Is deforestation a necessary evil? Part 1

Welcome to the last post within this blog (although it has been split into two parts because it is of considerable length). Way back in the realms of early October this blog set out an assortment of slightly related aims: explore the consequences of deforestation; examine whether the effects of deforestation are always bad; explore solutions; look at past patterns of deforestation and examine how complicated the discourse on deforestation is. They have all been examined in one blog post or more and now it is time to draw conclusions and thought from what this blog has researched. The overarching question of this blog, and the title of this post - is deforestation a necessary evil? - shall be finally answered.
This blog post will examine four key areas of interest that have been discussed throughout the blog:

1. The relationship between global environmental change and deforestation. 
2. The relationship between humans and deforestation.
3. Why deforestation is a bad process.
4. Sustainable Deforestation and Is a tree apocalypse inevitable?

Drawing upon references and ideas discussed in other blog posts will bring in an element of repetition but it is ultimately a post to explore my personal opinions towards the topics being discussed, in conjunction with academic research. 

The Relationship between Global Environmental Change and Deforestation

Trees, and vegetation generally, are an integral part of the Earth system involved in various cycles including the hydrological cycle, carbon cycle, nitrogen cycle and countless ecological cycles/systems. 

The importance of trees in the global nitrogen cycle (source)

In terms of carbon, trees act as a major carbon sink taking up carbon dioxide during the process of photosynthesis (Malhi et al. 2008). 150-200 Pg of carbon is stored in the Amazon within biomass and soils (Brienen et al. 2015). This study demonstrated the importance of trees as well as other vegetation and biomass that stores carbon and questioned the future of carbon sinks within the Amazon. 

Deforestation removes this store of carbon and releases it into the atmosphere. It is estimated that 1.8ppm of atmospheric carbon can from deforestation of the Amazon (Exbrayat and Williams 2015). Fueling climate change will have a positive feedback mechanism in which a warmer world causes increased drought (and wildfires) in the tropics leading to the destruction of more forests which in turn release their stored carbon (Haog 2009). 

The effect of deforestation on regional climate is also severe with increased surface temperature (due to reduced albedo) leading to a decrease in evapotranspiration and precipitation. A reduction in cloudiness and increases in insolation creates an increase in high pressure systems and frequent droughts. Furthermore, the alteration of the land surface increases wind speeds and therefore desertification and soil erosion (IPCC 2007; Malhi et al. 2008; Shukla et al. 1990). 

Trees impact on climate and vice versa and are an important factor in influencing global climate - the Amazon is the engine for global atmospheric circulation - and an alteration to this precious system would change our climate. 

The Relationship between Humans and Deforestation

Like the mighty oak, human beings have become an integral part of the Earth system (see their influence in the nitrogen cycle diagram) and have an impact on the climate and landscape more so than any other species. 

The causes of deforestation have been discussed extensively whilst the relationship between urbanization and deforestation in Africa has also been explored. 

The reality is that like oil, food and water, the human population needs trees as a source of fuel (e.g. firewood), shelter and for basic necessities (paper, furniture etc.). It has been at the core of our civilization for thousands of years and the relationship between humans and the threes is as delicate as their relationship with climate. 

I won't drone on about this in much detail with two blog posts already exploring societal collapse on Easter Island and in Mayan Central America but a brief recap won't hurt. There are numerous studies that contribute the collapse of Mayan society to deforestation (Haug et al. 2003; Ogelsby et al. 2010; Shaw 2011). The studies illustrate how important trees are in local climate - influencing drought. However, archaeological evidence and paleoenvironmental evidence is not always complementary and their are disputes as to whether deforestation alone contributed to the collapse of Mayan society (MacNeil et al. 2009). In reality it was probably a combination of socio-economic and political factors exaggerated by detrimental environmental effects such as drought that was caused by over-deforestation. 

I have already suggested that the attitude past societies (such as the Mayans and the Polynesians) had towards deforestation is much the same as our own and that there is potential for us to eventually cut down all the trees. 

