Is deforestation a necessary evil? Twitter Poll Results

The results are in!

Is deforestation a necessary evil?

• Yes - 0%
• No, Never - 25%
• Sometimes - 63%
• Not Sure - 12%

The majority of the people that voted in this survey appear to see deforestation as a necessary evil to some extent/it sometimes is (depending on the context). 

The blog poll (on the top left) is still open and you can cast your votes.

Is deforestation a necessary evil? Part 2

Back in 2010, there was a huge amount of hype surrounding the finale of the TV series Lost and I would like to think this final post offers a similar amount of suspense in drawing together all the loose ends, questions and arguments formed throughout the past three months in order to answer the important question - is deforestation a necessary evil?
In the second part of this post I will be exploring why we should be stopping deforestation/why are the trees important? and whether we can achieve such as thing  as "sustainable deforestation"? Once again, I will be drawing upon past blogs as well as new academic literature.

I would love to hear your opinion - you can comment on the post or vote in the POLL at the top left of the blog.

Why We Should Stop Deforestation?
From the dark Gothic forests rolling across Siberia to the Kapok trees with their mighty buttresses in Amazonia, trees provide an irreplaceable beauty  that is destroyed by deforestation. No academic study can quantify (or qualify) the uniqueness and brilliance of the natural world held within the planet's forests.
With 70% of the world's land species living in forest biomes, deforestation is an ecological threat. Many of the world's endangered species are threatened with habitat loss due to deforestation:

• The Javan Rhino has been reduced to 60 left in the wild because of the conversion of natural forest to farmland (Fernando et al. 2006).
• Bornean Orangutan is critically endangered due to habitat destruction caused by illegal logging (Curran et al. 2004).
• Golden Lion Tamarin is endemic to the Amazon jungle but is endangered due to agriculture and logging (Keirulff and Rylunds 2003).

Hear Me Roar! A Golden Lion Tamarin with her offspring in the Amazon (Rainforest Alliance)

Furthermore, as I have mentioned already the natural and the anthropogenic world are consistently interlinked and the destruction of forests would have more than an environmental/ecologically impact but also a human one. Plants and animals provide food, medicine and fuel for indigenous communities and less developed nations around the world and removing this vital resource would limit economic growth (Butler 2012). However, as I pointed out with the case study of Madagascar sometimes local communities exploit the rainforest as much as the developed world to the extent that they see the forest as a source of income rather than a resource to be appreciated. 25% of global medicines are derived from plants found in the world's forests (Kirkman 2014). What would happen if these were no longer available? What about medicines for diseases we have yet to discover?

From a purely ecological/environmental perspective deforestation is dark and evil like the ace of spades. It degrades the environment irreversibly and results in the extinction of priceless plants and animals. However, Part 1 showed that deforestation is crucial for human survival so can we reach a compromise?

Can We Achieve "Sustainable Deforestation"?

David Horsey's "Environment and Climate" cartoons sum up environmental politics nicely (source)

The world watched the COP21 in eager anticipation to see what world leaders would do to tackle global environmental change. There was a pleasing emphasis on deforestation with many countries such as Brazil pledging to reduce net deforestation to 0 under the REDD+ initiative and 42 companies pledging to be sustainable with regards to deforestation.
However, there are real questions about whether this can be achieved or are we heading for a "tree apocalypse"?
I have talked extensively about corruption and problems with political motivation in Brazil and Indonesia but it also goes down to a smaller bureaucratic level. Particularly in developing countries, departments concerned with forestry, agriculture, water, town planning and land use fail to interact ad often work in isolation with a detrimental effect on the environment as each pursues their own aims. Bawar and Siedler (2015) found this to be the case in the Eastern Himalayas where forest conservationist, land-use departments and small-holder farmers failed to interact to address problems associated with deforestation. What about developed nations? How do we manage the bureaucracy and political motivations there? However, education is key in many respects, as illustrated in the Madagascar case study (Dauvergne 1994). Showing local people, as well as governments, the value in preserving forests and the detrimental effects that will happen if deforestation continues  is effective if you show how their actions will adversity effect their lives, and the lives of their children.
Furthermore, a focus on development goals, infrastructural improvements and improving quality of life within countries such as Brazil or Indonesia has put environmental issues on the sideline, in the case of Brazil increased them (Ferraira et al.2014). This paper in Science noted how Brazil's natural resource extraction had increased due to development/urbanization and their growing economy.
We can never fully replace the trees that we have already chopped down, but afforestation and reforestation (discussed on this blog post quite extensively) offers a way to partially restore habitats as well as continue to provide a carbon sink and mitigate against climate change. However, a solution such as this would only be effective if all countries where to monitor deforestation (something that is arguably hard to do) and plant trees to replace the ones that had been felled.

