forest regrew and recovered in a matter of centuries. This is incredibly interesting because we do not see this kind of recovery in other parts of the world (as noted by the authors). This pattern of deforestation and regrowth occurs throughout different periods of of Africa's history and reflects how humans and nature are entwined.

A more modern history of deforestation has been documented in Rudel's study which examined rates of deforestation between 2000 and 2005 (a quite short period). However, the author notes that studies into deforestation prior to 2000 are unreliable because measures of forest losses were different between countries.

Is urbanization the hero of deforestation in Africa?
One would not think of the unstoppable force of urbanization as a hero for environmentalists but in Africa it seems to be the case. Rates of deforestation in sub-Saharan African are lower than anywhere else in the tropics and it is because deforestation is caused by expanding rural populations. However, when work and a better quality of life pull people to the city, rural communities are declining rather than expanding and thus rates of deforestation are decreasing.

Projections of Africa's Urban Population (World Bank)

Deforestation is concentrated to peri-urban areas, transportation axes and rivers. In the poorest sub-Saharan African countries an absence of state led infrastructure compared to other countries might explain the persistently lower rates of deforestation. Although there is no data to support this conclusion.
In countries such as Nigeria "dutch disease" occurs where a booming commodity such as oil pushes farmers out of business due to reduced market share and high wages. As a result farmers move from agricultural livelihoods to the city or into the oil sector and with less agriculture comes less deforestation. A booming extraction sector would discourage expansion into forests.

From agriculture to oil - there is more money in working for the oil companies (source)

These two articles offer interesting and complementary pieces of research into deforestation in Africa. Both provide succinct summaries of deforestation in Africa (mostly focusing on sub-Saharan Africa) with several potential reasons to explain lower rates of deforestation.
This post also follows on nicely from last weeks post about a decline in deforestation worldwide and the articles offer some interesting statistics:

• Rates of deforestation in Africa = 0.049%
• Rates of deforestation in Latin America = 0.25%