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)

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.

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. 

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.