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%