Trees and Rain

Is deforestation increasing flooding events around the globe?

An article in the Buenos Aires Herald sparked my interest in writing this post. I have touched upon the effect deforestation has had on flooding, very briefly, in my previous blog post and I have decided to dedicate an entire post to quite a topical area of interest. The floods that have struck South America (Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil) occurred as a result of heavy rain brought on by an El Nino event. Interestingly, the countries that were most effected by this rainfall were the countries that had experienced the greatest amount of deforestation in recent years due to increased demand for Soya.

Citizens in Cobija (Bolivia) wade through flood waters that have destroyed their homes (Al Jazeera)

How does deforestation cause/influence flooding?

The relationship between trees and flood events is one that appears to be very simple in that trees reduce the impact of flood events but in reality it is much more complicated. In simple terms trees reduce runoff to a river in several ways:

• Intercept rainwater by capturing it in leaves
• Evaporation/transpiration
• Leaves reduce raindrop impact meaning there is less soil erosion. 
• Tree roots absorb water droplets from the soil.
• Tree roots hold the soil together reducing sediment movement and preventing landslides. 

With floods the most common natural disaster in tropical areas, most of the academic research has been focused on South East Asia and the Amazon. Tan-Soo et al. (2014) who explored flooding in Malaysia came to the same conclusion as the article in the Buenos Aires Herald. They concluded that the conversion of tropical forests to oil palm plantations increased the number of days flooding occurred, but only during the wettest months of the year. A similar study found the same to be occurring in Amazonian Peru where the height of annual flood waters had increased over the last decade in correlation with deforestation (Gentry and Lopez-Parodi 1980). However, there has been criticisms of this study (Nordin et al. 1982) because it drew conclusions that were not supported in the evidence/data. It assumed river stage correlated directly with river discharge which as Nordin et al. stated was not always the case. Furthermore, Gentry and Lopez-Parodi dismissed an increase in flood heights due to precipitation despite analyzing the years with unusually high precipitation. 

Clark (1987) is critical of research studies into land use change (mainly that of converting deforestation into farmland) suggesting that these studies are limited because they only ever focus on 1 or 2 catchments and that this is not representative of all catchments. This is indeed true, the two studies discussed already only focused on 1 catchment in a tropical region. Clark does make an interesting point that  the knowledge that trees can reduce flooding has been around for centuries - in 14th century Italy it was suggested that afforestation in upland areas could combat flooding - so why are we continually clearing forests and making the same mistakes?

Lets throw in some statistics - a 10% decrease in forest cover increased flood frequency between 4-28% and increased flood duration by 4-8% (Bradshaw et al. 2007). 

It is widely agreed that on a local scale trees mitigate medium scale flood events but on a large scale flood event this is not the case  (Tan-Soo et al. 2014; The Economist 2005). The Economist offers a very different take on flooding compared to the previous articles and blames economics as the cause of flooding rather than widespread forest clearing in South East Asia. Towns and cities are situated on hazardous areas such as flood plains because of the significant economic benefits of situated near a river or the coast - transportation, trade, sanitation, food source, employment etc. Despite looking at the cause of flooding in economic terms, the article says measuring flooding in economic loss rather than geographical extent of the water gives the impression that the floods are more severe than they actually are. 

It is a really interesting article and a great read - it can he found here

Deforestation on a floodplain (source)

Flooding within a river basin is influenced by other factors such as hydrology, as well as deforestation, but the focus of this post has been to explore flooding as a result of deforestation. It is a controversial topic with which different people have different opinions. It has further helped understand the overarching question of this blog - is deforestation a necessary evil? - by exploring some very negative impacts of deforestation. Flooding demonstrates how deforestation erodes human life and the economies of developing nations and illustrates the need for greater forest protection policies in areas that are already prone to flooding. 

