Category: Deforestation

What are the impacts of deforestation on a sustainable future?

Deforestation is the process of removing trees and forests from a landscape. This may be done for many reasons including making space for other land uses such as to harvest for wood resources or for agriculture. Although it might not be something that we see or hear about every day, deforestation is a widespread problem, which exists all across the globe and has been there for many years.

It is true that there are a lot of trees on earth in fact forest covers a quarter of all land surfaces on earth but the problem is the rate at which we harvest them. Currently, humans are cutting down forests at a rate of 36 football fields per minute. I believe deforestation has adverse effects, which could only be mitigated by taking the right actions timely. Hence, I think this is a relevant topic to tackle.

A sustainable future refers to making the world a better and safer place for everyone without destroying the possibilities for the next generations. If you wonder if something is sustainable you can ask yourself can we do this over and over again forever?

Main research:

Impacts of deforestation

The aftermath of deforestation is devastating. The aftermath includes loss of biodiversity, global warming, climate imbalance, and soil erosion.

All the consequences of deforestation have severe impacts on a sustainable life. From previous generations plants have been utilized for different purposes and even today many plants are being used e.g. Khella and Quinine are used for medical treatments. Loss of biodiversity means the extinction of such plants. If we lose these plants we will be putting a negative effect on sustainable living. Our upcoming generations may not have access to these plants.

Tropical deforestation is held responsible for approximately 21% of world greenhouse gas emissions. The forests of the world are more than just collections of trees. Forests help regulate the atmosphere by alleviating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions that lead to global climate change. Global warming leads to the melting of glaciers and poor air quality, this means if deforestation continues at this pace our future generations will lack pure drinking water and will have to face such air which will cause different diseases e.g. lung cancer.

Trees maintain humidity and regulate temperatures. Removing trees means loss of transpiration which means fewer clouds forming and a drier climate. Also, the loss of tree roots means massive erosion so very little can grow in the area. Without trees, there would be no other way to maintain and regulate the earth’s climate. If we keep on cutting trees, it is going to have adverse effects on our upcoming sons, grandsons, and so on because they no longer would have clean air and would face increased humidity.

Additionally, trees play a key role in the earth’s water cycle by balancing water in the atmosphere and water on land. If deforestation continues at its current rate then in many areas there will be soil erosion as there will be no trees to regulate moisture in the ground. Infertile soil means no crops thus this will make its impact on a sustainable life.

Sustainability is meeting the needs of the current generation without harming the needs of the future ones, however, such rapid deforestation will leave no trees for the upcoming ones. The future generation will then have no timber or any other by-products.

Global Perspective

Deforestation is prevalent all across the world. Several countries are already suffering from its adverse effects. It sounds ironic but the truth is that the more developed and highly industrialized, countries suffer from the highest rates of deforestation. There are various factors held responsible for such problems- overpopulation, industrialization, and inefficient plans to control the rapid rate of deforestation.

According to FAO, 50% of the world’s tropical forests have been cleared. A report from 2017 claims that each day, at least 100 species are killed within rainforests.

The following are the causes of deforestation:

• Logging: One of the main reasons for deforestation is logging, which is the gathering of trees so that the wood can be utilized for construction or manufacturing. Aside from this, wood-based industries like furniture, matchsticks, or paper also require a substantial amount of wood.
• Urbanization: Another big reason why trees are rapidly being removed is urbanization. With cities becoming overpopulated trees are cleared to further expand cities and create roads.
• Agricultural purposes: The overgrowing demand for food production requires trees to be cleared so that the land can be utilized for agricultural purposes such as farming and cattle ranching.
• Mining: The need for mining is also another reason for the clearance of trees. Different types of mining require a vast amount of empty land in order to mine for deposits of minerals and metals etc.

Continentally, Africa is most affected by deforestation. Sources state that deforestation has already wiped out around 90% of West Africa’s original forest. According to the analytical view provided by FAO, during the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s, Africa lost the highest percentage of tropical forests among all continents. Congo and Nigeria are listed among the countries, which are affected by large-scale deforestation. The International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) has stated Nigeria is one of the worst countries when it comes to deforestation. Although the African government has been taking action by implementing laws and taking different measures, those are not just enough.

The reason for such high rates of deforestation in Nigeria is a large demand for wood. Research depicts that over 60% of Nigerians use firewood for cooking. Large-scale deforestation takes place, especially in developing countries where there is rapid growth in industries. In Asia, China, Indonesia, and India is one of those countries that are facing problems due to deforestation. The United States and Australia sadly are also listed on this list.¬

Few countries from Europe have comparatively a low rate of deforestation. This is because many projects and campaigns are being held in order to prevent deforestation. In these countries, not only the government but the people there selves are enthusiastically helping to solve the problem of the rapid cutting of trees. Sweden and Finland are the countries in Europe with the most forest cover each having more than twenty hundred thousand hectares. These countries have tried their best to maintain the forests by controlling deforestation.

Such projects and campaigns lead to a healthier life and tend to reduce dangerous diseases such as malaria and dengue fever. The lack of such projects and campaigns in Africa and some parts of Asia is the reason why malaria and dengue are so widespread and common.

National Perspective

Pakistan is a developing country. Every day new societies are inaugurated and due to such massive urbanization my country Pakistan faces severe problems related to deforestation. According to a report less than 5 % of Pakistan’s area is covered with forests. The rate of deforestation 1.5% is very high and alarming. This deforestation has adverse effects on Pakistan’s sustainable life.

Regrettably, Pakistan has one of the highest rates of deforestation. Punjab and Sindh have been affected by the effects of deforestation. Cites such as Karachi, Lahore, Faisalabad, and Rawalpindi have become highly populated mainly due to rural-urban migration. Now, this increased population means an increase in cutting down trees. This gives rise to the birth of different diseases and many other problems.