A Conclusion
So that I don't loose track of my conclusions I am going to display them as concise points:

• Whether we like it or not, humans require natural resources (such as wood) to grow and survive and maintain a quality of life that we take for granted. 
• Indigenous people have a right to fell trees and make a living off the land in which they live but at the same time should be educated on the negative impacts deforestation will have on their community and the world. 
• We must learn from the mistakes of past societies (e.g. the Maya) so that we don't repeat them. Although our considerable technological advancements would mean total societal collapse due to deforestation is unlikely. 
• Illegal logging and deforestation is very wrong and tougher penalties should be enforced on those that do not abide by the law. 
• As individuals we can purchase environmentally sustainable products so as not to fuel illegal or unsustainable forestry practices. 
• Deforestation practices need to be altered in order to meet a growing population or population policies must be implemented in order to ensure we have an adequate amount of natural resources. 
• Deforestation can be managed and mitigated in a way that saves endangered species and precious habitats but also provides humans with a source of wood. 
• Deforestation is not a necessary evil but wood is a necessity that humans require. Deforestation is a means by which we get this necessity. However, it can be undertaken in a more environmentally friendly way. We can manage and not waste the natural resources we have at our disposal (e.g. slash and burn methods are extremely wasteful or plant fast growing trees that we can then cut down). 

Deforestation is a complicated topic that has been explored within this blog. It is implicated within sensitive issues (e.g. population) and complicated ones (e.g. politics) but it is a very real environmental problem that needs addressing. I will also post the results of the Twitter Poll ("Is deforestation a necessary evil?") once it has closed in 17 hours time. The poll on the side of this blog is open until noon on the 13th January so keep voting!

Thanks to everyone who has commented and read this blog over the past few months. I hope you have enjoyed reading it as much as I have enjoyed writing and investigating deforestation. 

A cattle ranch in Mato Grosso, Brazil - was it really worth cutting down all those trees? (WSJ)

Is deforestation a necessary evil? Part 1

Welcome to the last post within this blog (although it has been split into two parts because it is of considerable length). Way back in the realms of early October this blog set out an assortment of slightly related aims: explore the consequences of deforestation; examine whether the effects of deforestation are always bad; explore solutions; look at past patterns of deforestation and examine how complicated the discourse on deforestation is. They have all been examined in one blog post or more and now it is time to draw conclusions and thought from what this blog has researched. The overarching question of this blog, and the title of this post - is deforestation a necessary evil? - shall be finally answered.
This blog post will examine four key areas of interest that have been discussed throughout the blog:

1. The relationship between global environmental change and deforestation. 
2. The relationship between humans and deforestation.
3. Why deforestation is a bad process.
4. Sustainable Deforestation and Is a tree apocalypse inevitable?

Drawing upon references and ideas discussed in other blog posts will bring in an element of repetition but it is ultimately a post to explore my personal opinions towards the topics being discussed, in conjunction with academic research. 

The Relationship between Global Environmental Change and Deforestation

Trees, and vegetation generally, are an integral part of the Earth system involved in various cycles including the hydrological cycle, carbon cycle, nitrogen cycle and countless ecological cycles/systems. 