We're all in this Together - Deforestation and Politics

In my post about afforestation I mentioned that a post about deforestation and policy was inevitable. This is that post! I want to start out by explaining (that as I'm sure you all know) politics is complicated, driven by agenda and never clear cut. It is therefore difficult to link it to the overarching question of is deforestation a necessary evil? Instead I want to pose and potentially answer questions surrounding:

• Are governments to blame for illegal logging and uncontrolled deforestation?
• Can more be done to combat deforestation?

In this blog post I will focus my attention once again on the country of Brazil and examine the influence of politics on deforestation. 

"I used to worry that all the trees in the jungle would be cut down to make paper for their reports on how to save the rainforest" - Nick Birch (1993)

A Brief History of Politics in Brazil

In a pre-colonial setting of spears and campfires, and indeed during colonization, the people living within the verdant countryside of Amazonia valued the forests and appreciated their beauty. Wood was harvested but wisely and used for core practices such as shelter and fire.

Following independence the Brazilian government gave away large portions of land to small-scale farmers as long as they used it "productively" (Chaurahha 2013). This meant tax holidays and government incentives led to deforestation and the expansion of cattle ranches. The money used from the government was put into deforesting more trees rather than the careful management of the land ranch owners had acquired. 

Deforestation peaked in the 1980s when it became clear that the forest was only marketable once the trees had been removed. As Moran (1994) interestingly notes the price of beef did not decline in Brazil despite an expansion of cattle ranches because the money from selling off the land was more profitable for small-scale farmers than the actual cattle rearing. 

By 1988 the first environmental impact assessments were undertaken and under Article 26 of the 1988 Brazilian Constitution, the destruction of the Amazon and Atlantic forests were a crime. As both Chaurahha and Moran note, the law was rarely enforced. 

Furthermore the construction of the Trans-Amazon Highway (no longer functioning) opened up previously inaccessible portions of the jungle to small-scale farmers and logging companies (Butler Rhett 2012). I have already discussed how the development of infrastructure causes deforestation in "The Future of our Trees". Deforestation moved from the periphery of the Amazon to its core. 

Journey to the Center of the Amazon - the Trans-Amazon Highway built in 1972 (source)

Following a move from a dictatorship to democracy and international pressure Brazil adopted the REDD initiative with which it receives $21 billion to maintain the Amazon jungle. However, this transition to a more democratic government did little for the environment when in 2008 Marina Silva (the then environment minister) resigned due to pressure from powers of economic interest when she argued against the exploitation of the Amazon (NY Times 2008) 

Discussion

The two historical accounts by Moran and the blogger "Chaurahha" combined provide a definitive and complementary account of government led initiatives that accelerated deforestation within the 1970s and 1980s before more environmental policies were adopted. The environment and the political are entwined particularly in the Amazon which receives a significant amount of media attention (Hurrell 1991). I think it is ultimately international pressure and public opinion that drives the Brazilian government to combat deforestation after decades of almost promoting it. Furthermore, keeping the rainforest has become profitable for the government under the REDD+ initiative which means the government receives money for maintaining the rainforest (Hecht 2012)  - see COP21 post for more details on REDD+. I would agree with Hecht that providing an incentive for maintaining valuable rainforests is key to low income countries understanding the value of the landscape. Supportive of this is Peter Dauvergne's (1994) work into politics and deforestation in Indonesia showed that the government saw the trees as a waste of space on potentially profitable land but once their eyes were opened to the value of keeping the trees attitudes towards palm oil production and logging changed. 

The fate of the environment in Brazil (and other countries) comes down to a complex, ever changing and impossible to understand politics (Hecht 2012). It comes down to money pure and simple so the profit of keeping trees must outweigh the profit of cutting them down in rainforests are to be maintained. In a bottom-up approach to analyzing politics through the perspective of environmental groups, Lemos and Roberts (2008) found that the success of the environmental group (with international connections and resources) was always outweighed by developmentalist interests - a process of money making and urban expansion. Furthermore, in a country where millions of people live in favelas why would the government care about the environment when there is humanitarian work to be undertaken?

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. 