Pakistan has fertile land in certain places, In fact, the crops grown in these lands are one of the major sources of revenue generated by the country. However, when we start cutting off the trees, the water from the hills will freely fall down the slope, this will cause floods and will lead to the destruction of crops and lands. Places like Swat, Chitral, and Dir have been affected in this way. Loss of crops will harm the goals of sustainable living. Though we might be able to fulfill our requirements our upcoming generations will remain to starve.

Industrialization in Pakistan is at its peak. The new factories established in Pakistan bring along a lot of pollution. Pakistan already has a very limited number of trees to balance the environment and of course, the increasing pollution is not helping. Due to this, the air becomes dirtier, which then causes problems with people to breathe. There are a number of diseases caused by this:

• Lung diseases and respiratory problems
  • Asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
• Cardiovascular problems
  • Heart diseases, other cardiovascular disorders

There have been 20,000 deaths caused by pollution in Pakistan. The polluted air of Pakistan does not allow it to follow a sustainable living.

Personal Perspective

According to my perspective, Industrialization is the major cause of deforestation, which then impacts sustainable life. Lately, the whole world has developed and many industries have been established. Firstly these industries require vast lands, which they could be built on, and this causes limited land left for upcoming generations. Some industries are so huge that sometimes they don’t even need that much of an area. To me, this is very upsetting.

Secondly, established industries pollute the environment. Air pollution, sound pollution, and even water pollution are caused by these industries. This means that our future generations will lack pure drinking water and will also have poor air.

Statistics also show the development of industries being one of the major causes of deforestation, however, I firmly believe that we can do a lot to prevent this from happening.

Possible scenarios

One of the major world issues today is deforestation, which is predicted to rise even further because of urbanization, industries, and many other contributing factors.

Deforestation has adverse effects on sustainable living. It leaves no crops and other necessary resources for future generations. The goal of a sustainable life is harmed.

If this continues at the same pace then the world will soon run out of essential resources. Clean air would not be available. There will be a shortage of clean water, crops, and fertile land. The environment is harmed and if people can die today because of this then ten times more people can die in the following years. If not acted upon right now, the world’s future could be very horrific.

Possible courses of action

The rapid rate of deforestation should be immediately put to an end. By taking simple steps we can prevent deforestation and can reduce its rate by a great margin. All of us together can make a big change in stopping the swift cutting down of trees.

The following are some ways to do this

• Starting from the basics, we need to plant a tree. Reforestation and afforestation programmers should be focused upon.
• Spreading awareness regarding the significance of trees and the effects it has on a sustainable life.
• Strict laws should be formed in order to prevent further deforestation

These are a few primary steps we can take. By taking these steps I believe we can produce a big change.

Personal response

After having realized the importance of trees and their effects on a sustainable life, I have decided to take some steps in response. I have promised myself that I will plant more trees around me and also water the ones we currently have.

Furthermore, I take this as my duty to spread awareness among people. I use social media all the time so why not create a page on creating awareness?

I believe these small steps if taken by everybody, can make a drastic change. These can allow us to counter rapid deforestation, thus taking steps towards a sustainable life.

Deforestation, as one of the most uprising environmental problems in today’s time, has been recorded as the foremost serious threat to the environmental ecosystem and one of the main factors that have contributed to the green cover change. This paper depicts various methods used for the identification and prediction of deforestation. Over the years, numerous methods were implemented for this purpose; however, they were restricted to a specific area. In this survey paper, we have described many such techniques and have compared their identification and predictions.

Deforestation is one of the most concerning problems that must be handled on an urgent basis by finding an efficient solution, as it has affected biodiversity, habitat loss, and climate change exponentially, causing a massive loss to natural elements. Regardless of its negative impact, most nations don’t have itemized statistics on the level of deforestation. We hope to tackle this problem by using satellite data to track deforestation and help researchers better understand where, how, and why deforestation happens and how to respond to it. #

There have been many developments in Satellite imagery technology, which has led to better deforestation detection and has made it faster, more convenient, and more accurate than ever before. A Real-Time System for Detection of Deforestation has been implemented in Brazil to reduce the deforestation rate by almost 80% since 2004 by alerting environmental officials about the large-scale forest clearing. Current tracking efforts within rainforests largely depends on coarse-resolution imagery from Landsat (30-meter pixels) or MODIS (250-meter pixels). Limited effectiveness in the detection of small-scale deforestation or differentiating between human causes of forest loss and natural causes were the challenges faced by these methods.

The Planet, the designer and builder of Earth-imaging satellites, has a labeled land surface dataset at the 3-5-meter resolution. It helps in building modern deep learning techniques to identify activities happening within the images. Using these images from multiple sources like google earth engine, the Planet, the neural network models can be built to predict the required data.

The author Eric Xu and Orien Zeng from Stanford University describe a model using a platform Planet, the designer and builder of Earth-imaging satellites have a labeled land surface dataset at the 3-5-meter resolution. They have collected JPEG images of size 256×256 containing four data channels: red, green, blue, and near-infrared. Each of the training images was labeled with a subset of seventeen different labels. These seventeen labels were organized into the group of atmospheric conditions, primary land cover, and rare land cover. The atmospheric condition labels were cloudy, partly cloudy, haze, and clear. The standard land labels were primary, water, road, agriculture, cultivation, bare ground, and habitation. The rare land labels were artisanal mine, blooming, blowdown, conventional mine, selective logging, and slash burn.[1]

Vahid Ahmadi, Tarbiat Modares University, in his research, to predict deforestation, modeled green cover changes using an artificial neural network as it provides remarkable results for the development of nonlinear complex models. The procedure involves image processing, classification of images using various algorithms, preparing maps of deforested regions, determining layers for the model training, and designing a multi-layer neural network to predict deforestation. The satellite images for this study were from the area in Hong Kong captured from 2012 to 2016. The results of the study show that the neural networks approach can be used for predicting deforestation, and its outcomes show the areas that were reduced during the research period.[2]