A quirky diagram to illustrate MacDonald's arguement (Cool Geography)

Humans need trees (as I have mentioned already) and an article by MacDonald (2012) offers a concise synthesis of the relationship between humans and climate change. He notes that the humble tree is a hindrance to human societal expansion (in terms of space) as well as food production but that without trees mankind could not survive. Trees create an idyllic and comfortable in which human beings can frolic and grow by taking in heat during photosynthesis. He interestingly draws upon the dated works of Thomas Malthus to explore how human populations grow and survive. MacDonald further offers a controversial (yet logical) view point to combating deforestation and climate change saying it is the responsibility of world leaders to keep the world's population in decline in order to ensure a good quality of life for the current population. I think for MacDonald, the root cause of the world's problems is overpopulation (draining resources, taking up space, degrading the landscape and producing pollution). To some extent he is correct but there are definitely alternatives to controlling population and implementing anti-natalist policies. 

It is true that we need trees for survival but I think (and this will be discussed later) we can do more to manage the way in which we use trees. What I want everyone to take from this post (is not the doom and gloom population comments) but that trees are vital in the Earth System and that everything is interlinked. 

The remainder of this posts (questions 3+4) will be explored in "Part 2" but please feel free to comment and vote on the poll in the top left of the screen - it will be interesting to see what everyone thinks. 

A Concise Summary of the Causes of Mangrove Deforestation

The majority of my blog posts have focused on rainforests such as the Amazon or Borneo but this blog post will focus on mangrove forests and the inspiration (like so often) comes from a news article.

In South East Asia (the focus of the news article), but in mangrove areas more generally, they provide important ecosystem services for local communities from a source of food, a source of income and as a natural barrier against storm surges. They also hold greater concentrations of carbon dioxide compared with other ecosystems (Donato et al. 2011) and are thus a vital carbon sink. More than 35% of mangrove forests have already been cleared and understanding why this is the case is important to try and stop it from continuing (WWF).

What are the causes of mangrove deforestation?

• In South East Asia, it is an expansion of palm oil plantations stemming from a greater affluence of the population (Phys Org).
• The 1970s saw the expansion of shrimp aquaculture (fueled by foreign aid) in Latin America that ate away at the coastal mangrove swamps (Hamilton and Stankwitz 2011). However, there has been little quantification of the extent of mangrove forest destruction in these regions. Data is often incomplete (Hilares-Cota 2010)
• Agricultural expansion of rice in Myanmar to ensure food security. 
• Population and infrastructure - humans need more space and mangrove forests are often replaced with ports to meet the growing needs of towns and cities (WWF).
• Dams and irrigation systems alter the amount of river and sediment reaching mangrove swamps increasing salinity causing a decline in marine organisms and plants (WWF). In the Volta Delta, Ghana, a combination of upstream damming and forest clearance has led to the devastation of the pristine mangrove forests (Rubin et al. 1999).
• Pollution - fertilizers, human waste, industrial waste etc.
• Climate change - mangroves will not be able to keep pace with rising sea levels (Gilman et al. 2008).

All Alone? The future for mangroves looks bleak (source)

Research into mangrove deforestation is focused on two central areas (south east Asia and Latin America) and in both cases there is a lack of quantification of the extent of mangrove deforestation. However, whilst Latin America mangrove deforestation is fueled by the expansion of aquaculture in SE Asia the mangrove deforestation (and deforestation generally) is fueled by a rapidly expanding population, economies and demand for space, food and goods. The studies are complementary in their accounts of the value of mangrove forest, particularly as a carbon sink, and note the effects in relation to climate change but there is a lack of interest in the socio-economic impact that mangrove deforestation has on individual lives - this could be due to the physical/environmental perspective of the studies above rather than a human geography focus. From the research conducted by Donato et al. (2011) and the WWF it would appear that mangrove forests are regarded as vital stores of atmospheric carbon, more so than tropical rainforests, despite occupying less areal extent. Like tropical rainforests they are a crucial ecocsystem and everything should be done to try and preserve them but can they survive a rise in sea level associated with climate change? Mangrove forests might soon be a thing of the past. 

This blog post, whilst short, offered an insight into a different ecosystem that has not been discussed on this blog before. Whilst there is potential to create a completely new blog from the extensive research and news articles on the topic, this blog offers a concise summary of the causes of mangrove deforestation (which are in many ways different to other types of deforestation). However, the effects of this deforestation are fundamentally the same as any other form of deforestation. 

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.

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. 

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%

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?