The importance of trees in the global nitrogen cycle (source)

In terms of carbon, trees act as a major carbon sink taking up carbon dioxide during the process of photosynthesis (Malhi et al. 2008). 150-200 Pg of carbon is stored in the Amazon within biomass and soils (Brienen et al. 2015). This study demonstrated the importance of trees as well as other vegetation and biomass that stores carbon and questioned the future of carbon sinks within the Amazon. 

Deforestation removes this store of carbon and releases it into the atmosphere. It is estimated that 1.8ppm of atmospheric carbon can from deforestation of the Amazon (Exbrayat and Williams 2015). Fueling climate change will have a positive feedback mechanism in which a warmer world causes increased drought (and wildfires) in the tropics leading to the destruction of more forests which in turn release their stored carbon (Haog 2009). 

The effect of deforestation on regional climate is also severe with increased surface temperature (due to reduced albedo) leading to a decrease in evapotranspiration and precipitation. A reduction in cloudiness and increases in insolation creates an increase in high pressure systems and frequent droughts. Furthermore, the alteration of the land surface increases wind speeds and therefore desertification and soil erosion (IPCC 2007; Malhi et al. 2008; Shukla et al. 1990). 

Trees impact on climate and vice versa and are an important factor in influencing global climate - the Amazon is the engine for global atmospheric circulation - and an alteration to this precious system would change our climate. 

The Relationship between Humans and Deforestation

Like the mighty oak, human beings have become an integral part of the Earth system (see their influence in the nitrogen cycle diagram) and have an impact on the climate and landscape more so than any other species. 

The causes of deforestation have been discussed extensively whilst the relationship between urbanization and deforestation in Africa has also been explored. 

The reality is that like oil, food and water, the human population needs trees as a source of fuel (e.g. firewood), shelter and for basic necessities (paper, furniture etc.). It has been at the core of our civilization for thousands of years and the relationship between humans and the threes is as delicate as their relationship with climate. 

I won't drone on about this in much detail with two blog posts already exploring societal collapse on Easter Island and in Mayan Central America but a brief recap won't hurt. There are numerous studies that contribute the collapse of Mayan society to deforestation (Haug et al. 2003; Ogelsby et al. 2010; Shaw 2011). The studies illustrate how important trees are in local climate - influencing drought. However, archaeological evidence and paleoenvironmental evidence is not always complementary and their are disputes as to whether deforestation alone contributed to the collapse of Mayan society (MacNeil et al. 2009). In reality it was probably a combination of socio-economic and political factors exaggerated by detrimental environmental effects such as drought that was caused by over-deforestation. 

I have already suggested that the attitude past societies (such as the Mayans and the Polynesians) had towards deforestation is much the same as our own and that there is potential for us to eventually cut down all the trees. 

A quirky diagram to illustrate MacDonald's arguement (Cool Geography)

Humans need trees (as I have mentioned already) and an article by MacDonald (2012) offers a concise synthesis of the relationship between humans and climate change. He notes that the humble tree is a hindrance to human societal expansion (in terms of space) as well as food production but that without trees mankind could not survive. Trees create an idyllic and comfortable in which human beings can frolic and grow by taking in heat during photosynthesis. He interestingly draws upon the dated works of Thomas Malthus to explore how human populations grow and survive. MacDonald further offers a controversial (yet logical) view point to combating deforestation and climate change saying it is the responsibility of world leaders to keep the world's population in decline in order to ensure a good quality of life for the current population. I think for MacDonald, the root cause of the world's problems is overpopulation (draining resources, taking up space, degrading the landscape and producing pollution). To some extent he is correct but there are definitely alternatives to controlling population and implementing anti-natalist policies. 

It is true that we need trees for survival but I think (and this will be discussed later) we can do more to manage the way in which we use trees. What I want everyone to take from this post (is not the doom and gloom population comments) but that trees are vital in the Earth System and that everything is interlinked. 

The remainder of this posts (questions 3+4) will be explored in "Part 2" but please feel free to comment and vote on the poll in the top left of the screen - it will be interesting to see what everyone thinks. 

