The effects of deforestation are multiple and complex in nature. While the loss of habitat and ecosystems for species jumps to the top of the list and in some aspects rightly so (forests provide habitats for more than half of the world’s species) this is by no means the only issue. The effects of deforestation go much deeper and are highly complex, which may help to explain why the urgent need to reduce deforestation has not been promoted enough. Forests are routinely valued for their timber, hence the extensive deforestation schemes, but an emphasis solely on timber production illustrates a lack of understanding of how important our forests are in the fight against climate change.
One of the less well-understood attributes of plants and trees is their ability to store carbon and act as a stabilising agent for the world’s climate [2]. They are a vital carbon sink in our world and deforestation destroys that sink. Stored carbon makes up around half of the dry weight of a tree and this is released when a tree is burned. It is thought that a fifth of the world’s emission of carbon by humans is caused by deforestation [3]. Living trees sequester carbon and there is a growing realisation that carbon fertilisation is occurring when primary forests react to the increase of carbon in our atmosphere by taking up more carbon than previously. There is evidence to suggest that the Amazon rainforest is sequestering an additional 1.3 gigatonnes a year, which is around the same amount as emissions generated by clearing the rainforest [1] and, as Greenpeace argues, amounts to more than the world’s transport sector [2].
One of the reasons for deforestation in countries such as Brazil is the demand for agricultural land to grow crops and to farm cattle. However, this is rather ironic as in clearing more land for food crops deforestation actually hinders the production of food. Rainwater is vital for the reliable production of crops and forests play a vital role in the production of rain. Evapotranspiration by trees is reduced with deforestation and the Amazon rainforest provides vital rainwater for large areas of farmland stretching across Brazil, Argentina and even the American Midwest [1]. Therefore, increased deforestation has huge implications for farm and food productivity. There is already increased concern that the production of biofuels takes away precious land to grow crops, and this will only be exacerbated by the reduced rate of evapotranspiration brought on by deforestation.
It may sound rather simplistic but, considering that countries such as Brazil and Indonesia are now the third and fourth-largest emitters of CO2, simply reducing deforestation will have a massive effect on carbon emissions [2]. 75% of Brazil’s emissions are generated by deforestation [2]. Whilst these are not enviable statistics, there could be a silver lining, if countries such as Brazil become more environmental conscious, with long-term advantages to their economy. The Stern report released in 2006, argues that reducing and preventing deforestation would actually be a relatively cheap and easy way of combating climate change [2]. Whilst Brazil is a major contributor to deforestation and carbon emissions, deforestation rates are slowing. Statistics for 2008 -2009 show the lowest rate of deforestation for over 2 decades [1] and this partly down to the expansion of national park designations in rainforest areas. Brazil is also operating more stringent and effective monitoring methods such as bi-weekly deforestation reports generated by the national space agency, INPE, which will uncover any mega clearing of forests [1]. While Brazil is reducing its deforestation, it is also latching on to the abundance of other natural resources, but ones that are renewable. Brazil has vast quantities of water and sunlight and now gets 40% of its energy from renewable sources {1].
Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD)
In 2005, several countries led by Papua New Guinea proposed the cornerstones of a programme called REDD which aims to reduce deforestation by getting richer countries to finance poorer countries to reduce their deforestation [4]. So far REDD has only been implemented in a handful of countries but it aims to reach out to over 70 with the target of reducing deforestation by half by 2050 [1]. Britain and Norway have already agreed to provide funding of several billion dollars. However, it is essential that funding is maintained if such a programme is going to be successful and sustainable in reducing deforestation and combating climate change.
Is the future looking ever so slightly brighter for the rainforests and ultimately the world’s climate? There are still many hurdles to overcome before we can feel confident that the threats that come with deforestation have been addressed. Many of the countries which occupy large swathes of the rainforest have ineffective means of policing deforestation even if stringent measures were introduced, and large scale corruption would need to be dealt with effectively in such countries, but things are looking more positive. Countries like Brazil possess such potential in terms of renewable forms of energy that one day they may emerge as environmentally friendly powers on the global political and economic stage.
References
[1] The Economist (September 25th –1st October 2010). A special report on forests.
[2] Greenpeace UK (2010) [Online]. Available from: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/forests/climate-change
[3] The Road to Copenhagen: Taking International Action On Climate Change (2009) [Online]. Available from http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/google/search?SearchText=deforestation
[4] The Guardian (2009) Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (John Vidal) [Online] Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/24/redd-reducing-emissions-from-deforestation