The author developed a multi-layer perceptron neural network model to predict the area most vulnerable to future deforestation based on the anthropogenic transformation of forest in southern Belize using variables that mostly affected the deforestation. These variables were acquired from remote sensing techniques. In this research, due to human activities like agriculture, vulnerable areas were defined as regions susceptible to forest loss.[3]

In this study, authors Pablo Pozzobon de Bem, Osmar Abílio de Carvalho Junior, Renato Fontes Guimarães, and Roberto Arnaldo Trancoso Gomes selected three areas from the Brazilian Amazon for this study. Two-third of the data was used for training, and the rest were used as validation. The Landsat 8 imagery for the years 2017, 2018, and 2019 was obtained, and a bi-temporal modeling approach was used. Multitemporal images from similar periods of the year reduce variations in the phenology and sun-terrain-sensor geometry. To reduce the noise content in the images, they were collected from the dry seasons only.[4]

Author Aleksandr Lukoshkin in his study used two different sites Juuka and Karttula. The dataset includes LiDAR measurements, aerial photographs, and forest parameters of count 38 variables, two feature variables, and four target variables, respectively. The variables from LiDAR measurements include cumulative percentile of the first and last pulse heights of non-ground hits, percentile intensities of first and last pulse intensities of non-ground impacts, means of first pulse heights > 5m, standard deviation(SD) of first pulse height, and the number of measurements < 2m of first and last pulse heights divided by the total number of the same measures of each plot. The features derived from aerial images represent the percentage of all pixels in an image of a plot classified as hardwood (Hwd) and coniferous trees (Cnf). A human interpreter was used for the classification. The target variables of the forest standings dataset consisted of Vt - the total volume and species-specific volumes of V1 - Scots pine, V2 - Norway spruce, and V3 – for hardwoods treated as a group, but mostly comprised of birch.[5]

Their model predicts the labels of over 60000 JPEG images in a test set in the final test evaluation. The average score provided by the author is only for the half dataset, while the score for the other half was hidden. An F2 score evaluates the model so that recall (ratio of true positives to all actual positives) is weighted higher than precision (ratio of true positives to all predicted positives). The final F2 score is formed by averaging the individual F2 scores of each label. They concluded that the VGGNet performs the best in analyzing the satellite images [1]

The studied area by the author is a forest in Hong Kong, China. Extension Georeferencing was used to retrieve the images in the ArcGIS environment. The images were classified into forest, sea, and urban classes using the algorithm most similarly to these features using ERDAS software and then loaded back to the ArcGIS. The initial input for the network were the two layers of forest cover index. The next layer for the network was the proximity of the nearby cities, which was calculated using two classes of urban and non-urban, and the last input is height. The model was trained using this data, and the author obtained the resulting precision of 98 Network convergence.[2]

The author collected the data of the Landsat 8 Operational Land Imager (OLI) data via Google Earth Engine for the years 2014, 2016, and 2017 and classified the forest cover using the supervised classification. To enhance the features of the imagery, False-color composites and normalized difference vegetation indexes were computed. They performed the supervised classification of Landsat imagery and used a stratified random sampling design to split the data into training and validation sets. This classification achieved an accuracy of 88%, 94%, and 95% for the years 2014, 2016, and 2017 respectively. Class-specific producer’s and user’s accuracies ranged from 86% to 96%.[3]

The author has made the addition of two classical Machine Learning algorithms, random forest, and a simple multilayer perceptron architecture, in order to assess the DL models. The Landsat 8 imagery for the years 2017, 2018, and 2019 was obtained, and a bi-temporal modeling approach was used. To reduce the noise content in the images, they were collected from the dry seasons only. ResUnet model had the best results except for the precision score for 2017-2018. The similar but slightly better results were provided by harpMask and U-Net models.[4]

From the above discussions, we can conclude that many algorithms and models have been implemented that predict deforestation with high accuracy but are restricted to a limited region with no temporal predictions. Further, the similar features along with additional ones like data history, climatic data, population growth rate, etc. can be used to build a general model that can take input of any geographical location to predict its deforestation and the time within which the green cover should be retrieved to avoid crossing the threshold limit.

An sizeable uncertainty is a massive subject of deforestation, degradation and wooded area decentralization. Recorded instances of deforestation in northern areas of Pakistan have drawn severe involvement withinside the ultimate decades. These regions include agriculture land and supply of sparkling water for extra than 20 million residents. Downgrading withinside the wooded area is likewise huge harm in the atmosphere which will increase the flood danger in any community. The speedy improvement in far flung sensing (RS) satellites and RS Strategies withinside the closing 4 decades, presents a stable, successive and green manner for evaluation of land cowl and land mapping.

Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) is used to calculate the downfall in forests from the flowers area. This evaluation contemplated a compelling downturn in woodland cowl in a duration of study. A wooded area is a community of land ruled with the aid of using bushes.Hundreds of definitions of wooded area are used at some point of the globe, incorporating elements like tree density, tree height, land use, criminal status and ecological feature.The Food and Agriculture Organization defines a wooded area as land spanning pretty 0.five hectares with timber on pinnacle of five meters and a cowl cowl of pretty 10 percentage, or timber geared up to attain those thresholds in place. It does not consist of land it truly is predominantly beneathneath agricultural or city land use. Using this definition FRA 2020 determined that forests included 4.06 billion hectares or about 31 percentage of the global floor region in 2020 however do not appear to be similarly dispensed spherical the globe. Forests are the dominant terrestrial environment of Earth, and are allotted spherical the globe. over 12 the world’s forests are observed in exactly 5 countries (Brazil, Canada, China, Russian Federation and us of America). the largest part of the woodland (forty five percentage) is observed inside the tropical domain, observed with the aid of using the boreal, temperate and subtropical domains. Forests account for 75% of the gross number one manufacturing of the Earth’s biosphere, and include eighty% of the Earth’s plant biomass. Net number one manufacturing is predicted at 21.nine gigatonnes carbon in step with annum for tropical forests, 8.1 for temperate forests, and 2.6 for boreal forests. Forests at unique latitudes and elevations, and with one-of-a-kind precipitation and evapotranspiration shape tremendously one of a kind biomes: boreal forests spherical the pole, tropical wet forests and tropical dry forests spherical the Equator, and temperate forests on the middle latitudes. Higher elevation regions have a tendency to assist forests nearly like the ones at better latitudes, and quantity of precipitation additionally influences wooded area composition. Almost 12 the woodland region (forty nine percentage) is relatively intact, at the same time as nine percentage is located in fragments with very little connectivity. Tropical rainforests and boreal coniferous forests are the smallest quantity fragmented, while subtropical dry woodland and temperate oceanic forests are some of the important fragmented. Roughly eighty percentage of the world’s wooded area region is observed in patches large than 1 million hectares. The closing 20 percentage is discovered in extra than 34 million patches throughout the planet – the overpowering majority however 1 000 hectares in size. Human society and forests affect each other in each fantastic and bad ways.[11] Forests offer surroundings offerings to people and feature vacationer attractions. Forests may even have an effect on people’s health. Human activities, together with unsustainable use of wooded area resources, can negatively have an effect on wooded area ecosystems. Analysis of the deforestation is one of the number one and key packages in remote sensing. The location, decided on for deforestation evaluation is northern areas, nearly 150km far from the Islamabad, wherein woodland charge is maximum amongst different provinces of Pakistan. The common temperature is 20º C in summer time season and 4º C in wintry weather with a hundred twenty five and sixty five mm precipitation degree respectively. The satellite tv for pc statistics pix have been accumulated all through the iciness season.

The slow deforestation reasons a risk to the lives of northern vicinity peoples. It is almost not possible to cover from the enemy with much less quantity of wooded area due to the fact it’s far close to to the boarder. The deforestation is likewise hurting the economy. The international GDP ought to lessen to 7% in 2050 because of deforestation affects on forests, rivers and marine life. Approximately 30 lakhs humans are relying on woods for heating and cooking, so reducing of wooded area consequences on the ones peoples. The long-time period earnings and organic productiveness additionally consequences whilst the forests reduce right all the way down to lead them to agricultural land. The deforestation additionally outcomes at the vacationers which visits to experience the splendor of the nature. According to Food and Agricultural Organization the woodland performs an essential function for the growing countries. According to National Geographic 70% of the plant life and animals are dropping their habitats because of reducing of wooded area. The vitamins of any wooded area come from the decaying plant and animals topics at the wooded area floor. The uncommon species located withinside the wooded area ought to extinct because of deforestation from the Timber Mafia. The cover of the tress acts as a safe haven for the vegetation and animals.

The slicing of wooded area affords temperature versions that is deadly for the inhabitants. The lack of any specie approach lack of data of that unique specie. This records may also assist withinside the area of medication and agriculture. The identical case is taking place in Murree which reasons lack of uncommon species of flora and animals or pressure them emigrate to different locations. Murree is one of the maximum famous locations in Pakistan. During holidays the humans moved right here to revel in the splendor of the nature. But the ordinary deforestation extinguishing the splendor which reasons fewer site visitors is to come. The timber bind the soil with the assist in their roots. If there’s heavy rain or hurricane the soil will washed away however in case of bushes the opportunity may be very much less. The deforestation in Murree reasons the soil erosion which additionally outcomes withinside the boom of the flora. To boom the region of agriculture land to plant palm oil, coffee, wheat, cotton and soybean via way of means of slicing the herbal wooded area reasons the soil erosion. Because those kinds of vegetation can not keep the soil as examine to the power of herbal vegetation. In the current one hundred fifty years we misplaced 12 of of the topsoil. It additionally impacts at the nutrient degradation, lack of soil structure, soil salinity and compaction.

The deforestation additionally reasons the flood due to the fact the bushes prevent the go with the drift of sediments. In 1947, while Pakistan takes independence, riverine wooded area were gift on the banks of Indus River. This woodland use as an anchor and absorbs the ferocity of the flood water. It manner that the wooded area is the primary line defines towards flood waters. During rainfall, the rainwater receives trapped in branches, leaves and roots which assist to sluggish the go with the drift of floodwater. We are inviting greater floods because of the deforestation process. Life suffers badly from the deforestation in lots of ways. The deforestation is liable for 20% of the world’s greenhouse fueloline emissions. Indirectly its outcomes decorate through the much less absorption of carbon dioxide and additionally launch much less quantity of oxygen. The greenhouse impact is accountable for the growth in temperature. Due to the soil erosion, the lake or water assets polluted through the sediments with a purpose to have an effect on the inhabitant. If the place of build-up will increase it’ll additionally have an effect on the groundwater. The most important motive is seepage of water withinside the ground.

It additionally outcomes at the water cycle due to the fact the timber manipulate the extent of the water withinside the atmosphere. Less quantity of tress way much less absorption of water from the leaves. It consequences in much less rainfall and additionally it dries the soil. The dry soil way the lack of ability to develop exceptional sorts of increase. Major a part of the supply of the earnings of Murree comes from the traveler which additionally relates with GDP of the united states. The splendor of nature additionally reduces with the deforestation which reasons

fewer vacationers to visit. The primary purpose of this lower is the unproductive land and lack of uncommon species. The GDP of u . s . will have an effect on because of much less quantity of vacationers. So, we can need to shop the woodland of northern regions to boom the visitor. There is a clean distinction in each the satellite images (2010 & 2018). The drastic modifications indicates withinside the satellite images, results for each, water and vegetation. The water assets also are depleting and the inexperienced element of

Forest is likewise dropping its conventional splendor. The lower in wooded area now no longer only results on animals however additionally outcomes each on human and environment. The boom in residential regions is inflicting many affects at the in habitats. The essential affects are the worldwide warming and pollutants which in end result affecting the tourism. The boom in constructed up additionally indicates there’s additionally boom in eating places and accommodations that is affecting the splendor and hygienic air of the Islamabad.