A Concise Summary of the Causes of Mangrove Deforestation

The majority of my blog posts have focused on rainforests such as the Amazon or Borneo but this blog post will focus on mangrove forests and the inspiration (like so often) comes from a news article.

In South East Asia (the focus of the news article), but in mangrove areas more generally, they provide important ecosystem services for local communities from a source of food, a source of income and as a natural barrier against storm surges. They also hold greater concentrations of carbon dioxide compared with other ecosystems (Donato et al. 2011) and are thus a vital carbon sink. More than 35% of mangrove forests have already been cleared and understanding why this is the case is important to try and stop it from continuing (WWF).

What are the causes of mangrove deforestation?

• In South East Asia, it is an expansion of palm oil plantations stemming from a greater affluence of the population (Phys Org).
• The 1970s saw the expansion of shrimp aquaculture (fueled by foreign aid) in Latin America that ate away at the coastal mangrove swamps (Hamilton and Stankwitz 2011). However, there has been little quantification of the extent of mangrove forest destruction in these regions. Data is often incomplete (Hilares-Cota 2010)
• Agricultural expansion of rice in Myanmar to ensure food security. 
• Population and infrastructure - humans need more space and mangrove forests are often replaced with ports to meet the growing needs of towns and cities (WWF).
• Dams and irrigation systems alter the amount of river and sediment reaching mangrove swamps increasing salinity causing a decline in marine organisms and plants (WWF). In the Volta Delta, Ghana, a combination of upstream damming and forest clearance has led to the devastation of the pristine mangrove forests (Rubin et al. 1999).
• Pollution - fertilizers, human waste, industrial waste etc.
• Climate change - mangroves will not be able to keep pace with rising sea levels (Gilman et al. 2008).

All Alone? The future for mangroves looks bleak (source)

Research into mangrove deforestation is focused on two central areas (south east Asia and Latin America) and in both cases there is a lack of quantification of the extent of mangrove deforestation. However, whilst Latin America mangrove deforestation is fueled by the expansion of aquaculture in SE Asia the mangrove deforestation (and deforestation generally) is fueled by a rapidly expanding population, economies and demand for space, food and goods. The studies are complementary in their accounts of the value of mangrove forest, particularly as a carbon sink, and note the effects in relation to climate change but there is a lack of interest in the socio-economic impact that mangrove deforestation has on individual lives - this could be due to the physical/environmental perspective of the studies above rather than a human geography focus. From the research conducted by Donato et al. (2011) and the WWF it would appear that mangrove forests are regarded as vital stores of atmospheric carbon, more so than tropical rainforests, despite occupying less areal extent. Like tropical rainforests they are a crucial ecocsystem and everything should be done to try and preserve them but can they survive a rise in sea level associated with climate change? Mangrove forests might soon be a thing of the past. 

This blog post, whilst short, offered an insight into a different ecosystem that has not been discussed on this blog before. Whilst there is potential to create a completely new blog from the extensive research and news articles on the topic, this blog offers a concise summary of the causes of mangrove deforestation (which are in many ways different to other types of deforestation). However, the effects of this deforestation are fundamentally the same as any other form of deforestation. 

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. 

Case Study: A History of Deforestation in the United Kingdom

As the jingle of Santa's sleigh approaches the inspiration for this post came from the dead tree standing next to me covered in baubles and tinsel. This blog post has examined deforestation on various corners of the globe - the Amazon, Borneo, America and Africa - but is yet to explore the deforestation of trees in the UK. This is what this blog post will do - it will explore deforestation in Britain.

A History of Deforestation

Woodland Cover in England (Forestry Policy Statement)

Long ago Britain was covered in a primeval forest of mighty oaks and sharp pines that stretched from North to South. The significant clearing of trees started during the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods of our history which can be shown in the pollen records (Brown 2002).  It was initially thought that deforestation was the result of conversion of woodland to agricultural land (Edwards and Hirons 1984) - similar to what we see in Africa and the Amazon today. However, archaeological evidence is contradictory to the pollen evidence that supported this hypothesis. The decline in tree pollen ad increase in grass pollen at this time was caused by purposive deforestation - a concept that embodies a theory of planned alteration to the environment. In this case the creation of clearing within the forests for hunting.

