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 Future of Our Trees

I want to start this blog post by clarifying its purpose. The posts within this blog discuss issues surrounding deforestation in the past (2), the present (3, 4, 5) and also the future (6) with the aim of illustrating why it is important to examine global change over a range of timescales. Through exploring a few issues that appear to be disjointed I want to answer the question: is deforestation a necessary evil? Whilst previous posts might not have directly touched upon this future blog posts will do and by the end of this course I will hopefully be able to answer the question,

The Roots of Deforestation

To understand future projections of deforestation and for policy makers to create reliable estimates we have to look at how the causes of deforestation will change in the future. In another blog, the author argues that the root cause is the overarching theme of economic growth - particularly agricultural expansion and a demand for meat by developing nations (de Las Heras et al. 2012). Other studies also support the idea that there is a strong correlation between deforestation and economic growth (Akermanns et al. 2014) and (Schaeffer et al. 2005). However, Kirby et al. (2005) argue that the main driver of deforestation is paved and unpaved road expansion (is this not just a specific form of economic growth?). Other studies have touched upon the issue of highways allowing greater access to previously inaccessible portions of the rainforest (Schaeffer et al. 2005) but it still stems from economic growth and an increased demand for fuel, meat and soy beans. The large economic growth caused by an increase in population (8.2 billion by 2030) will cause a demand for resources on a scale that has not been seen in the past and the UN Climate Conference in Doha in 2012 (COP18) suggested that these global trends will increase deforestation. Research (House et al. 2002) into the effect of future deforestation on CO2 concentrations suggests that as many as 130-290ppm of CO2 could be added to the atmosphere if total deforestation occurs. This demonstrates a need to address issues surrounding deforestation rates.

Soybean production set to increase by 2020 (source)

Future Estimate and Solutions

Policy makers and academics use future estimates of the causes of deforestation to model future rainforest cover. The WWF has conducted extensive research into future deforestation (mainly with a biodiversity angle) and has suggested that 11 places in the world will account for 80% of future deforestation by 2030 - obviously areas such as Borneo, Amazon, Siberia, China and Congo. They estimate that 170 million hectares will be lost between 2010 and 2030. However, their estimates do not take into account reforestation processes and future policy that might curb deforestation rates. 

Nayar (2009) created a model to show deforestation rates in the Congo Basin and predicted that rates of deforestation would increase to 0.5% by 2020 (not that long away). However, the major problem with this model, and the author acknowledges this, is that is does not account for the major causes of deforestation. The estimate would therefore be an underestimate or an overestimate depending changes in demand. It is interesting to see a study conducted in an area other than the Amazon - a region which receives considerable interest. Kirby et al's (2005) study also predicted future deforestation change in the Amazon. They argue that there is ample evidence to change Amazon development policy - but hasn't there always ample evidence? The problem with monitoring the Amazon is that it is a large area with a low population density and this means it is difficult to control and therefore economically exploited. Interestingly Nepstad et al. (2014) argues that it is possible to end deforestation in Brazil if restraints are put on meat and soy bean production. They estimate that a 10 year program to end deforestation would cost $18 billion. It seems like a worthwhile investment although it would just shift deforestation to another location because it does not address the root causes of deforestation. Furthermore, as an article in the Guardian illustrated the priorities of the Brazilian government have shifted with environmental policy being put on the shelf so efforts to reduce deforestation are a long way away so we can expect rates of deforestation to increase. 

Rates of deforestation in each year in the Amazon (Huffington Post)

Conclusive Thoughts

These articles have demonstrated that the root causes of deforestation are incredibly difficult to pinpoint and therefore difficult to solve them. Developing nations (whose demand for fuel and food will inrease) have the right to develop and should not be hindered and  as a result deforestation will increase (in this sense it is a necessary evil). Developed countries had their chance to exploit the natural environment and less economically developed nations should (in theory) be allowed to do the same. However, the replanting of trees makes deforestation techniques slightly more sustainable. It is vital for future generations as a source of fuel but also for our climate. Complete deforestation would have a profound impact on our climate.