Approximately 15% to 30% of the extent of the wooden is traded as unlawful across the world. The mafia is a ways extra risky than the funding in off shore corporations. The wooded area additionally acts as Green carbon as it shops and bind carbon dioxide. According to Pakistan authorities the woodland covers 4.1% of the country. The deforestation price is 2.5% that’s an alarming situation. Different corporations are accountable for the deforestation withinside the place round Islamabad and different northern regions. These agencies illegally delivery the timber of the timber which reason the lack of many species. The primary hassle which facilitates wooden mafia is that the forestry branch has no document of the full quantity of timber. Secondly, a few humans additionally assist this mafia to smuggle the wooden to different cities.Many northern regions are famous for the royal bushes which sells at a totally luxurious price. If it’s far hard to smuggle the woods, they covert into furniture.

Deforestation is the cutting of forests and trees where the land is thereafter converted to farming use or may remain idle and in the end be degraded in ways such as soil erosion or desertification. Examples of deforestation include change of forestland to farms, ranches, or urban use.

Deforestation trees are mainly used for charcoal, housing and mainly furniture. Deforestation results in loss of trees and loss of rain. When deforestation is procured in a place, it results in increased human settlement, loss of earth cover and involves increased logging. The trends that are involved include global warming, loss of rainfall which means reduced food supply, crop production, as well as the Amazon river’s dry.

The Social Domain Related to Deforestation and the Stake holders involved

Deforestation has been done for at least 10,000 years, people have destroyed the forests. In most developed countries the demand for forests has reduced nowadays; but in many tropical countries, they are the homes to about half of the remaining plantation forest.

For instance, in Congo, with more tropical rain forests than any other country apart from Brazil, the deforestation is mostly driven by the peasants , whose number is about to double on top of that increasing world’s requirement for food and fuels from biological organisms adding even more to the high temperature.

So does climate change. This is already happening in Canada, as well as in Australia, which forests have been destroyed by forest fires and droughts, which, in its turn, has greatly contributed to the climate change and global warming.

Deforestation enriches those who are practicing it, but in the long run it destroys the planet in many ways and deprives it of its nature and beauty.

The major stakeholders in the social domain are people involved in agriculture and infrastructure who have played a role of continuously depletion of the earth resources apart form development, growing and expansion of food resources as well also land for population settlement.

Political Domain and issues related to Regulation and implementation of Policies and the Position of the Brazilian Government.

In the political domain there is conflict in the effort to conserve the forests since some say the industrialization and urbanization have to take place first before conservation until Brazil provides jobs for people who are involved in cutting down trees,

Between the years 2006-2009 the rate of deforestation has dramatically reduced to a mere 7,000sqkm which is majorly contributed to government action and also due to tumbling prices for agricultural products and in comparison to the rest of the world. It has taken solid steps in restoring its Amazon basin since they believe they lead in green technology. It is seen that the Government sometimes favors deforestation

Challenges of Economic Domain and its Effect on Growth

Some of Brazil’s challenges in the Economic domain towards creating and maintaining economic growth have been majorly experienced since the tight measures were put to curb deforestation. Some of the challenges include soya and beef prices rising towards the end of 2007 which brought about renewed spurt of hacking and burning. Fortunately this was reduced.

Another incident of economic challenge was in May 2011 when the former environment secretary, Mator Grosson, was arrested over an allegation of logging scam. Some ranches are also linked to illegal cutting of trees and also slavery which is another downside of Brazil’s economy. Although deforesters have been fined, only 10% of the fined pay the penalties .This gives an opportunity for impunity to grab more land .The result of this is that a chance for land amnesty sooner or later is going to occur.

On the other hand, the inevitable criticism from landlords and their political counterparts has begun. Their argument is that there should be a reduction in the discussed private land area that should be covered by trees. This sounds unreasonable. Brazil will be holding a presidential poll next month and the front-runner, Dilma Rousseff, has a record of favoring destructive infrastructure projects in the Amazon and these are the major factors that are related to the downward trend of Brazil’s economic growth.

Business Domain and Related Industries and REDD’S Impact by Contribution of Incentives

Main industries that are involved in this domain are the cultivation in Brazil in the Amazon of sugarcane, a source of bioethanol, demand for which is soaring with time.

Another business is Braskem, a big Brazilian petrochemical firm, which has developed a technique to make ethylene from bioethanol and will be opening the world’s first “green plastic” plant. Rebrand of Brazil’s economy as an eco-friendly producer could give it dominance of the most lucrative markets for its many agricultural products.

REDD which in full can be seen as the main international effort (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation), which gives incentives by paying people in developing countries to leave trees standing. It is also increasingly becoming common for governments and companies to pay for forest and other ecosystem services.

For instance, to protect its watershed, New York pays farmers in the Catskills not to develop their land. REDD schemes aspire to do this on a much larger scale. REDD’S incentives are paid to places where the Amazon countries with the most important forests include some of the world’s most deforested places.

Stakeholders and their Contribution to the success of Reforms

Stakeholders have majorly contributed by being in the initiative to support green energy and have come up with new initiative of planting trees.