A post online offers a brief account of when deforestation occurred for different regions around the UK with most woodland (particularly that in the South East and East Anglia) clearing during the Bronze Age or the Roman Period. An article published in Science Letter in 2003 whilst brief showed the link between flooding and climate change  but also showed the importance of land use change in flooding. Flood risk has increased over the last 4000 years since the Bronze Age because woodland has been turned into farmland. In natural river basins, trees intercept rainwater and slows the runoff process or returns the water back into the atmosphere via transpiration. When deforestation occurs, this runoff increases creating a shorter lag time and a larger peak meaning it is more likely for the river to burst its banks. This was demonstrated in 2004 in the Cornish village of Boscastle in which land use change within the basin increased runoff (although it was a combination of many factors that resulted in the flash flood).

As the graph above demonstrates that was a rapid reduction in forest cover following and during the industrial revolution and during WWI. However, forest cover increases after the 1920s following the Acland Report in 1918 and the formation of the Forestry Commission in 1935 that implemented the formation of forest parks and afforestation techniques by 1935 (Smout et al. 2007*).

 In recent years, with a greater awareness of the environment, forest cover has increased under various government and non-government initiatives. Levy and Milne (2004) provide an intriguing synthesis into recent deforestation rates. Deforestation rates must be reported under the Kyoto Protocol with 500 hectares of unlicensed deforestation in the UK in recent years (since 1990). The article makes an interesting point that variations in techniques for estimating deforestation since 1990 yield different results. The results range from 1000 hectares to 7000 hectares. The article settles on the value of 1375 hectares since 1990.

Ecology, Soil Erosion and Butterflies - do we exaggerate the consequences of deforestation?

In weighing up the question posed within this blog - is deforestation a necessary evil? - the relative consequences of deforestation must be addressed and explored. the ecological and social effects of deforestation have not been fully examined within this blog and within this post their relative importance will be explored. The environmental and climatic effects of deforestation were discussed in a previous blog post about deforestation and climate change.


Ecology and Soil - are they important?
News articles and websites are extensive in their listing of the effects of deforestation placing prominent emphasis on ecological effects - the loss of plants, birds and microorganisms. With 70% of land species living in forests (National Geographic) it is not surprise that scientists, conservationists and policy makers are concerned with the destruction of the rainforest but why do a few insects and plants matter?

The rainforest is hot and humid, difficult to reach and riddled with insects and is an environment that is difficult to survive in so why would we need it? Butler (2012) offers a similar view that the ecological effects of deforestation are exaggerated and that we should place greater emphasis on our reduced quality of life from an unstable climate and local weather problems. To dismiss the ecological effects of deforestation is a bold stance but it is easy to see where Butler is coming from - surely we should put the quality of human life before animal, insect and plant life?

Academics are quick to emphasis the importance of ecological destruction such as Sodhi et al's (2010) research on Pulau Mengalum, Borneo, which has lost all its closed canopy forest and 40% of its butterfly species. I think a limitation of much of the ecological literature concerned with deforestation such as Sodhi et al.(2010) and Horgan (2005) is that the research isn't directly brought back to the impact a loss of ecology will have on humans. Humans and plants and animals are constantly linked.

The loss of plants and animals is not just an ecological loss but it also has a major impact on the word's poorest communities that rely on forest resources for medicine, food and fuel (Butler 2012; Oglesby et al. 2010). Furthermore, it is not just indigenous communities that depend on the rainforest with 25% of global medicines derived from plants within tropical rainforests (Kirkman 2014). This shows that the rainforest, in ecological terms, is vital for human life.

