Deforestation: Brazilian Amazon
Threat to the Environment
Brazilian Amazon deforestation hurts the environment at the local, regional and global levels. A bad impact is the loss of above and below ground biodiversity. Left alone plants and trees grow at varying heights creating many layers of shade with rich areas of biodiversity that offer new discoveries for medicine and science when left undisturbed. Fearnside (2005) describes how the harsh tropical sun and wind reaches the forest floor when the leaf canopy protection is disturbed making openings to the sky (682). The forest floor microclimate dries out causing irreparable damage to plant and animal species. In rainforests most of the nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, are part of the above ground vegetation. Unfortunately deforestation results in nutrient loss making the soil infertile. The regional water cycle is disrupted by loss of plant transpiration. Instead of returning as rain from the plant transpiration the water is lost to rivers flowing away from the rainforest multiplying the erosion, nutrient and soil loss.
Root Cause of the Problem
The root of the problem is the over-ranching of beef cattle in the Brazilian Amazon. According to Fearnside (2005) “cattle ranching predominates” as the cause of deforestation; the forest is cleared to make pastures for mid- to large-sized ranches causing 70% of the clearing (680). Logging companies that do the clearing and their transportation needs cause more damage. Fearnside (2005) notes that bad land policies encourage disturbance and destruction of the rainforest; bad land policies have been on the rise since 1995 when infrastructure development for “highways, railways and waterways” to transport soybean harvests was started (682). Butler (2006) adds that only one third of the problem is due to poor crop farmers but “A large portion of deforestation in Brazil can be attributed to land clearing for pastureland by commercial and speculative interests, misguided government policies, inappropriate World Bank projects, and commercial exploitation of forest resources” (Why/disappearing section, para. 1).
Proposed Solutions
Fearnside (2005) suggests government land reform policy give incentives for good practices. Fearnside (2005) note that the greatest reduction in forest fires happened in 2000 when satellite images (from AVHRR1 sensors) were attached with the fines levied to ranchers; this resulted in 80% fewer fires (p. 684). Butler (2010) describes the efforts of Brazil to set aside protected areas of rainforest including areas especially for the indigenous population (Forest Protection, para. 1-3).
REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) is the most recent global strategy for “avoided deforestation.” Nicholas Stern an economist formerly with the World Bank is urging Congress and President Obama to contribute to Brazil’s Amazon Fund. It was established to “attract $10 to $15 billion per year to “reduce deforestation rates 70 percent by 2018 through enforcement of logging restrictions and land-title reform” (Block, 2012, para 5-6). Carter Roberts, president of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), isn’t convinced that REDD is the best priority but he noted "There is no way Copenhagen is going to exclude REDD . . . because the payments are vital to addressing climate change” (Block, 2012, last para.).
_____________
1 AVHRR is an Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer. The INPE is the Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais which is the institute which interpreted the results.
Consequences of No Action
The bad consequences of no action are many. The loss of biodiversity will continue at an increased rate before scientists will have a chance to collect samples which could have a great positive impact for the modern world.
The length of the rainless season will increase and fires will easily start in the understory of the destroyed tropical ecosystem. Fires also create more atmospheric pollution. Increased CO2 in the air from the fires and from the methane waste of cattle will increase the greenhouse effect. Significant impact on climate change will continue due to the decline of carbon sequestration. Globally, fluctuations in oxygen and carbon dioxide will become greater which causes shifts in the climate (Global, 2010, Eco. Serv. para 1-3).
An imbalance in the natural water cycle disrupts the carbon and nitrogen cycles, too (Global, 2010, Eco. Serv. para. 5). It will take hundreds of years to restore soil fertility from the nutrition losses. This means a major negative impact to local economy for the long term. Another local problem that will become worse is that of indigenous populations being pushed out of their homes and losing their livelihoods (Butler, 2010).
References
Andersen, L. E., Granger, S.W. J., Reis, E. J., Weinhold, D. & Wunder, S. (2002). The Dynamics of Deforestation and Economic Growth in the Brazilian Amazon. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Block, B. (2012, Jan. 12). “Avoided Deforestation” plan gains support. WorldWatch Institute. Retrieved from http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6034
Butler, R. A. (2006, Jan. 4). Global Deforestation. 2010 Importance of Forest Ecosystem Services. GlobalChange.org. Retrieved from http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/deforest/.html
Fearnside, P. M. (2005). Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: History, Rates, and Consequences. Conservation Biology, 19(3), 680-688. Wiley Online Library. Retrieved from http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00697.x