Brazilian Point of View on Natural Protection and Economic Growth and their effects on Environmental Regulations

Comment on Brazil’s trade-offs between natural protection and economic growth Brazil can take credit since its deforestation rate slumped (Ki-moon, Ban 1). This is mostly attributed to the Amazon beef campaign which majorly occurred between the years 2006-2009 where the level of deforestation has reduced to a mere 7,000sq km which was majorly contributed by the tumbling prices for agricultural products.

In the economical growth Brazil’s big benefit is its abundance of water, land and sunlight, together with an increasing capability to utilize the resources to best gain. Brazil receives about 45% of its power from sources that are renewable and has been successfully developing green technology (Ki-moon, Ban 1).

One great expertise is the Braskem technology, It is one of the biggest petrochemical firms in Brazil, It has come up with a method to make ethylene from bioethanol which is an organic compound and will be able to open the world’s first “green plastic” firm. This would rebrand Brazil as an eco-friendly producer and would give it supremacy over the most lucrative markets in the agricultural products industries.

Most households and businesses make a living using forest products which affects Brazil’s efforts to tighten the environmental regulations since this greatly kills the efforts to tighten the regulations because those in the law are the major offenders like the permanent secretary and the presidential contender who is seen to be bringing destructive laws to change (Ki-moon, Ban 1).

Distribution of National and Local Power towards Environmental Reforms

In Brazil there are excellent forest operators, but they require help. The Government would like to keep the more valuable forests to themselves while delegate other forests to the locals. Yet both share three features such as an emphasis on conserving the forests; prohibition on selling or clearing of forests; at times the less change is delivered by the government than what they initially promised (Ki-moon, Ban 1).

That is due to the efforts by the government to claw back regulations by use of myriad ways. Some of the ways are such as collecting firewood and hunting may be restricted. They may make it hard to obtain logging licenses and other permits .This makes forest management more efficient if functions are divided. The government leads through law enforcement because without the government no action can be taken.

Works Cited

Ki-moon, Ban. “Less Smoke from Less Fire”. The Economist 25 Sep. 2010 a. Print

Ki-moon, Ban. “The Lungs of the World”. The Economist 25 Sep. 2010 b. Print.

Ki-moon, Ban. “Tree Money”. The Economist 25 Sep. 2010 c. Print.

Ki-moon, Ban. “REDD’S Contribution”. The Economist 25 Sep. 2010 d. Print.

Ki-moon, Ban. “Community as Stakeholders in Environmental Preservation Actions”. The Economist 25 Sep. 2010 e. Print.

Ki-moon, Ban. “Deforestation not a small Problem”. The Economist 25 Sep. 2010 f. Print.

Ki-moon, Ban. “Efforts of Eradicating Deforestation”. The Economist 25 Sep. 2010 g. Print.

Ki-moon, Ban. “Deforestation and Economic Growth”. The Economist 25 Sep. 2010 h. Print.

Introduction

Deforestation was largely driven by the need to meet man’s needs. In the beginning, these were subsistence-based and individualistic; therefore, the level of destruction was not as enormous.

Ancient populations highly depended on wood for fuel, and needed access to land for agriculture. The rise of industrialisation deflated pressures on forests for fuel, but technological developments caused commercialisation of tree-cutting.

Patterns of deforestation since early modern times

1600s

In the 1600s, deforestation was employed in order to provide man with land for agricultural use. Fire was the preferred method of forest balding among native populations.

However, because the population was small, the effects of their activities were not as substantial at the time.¹ Later on, European settlers started moving into areas that were previously dominated by natives. They regarded forests as features that needed to be removed.

In fact, most farmers in those early times spent most of their time clearing forests, making fences and establishing a new system of agriculture. Implements were few and far between, thus making the methods of deforestation less dependent on technology.

However the pioneer farmer was still well aware of the importance of his forests in his life. He did not plan on eliminating all forests because they were crucial resource points. They provided him with food for fuel and house fencing.

Forests were also a rich source of nuts, berries and other products. Axmen did most of the clearing through direct cutting. Alternatively, they would cut vital elements of the tree in order to cause the upper part of the tree to fall off gradually.²

1700s

In the 1700s shipbuilding became a common activity. The birth of the naval store affected the pattern of deforestation in Britain. A naval store encompassed all those products that were needed in order to run ships.

Sails, ropes and planks in the ships required products derived from trees. In the previous century, pioneer farmers had discovered the commercial value of certain tree products. Alongside the products, timber itself was sold to various households through community markets.

The products that were derived from trees included tar, turpentine, pitch and potash; they could all be used for various purposes. A critical shift in the eighteenth century occurred when farmers in North America stopped relying on their own citizens to provide a market for their timber-derived products.

These were exported to distant locations in Europe; exporting towns were all areas that firmly depended upon the existence of wood to operate. At that time, much of the economy revolved around timber. In the 1600s, most naval supplies for the British navy did not come from North America; they emanated from the Scandinavian countries.

However, this dramatically changed when the US was discovered as a source for the products.³ Hemp was obtained from the barks of trees after the trees had been cut off. Individuals would make incisions in certain parts of trees so as to facilitate the collection of the sap, which was later collected in barrels, distilled and sold.

Actual use of wood for construction also contributed to massive deforestation in the US. Some of the planks would be employed in the creation of ships. These vessels were small but much in number. Constructors wanted to incorporate the risk of returning empty vessels.

Alongside the ship industry, construction of log cabins or houses also contributed towards greater deforestation. Certain individuals built sawmills that would guarantee an ample supply of wood to their townsmen as well as to other external markets. In fact after 1720, numerous sawmills began flourishing.

Most of them were based on contracts between local administrators and apprentices. They were supposed to engage in the deforestation of local trees for the local population first before they could use them for commercial purposes.