Nature's Revenge: Deforestation and the Collapse of Society

It was a rainy afternoon in Starbucks when I searched "deforestation" on Google Scholar and the results were endless. One article by Oglesby and others, whilst not immediately relevant to the content of my blog, posed some burning questions.
In summary, "Collapse of Maya: Could deforestation have contributed?", suggested that the deforestation of trees in the Peten Region of northern Guatemala contributed heavily to the collapse of society in the 9th century. It is an incredibly useful article in understanding the ways in which early societies over-exploited resources at their disposal and the potential outcomes of our current society if they continue to over-exploit the natural world.

Old Relics - Ruins of Maya Society in Guatemala today (fineartamerica)

The science behind the history
Pollen records of the region show that most of the forest had been cut down and in less than a century the population declined by 80%. Deforestation leads to a reduced amount of evapotranspiration from the  land surface causing warming and a high pressure system to develop in the atmosphere. The warmer surface heats the air mass above causing it to rise which leads to a reduction in precipitation and drought (Oglesby et al. 2010)

The collapse of modern society
How resilient is current society to large scale droughts? Could excessive deforestation eventually change climate so much that it is impossible for society to function?

The results of this study can be used for present and future climate and water modelling in Central America as ongoing deforestation is such a problem. However, in an increasingly globalized world it seems unlikely that the whole of society would collapse due to deforestation. Furthermore, politics and international treaties would inevitably prevent such a catastrophe from happening.

Criticisms
This article was an incredibly enjoyable article to read and fascinating however, it is limited to some extent. Whilst it doesn't acknowledge this, it does mention other "theories" that could explain the collapse of the Maya in Peten. In other words, deforestation was not the only factor contributing to their rapid demise but disease, natural disasters, warfare and politics could have all played equally big roles.

Most academics agree that it is a combination of ecological and social factors. The factor that is often given the greatest emphasis (in this case deforestation) is often seen to be the most important because it is a topic in the authors' field of discipline. Historians might be warfare or politics as of considerable importance whilst geographers would argue deforestation or hurricanes were important.


When I started this blog I had a very unclear mind of what the content would be. Semantics of logging, carbon footprints and a decline in ecology were going through my mind. However, this article has demonstrated the importance of often looking to the past for information about current human practices.

Global Deforestation Trends

The first post on this blog will probably be the most cringe-worthy but its purpose is simple - to set the scene for future blog posts.


Deforestation is defined as the clearing of forest into cleared land. It is a heavily discussed topic since it is embroiled in the global carbon cycle and hence global climate change. This blog will not offer descriptions of global processes but facts, opinions and up-to-date academic research into the various issues surrounding global environmental change.

It is estimated that 11.5 million hectares of forest, an area the size of Portugal, is removed through cutting or burning and questions arise from this:

• Is deforestation always bad? Perhaps it is a necessary evil?
• What are the consequences of current deforestation patterns?
• Is reforestation an option for this generation?
• How have past patterns of deforestation influenced global environmental change?
• What about the plants and animals?

A blog about controversies summaries logging debates nicely, although it lacks scientific depth. It can be found here.

The removal of ancient trees that have stood for longer than some human civilizations appears to be wrong. How could humans destroy a carefully constructed piece of nature in just minutes?  The truth is that deforestation is not a pointless evil. It has a purpose and it is to supply wood to the planet's burgeoning population and to create space for the rapidly urbanizing metropolises of the 21st century. If we want to stop deforestation surely we should look at the uncontrollable population booms in the developing world and the unplanned expansion of our mega-cities.

Logging in Brazil (National Geographic)

Deforestation and Climate Change

The main debate and smaller arguments surrounding deforestation have now been put forward and these shall be discussed in future blog posts. The link between deforestation and climate change is relatively simple.
Plants and trees remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. If trees are cut down then less carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere and therefore the planet gets warmer. Furthermore, the burning of sections of forest releases stored carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, accounting for the second largest contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere, after fossil fuel combustion (Van de Werf et al. 2009).


This blog will also examine the future of deforestation? Can it be stopped? Is there an alternative?