For many the jungle acts as a valuable resource to sustain their lives (National Geographic)

There is also extensive research into soil erosion, resulting from deforestation, in places such as Bangladesh (Sirajul et al. 2014), Iran (Hajabassi et al. 2014) and the Amazon (Live Science). Unlike the research into ecology, the authors note that soil erosion has a negative impact on the quality of human life causing desertification and the increase in soil enter water resources. It also increases flooding and landslide events. Interestingly, research by Navarette et al. (2015) concluded that the slash and burn approach to deforestation added nutrients to the soil. It built upon the "nutrient rich ash" hypothesis (Nye and Greenland 1960) and suggested ash increased soil pH and added nutrients resulting in soil fertility. Its unusual for a positive effect of deforestation but this benefit is short term and it is assumed the nutrients are washed and leached away.

The ecological and environmental consequences of deforestation are severe but often set aside from the impacts they in turn have on humans. Research into the effects of deforestation must be more holistic if it is to address these consequences by looking at everything.


Society and the forest
The effects of deforestation have been apparent for decades from the alteration of local and global climate (Rotmans and Swart 1991) to rises in temperature (Schultz 2014) and soil erosion. However, the effects deforestation has had on society have occurred over much longer time frames.

"The Last Truffula Tree" - every tree was chopped down and used on Easter Island (Sci News)

Rapid overpopulation leading to deforestation and the removal of every tree on Easter Island has been contributed to the likely collapse of indigenous people on the island (Diamond 2005; Mann et al. 2008). Charcoal records in lake sediments have shown the increase in slash and burn deforestation methods following periods of human colonization on the island (Mann et al. 2008). I would argue that the events that transpired on Easter Island - whether it was human or climate related (this is still up for debate) - that resulted in the total removal of all trees acts as a small scale proxy for what could happen to Earth if deforestation is not combated. The effects of a treeless Earth would me most detrimental to the human population and the species as a whole.

Easter Island is not the only case study many arguing that deforestation caused (or contributed) to the collapse of many Maya settlements (Diamond 2005; Haug et al. 2003; Oglesby et al. 2010). However, often academics have focused on evidence within their own field. Palaeo and archaeological evidence is not always complementary and deforestation was probably a contributing factor to socio-economic and political changes that eventually led to the "collapse" of Maya society.

As mentioned in an earlier post regarding deforestation and Maya civilization, the effect deforestation had on past societies demonstrates how much humans rely on forested land (for fuel etc.) and how important trees are to maintain a desirable environment. Without trees our climate would be harsher, it would be harder to grow crops and our quality of life would be severely reduced.

• Can the collapse of post societies be a prediction of things to come?

This blog post has examined the ecological and societal effects of deforestation and it is clear that the consequences of deforestation are severe - they should be examined, and researched in order to solve them. As population increases, more trees will be cut down and the consequences of deforestation will get worse. 

*Diamond (2005) is only available in book form although there are online summaries available.

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?

The Deforestation Agenda at COP21

With COP21 in Paris looming, the world's attention is turning to the environment. The world's most powerful players are gathering to decide the fate of this planet and deforestation is on the agenda!

COP21 in Paris

REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) is a policy currently under debate by the UN that is targeted at lowering the emissions from deforestation and providing a financial bonus to countries that follow through.
$9.8 billion has been committed to the policy so countries around the world need to agree to it in Paris this month.
A further benefit of this policy is that indigenous people will benefit from REDD+ with the project offering support local communities in maintaining their forests and sustain their livelihoods.
Brazil is one of the leaders, poised to reduce deforestation emissions by 80% by 2020.

The urge to do something about deforestation goes beyond the metropolitan borders of Paris to corporate giants such as Marks and Spencer and Unilever who  today (1st December) pledged support to reduce deforestation. The companies announced the initiative today and will develop sustainable palm oil, beef, paper and other commodities - but will this mean prices will go up?

42 other companies have pledged to be more sustainable in an article published by Business Green.

It will be interesting to see if the pledges made at these climate talks will actually be followed through in years to come.

This is just a short post to keep up to date with the current COP21 talks in Paris, the next full post will explore the complex politics of deforestation. I will keep my blog updated with news from the COP21 talks.

