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.