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.

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. 

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?