Afforestation - a viable solution to the deforestation crisis?

In the majority of previous posts within this blog the word "afforestation" has been thrown around as a potential solution to deforestation. It has crept up in the comments section time after time and in this latest blog post I plan to explore what afforestation actually is, does it work and its impact on the deforestation discourse.

Afforestation  - the planting of trees on non-tree land. It is different from reforestation which refers to the planting of trees on land that previously contained trees. The difference between afforestation and reforestation varies between definition but general concerns the amount of time that has undergone before a portion of land is considered "non-tree" (IPCC).

The Next Generation (CFS)

Afforestation and Global Climate Change
It is well known that the mighty oaks and little saplings act as a major carbon sink for planet Earth removing 3 billion tonnes of carbon each year (Canadell and Raupuch 2008). Therefore, it is vital deforested trees are replaced. Carbon dioxide released through the burning of fossil fuels worldwide is taken up by plants through the process of photosynthesis.

Whilst Canadell and Raupuch praise afforestation/reforestation processes as a solution to the global climate crisis, Bonan (2008) notes a major limit of boreal forest afforestation techniques.They have a positive feedback mechanism due to a low albedo and therefore create a warming process.

Limitations of Afforestation Practices
The main issue that is thrown around in the media is that managed reforestation and afforestation techniques will not restore the same biodiversity of the original forest. In an incredibly dated account by Stirling-Maxwell (1917) he describes the detrimental effects afforestation practices have on the environment. A devote critic of afforestation it appears, he talks about how different types of forest distinguish different regions of the world and that afforestation makes the environment more homogeneous (this opens up a whole new bag of worms surrounding "a flat world" and "the end of geography" - see the works of David Harvey and Doreen Massey). Whilst this may be true to some extent because the land is never fully returned to its original state, the same limitation of homogeneity can be applied to deforestation and Stirling-Maxwell (1917) offers no opinion on that. Wallace and Good's (1995) research into the North East of England supports Stirling-Maxwell's account of afforestation in that afforestation leads to a single more dominant species with other co-existing vegetation not being replaced.
However, Day et al. (2010) looked into afforestation on agriculture in Eastern America and noted that vegetation complementary to the dominant species (in this case oak) was grown as well to increase biodiversity. The research showed that because the seedlings and trees required consistent management for survival and growth that it was only realistic on a small scale.
The effects of afforestation vary between locations and are dependent on the techniques employed.

The Green Wall of China
Most of China's trees have been destroyed, devoured by the imperial juggernaut of urbanization, pollution and babies. The Chinese government set targets for the next 80 years but as of 2008 had made no progress in meeting them. With the help of Shanghai Roots and Shoots, a division of the Jane Goodall Institute, a total of 1 million trees have been planted to date to stop the expansion of the Gobi Desert.
China's problems do not stop there, however, as the detrimental impacts of non-native species is starting to have an effect with the non-native species removing excessive amounts of the water from groundwater causing the water table to be reduced (Window of China News)
Lets put this in perspective though - the Trees for the Future foundation has planted 35 million trees worldwide whilst the Green Belt Movement in Kenya has planted 47 million trees.

The Green Wall of China - a pipe dream? (Youtube)

Is Afforestation a viable solution to our deforestation problems?
This blog post is clearly summative in its analysis of the major limitations and benefits of afforestation/reforestation with whole books dedicated to just the biodviersity impacts of these techniques. Afforestation, like most solutions, is not without its limitations. Taking away productive land from other sectors such as food production and housing for trees is clearly an issue with much debate surrounding it as we constantly fight for space. Other than reducing deforestation (a post about deforestation, policy and politics is on the horizon) afforestation and reforestation is one of the most viable and popular solutions to deforestation. Furthermore, significant afforestation could have a noticeable impact on our climate system that may have beneficial impacts on climate change - although research into this is vague and poorly understood. I see afforestation and reforestation techniques as a policy that most governments should implement on some level - Brazil's afforestation policies is shocking! - because the benefits outweigh its limitations.