After several of these sawmills came up, a thriving commercial wood industry emerged. Most of these mills were found very near the forest for convenience. A number of them were primitive in nature because they employed manual labour or simple fulcrums for movement.⁴

The latter types were powered using water sources and were more efficient than the former type. An export industry started to emerge around the felling of tress. The US began exporting planks and boards to various markets through its coastal towns. This was especially prevalent after 1775.

Wood was a critical source of energy for most communities in the eighteenth century, and that contributed towards massive deforestation. At the time, most settlers relied upon the use of charcoal for their personal energy use.

Iron smelters were one of the most vital consumers of wood in the late 1700s. Iron consumption was common in Britain as far back as the seventeenth century. However, production was low-cost in England because they had discovered coke as a source of energy.⁵

The same did not occur in the US. Most iron smelters relied upon wood for energy. Furnaces were constructed in a manner that necessitated the use of charcoal.

In another part of the world i.e. Japan, forests were also used for a myriad of purposes. Some supplies would be utilised by the army while others were employed domestically for heating and cooking.

However, a rapid rise in population meant that forests were inadequate to meet man’s needs. Leaders realized that they needed to alter their patterns of deforestation in order to make it sustainable.

This country started a community forest management project that would spearhead the plantation of several tree species. Therefore this part of the earth was one of the initial countries to start reforestation projects.

Environmentalism in Japan began in 1660 but intensified in the eighteenth century. Successes were reported years later, i.e. in the twentieth century.

1800s

Fuel consumption levels were so high in iron-smelting furnaces thus making it imperative to fell massive acres of trees. In fact, pig iron led to forest recession and shortages in several parts of North America.

A number of entrepreneurs had to abandon their furnaces because they lacked ample sources of coal. Usually, most furnace owners either leased or bought forested areas in order to cover their fuel needs.

However, such activities contributed to the detriment of forests in approximately ten to fifteen years. Therefore, charcoal burners were responsible for this tragedy in the forests.

Unlike their British counterparts, the Americans preferred to use this environmentally unfriendly method because the type of iron that coal made was in demand. Additionally, there was an abundance of wood in the US compared to Britain, which had already started experiencing shortages from as early as the 1600s.

In the US, charcoal burning was done through creation of pits in forests. This had a sterilising effect on soil and prevented re-growth of trees in the future. Charcoal burning also ruined tree stands and changed their composition if the tree grew back.

Land clearing for farming still continued in the US. However, farmers were sometimes overwhelmed by the amount of pasture land that they created after deforestation.

They needed woodland for fuel and pasture for their livestock. Therefore, farmers needed to strike a balance between crop land and land to be used for pasture or woodlands. This continued into the 1800s.

After 1860, some stakeholders realized that forests in the US were in danger and they began talking about it. Such individuals were especially concerned about the use of slash and burn techniques.

1900s

Energy use in the 1900s changed dramatically, after the discovery petroleum–based products; a lot of pressure was taken off trees. Deforestation was done in order to obtain wood for construction rather than energy use.

Additionally, the industrial era depended more on iron than on wood. Colonising countries wanted to preserve their own wood resources so they started tapping their colons’ resources. Deforestation in West Africa was commonplace.

Other European countries also secured their own supplies of timber from countries such as Malaysia. The US started getting its resources from Brazil and the Philippines while Japan banked its own trees. It depended on Indonesia and other South Eastern countries.⁶

Therefore, one may assert that there was a global spread of deforestation. In less-developed parts of the world, tree cutting continued for farming purposes but also for commercial use. In developed nations, creation of paper, construction and other wood-derived products continued to perpetuate the needs for destruction of forests.

After the 1960s, some improvements emerged because of the growth of environmentalists and other tree lovers. This caused a decrease in forest destruction and the use of wood alternatives.⁷

Differences between old and new patterns of use of forests

Tree cutting in the old era was done in order to meet immediate needs. Commercial uses of timber were not a priority for those communities. Most wanted to access farmland and provide pasture for their livestock.

Since there was plenty of wood supply, most ancient communities did not give much thought to their tree- cutting activities. Therefore, one might add that deforestation was done on a subsistence level.

Individuals lacked the machines and technology needed to engage in massive deforestation. Additionally, because populations were still low in number, forest use was minimal in nature.⁸

However, current patterns reveal that most deforestation is commercially-based. It is driven by enterprises and can thus prove to be more detrimental than the old approach.

Even if deforestation is done for agricultural purposes, one may find that these attempts are often state sponsored and are done in order to facilitate large-s scale agricultural production.

Cases such as Indonesia and Brazil are ideal examples of this new pattern of forest use. Their governments actively promoted rural development through construction of roads and commercial agriculture.

This is quite different from the kind of forest destruction that was done by European settlers in the US. Their major concern was to meet their immediate needs.

Globalisation is also another theme that can be found in new patterns of forest use but not in old ones. Although some wood-derived products were transported to Britain from the US, it was evident that in the seventeenth century, most forests were to be used by locals.

Furthermore, it was the locals who did most of the deforestation; they only exported the derivatives of those products to other nations. In new patterns of forest use, distant countries initiated deforestation in different states.

Therefore, the process took on an international dimension. For instance, the United States sourced its products from Brazil while Japan sourced its products from Indonesia.

This reflects the globalization of deforestation and the need for self preservation. Most developed nations wanted to bank their forests while still enjoying the benefits of wood products. The spread of deforestation may have been caused by international stakeholders just as much as it was caused by locals.⁹

New patterns of forest use are also different from old patterns because current endeavours reflect conservation policies. Many environmentalists have spearheaded efforts in various sectors that directly or indirectly depend on deforestation for survival.

These individuals have contributed towards the minimisation of unwarranted forest destruction. Such environmentalists did not exist in the ancient times.

Developments in energy sources and technology have minimised the use of trees as sources of fuel in developed nations. This was not true in the past since coal was a vital cause of deforestation. Logging was often done in order to meet energy needs domestically and commercially.