Amazon Deforestation and Climate Change

In last week's post we explored the relationship between humans and deforestation in the African continent. Now we are flying a few thousand miles across the Atlantic to explore the relationship between deforestation and global (and local) climate change in the Amazon.

The Amazon Rainforest is one of the most beautiful and captivating locations on our planet and hosts roughly half of the world's species and covers an area of 5.4 million km2 (62% of Brazil).

Outstanding Natural Beauty - the Amazon is at risk (source)

How does deforestation alter the landscape and effect local climate?
The removal of lowland tropical rainforests in the southern and eastern parts of the Amazon jungle for cattle ranches and soybean production means that trees are being replaced by grass.
Shukla et al. (1990) undertook numerical modelling to evaluate the effects of deforestation on local and global climate. They found that there would be an rise in surface temperature and a reduction in evapotranspiration and precipitation would cause an increase the duration of the dry season (supported by Malhi et al. 2008). This was also modeled in the 2007 IPCC report which showed a decrease in dry season rainfall but an increase in rainfall in the western Amazon during the wet season. Shukla et al's work is convincing yet dated and the recent work by Malhi et al. (2008) explores the climatic effects of deforestation one step further.

Evaporation and condensation over the Amazon  are the locomotives driving global atmospheric circulation. Furthermore, 25-50% of rainfall is recycled from forests which is important in places, such as the Amazon, where precipitation is a consequence of regional convection (Shukla et al. 1990). Removing the trees reduces rainfall, decreases cloudiness and increases insolation. It also alters the surface roughness increasing wind speed and therefore desertification and soil erosion. The changes to local scale climate are extensive.

% Change in Rainfall due to deforestation. Red shows the areas that will experience large decreases in rainfall. This are often the areas where the greatest deforestation occurs (NOAA)

How does deforestation alter global climate?
An incredibly recent study by Exbrayat and Williams (2015) showed that Amazon deforestation had a net contribution of 1.8ppm of atmospheric CO2 or 1.5% of historical growth which reflects the significance of the Amazon in the global system. It reinforces the argument that deforestation directly contributes to climate change (much in the same way as burning fossil fuels).
Malhi et al's (2008) work also touched upon the global carbon cycle and climate change talking about the release of stored carbon from trees and within the soil following deforestation. Soil carbon is released when the tree roots that hold rainforest detritus together are no longer present and the soil is eroded through aeolian and fluvial processes.

Significance and Future
As these articles and pieces of research demonstrate, the Amazon rainforest is an important component in the Earth system. It is vital for so many species including our own (Feeley and Rehm 2012). However, if nothing is done the Amazon rainforest could be completely gone within 50-100 years (Shukla et al. 1990). An increased rate of deforestation is chronicled in an interesting article by the Guardian written last year.Huge amounts of research continues to be conducted in the Amazon because it is a site of outstanding scientific interest.

Picking up the pace - rates of deforestation in the Amazon are increasing (The Guardian)

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%

Decrease in Deforestation

The world's forests are getting smaller and smaller but now according to an article in Christian Science Monitor they are declining at a slower rate. Forests declined by 0.18% during the 1990s but between 2000 and 2015 this declined to a rate of 0.08%. The article is based on the recently published United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's Global Food Resources Assessment (FRA). It notes that rates of deforestation are greatest in tropical regions (such as the Amazon, Borneo or parts of South Asia) and that some temperate forest climates have actually seen an increase in forest cover due to afforestation practices. I think it is important to look at these statistics with caution:

• Rates of deforestation in some parts of the world are still increasing due to a lack of regulation and monitoring. For example, parts of Borneo are under threat due to Palm Oil Production. 

• 0.08% whilst it appears small is still a large area of forest. We still need to act upon this and try to reduce deforestation. 

There are an endless supply of news articles on the web regarding current deforestation trends, activities and politics but the purpose of this blog post is to show that deforestation is still a heavily researched issue within the United Nations but also to be cautious of statistics and the wording within non-academic articles. 

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?