Smelting of iron and other industrial related needs took place through wood- derived fuels. Currently, forests are useful for the creation of certain products.

However, these products cannot be created from certain parts of trees; they must come from the large scale elimination of trees. Therefore, while new patterns of forest use may have been propelled by other needs, they still present a serious threat to forests.¹⁰

Conclusion

Man has always seen forests as a means to an end; trees enable him to meet his needs. However, changing technological advancements and needs altered the patterns of forest use.

Some of the objectives that motivated man to cut trees were eliminated in subsequent times while new ones came into existence. This explains the prevalence of globalisation (international sourcing of wood) and large scale deforestation as trends in forest use today.

Bibliography

Braudel, F, The Structures of Everyday Life, Harper and Row, New York, 1979.

Brimblecombe, P and Pfister, C, The Silent Countdown, Springer, New York, 1990.

Cronon, W, Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists and the Ecology of New England, Hill and Wang, NY, 1983.

Dargavel, J, Fashioning Australia‘s Forests, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1995

Goudie, A, The Human Impact on the Environment, 2d ed, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1986

Radkau, J, Nature and Power: A Global History of the Environment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008.

Schama, S, Landscape and Memory, Alfred Knopf, New York, 1995.

Thirgood, J, Man and the Mediterranean Forest: A History of Resource Depletion, Academic Press, New York, 1981.

Williams, M, Americans and their Forests: A Historical Geography, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,1989.

Williams, M, Deforesting the Earth: From prehistory to global crisis, University of Chicago press, Chicago, 2003.

Footnotes

¹W Cronon, Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists and the Ecology of New England, Hill and Wang, NY, 1983.

² S Schama, Landscape and Memory, Alfred Knopf, New York, 1995.

³ M Williams, Deforesting the Earth: From prehistory to global crisis, University of Chicago press, Chicago, 2003.

⁴M Williams, Americans and their Forests: A Historical Geography, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,1989.

⁵ P Brimblecombe and C Pfister, The Silent Countdown, Springer, New York, 1990.

⁶ J Radkau, Nature and Power: A Global History of the Environment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008.

⁷ A Goudie, The Human Impact on the Environment, 2d ed, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1986.

⁸ J Dargavel, Fashioning Australia‘s Forests, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1995.

⁹ F Braudel, The Structures of Everyday Life, Harper and Row, New York, 1979.

¹⁰ J Thirgood, Man and the Mediterranean Forest: A History of Resource Depletion, Academic Press, New York, 1981.

During the last several decades, a considerable growth of the soybean industry is observed in the United States. On the one hand, this progress promotes the creation of new working places and feeding opportunities because of the qualities of this legume, its compounds, and cultivating issues. On the other hand, such agricultural expansion is a serious global environmental concern that contributes to further deforestation.

Despite the existing gaps, one fact remains unchangeable: to be properly cultivated and produced, soy needs much land. Even if farmers offer their land for soybean production, they continue using forested areas for their own purposes, making soybean an indirect but dangerous deforestation cause. Effective certification plans and land-use strategies for soy production have to be developed to protect natural areas and local forests from clear-cutting.

In this project, several important terms have to be recognized. Soybean is a legume crop that is rich in proteins and oil. Deforestation is a process of clearing the land for various industrialized purposes. Soy Moratorium (SoyM) is an agreement enacted in July 2006 and signed by sellers not to buy soy that was grown on deforested land. All these terms will be used in this paper to clarify how soybeans cause deforestation in the modern world.

Soybeans become a frequently used crop in many countries, including the United States. According to the article “Soybeans,” posted in the Union of Concerned Scientists, soybean is a crop the production of which continues gaining popularity with about 6% being used “directly into food products for human consumption” and 75% being used as “feed for chickens, pigs, cows, and farmed fish” . It is profitable to use land on its production without even thinking how this demand becomes a serious deforestation driver.

It is not difficult to grow soy in new environments in a short period of time. Economists and planters collaborate to identify additional areas for soybean production, neglecting the threat of elimination of rainforests and the inability for researchers to find out new ways of cultivating this plant. The chosen business brings certain profits and invites more new stakeholders to be their potential buyers. It is just unreasonable for modern businesspeople to search for alternatives for the already effective activity.

Another concern about soybean production and deforestation is the control by the government. In “Soy Moratorium Impacts on Soybean and Deforestation Dynamics in Mato Grosso, Brazil” by Jude H. Kastens, J. Christopher Brown, Alexandre Camargo Coutinho, Christopher R. Bishop, and Júlio César D. M. Esquerdo published April 2017 in PLOS ONE, deforestation is an outcome driven by soy production to increase the amount of cropland area.

This activity was provoked by several non-governmental organizations when citizens refused to buy soybeans but reduce the number of forests being removed. In the article “Blinding Consumers to the True Cost of Soy?” published in Forests News October 2018, Erin O’Connell investigated certification of deforestation-free product. This study proves the possibility to change the circumstances and identify some alternatives for soybean production. Farmers offer to buy their lands to soy production, provoking an idea of reduced deforestation. Still, they can easily find new land for their business and destroy other rainforests to meet their goals.

People play a crucial role in challenging the environment and the land where they have to live. To create opportunities, they may neglect nature and universal rights without thinking about consequences. The benefits of soy production, like an effective feed for animals and humans, create the need to clean and burn large areas. Instead of new methods to cultivate soybeans, traders and farmers do not plan to end deforestation, believing that the representatives of the cattle industry have to take responsibilities because they receive enough soybeans for nutrition.

In addition, in their attempts to offer deforestation-free soy, many supermarkets and their suppliers promise to control forest elimination, but only a few stakeholders demonstrate considerable shifts. Even after recognizing the problem of deforestation because of soy production, not many people, including successful farmers, sellers, and managers, are ready to take serious steps and change the situation.

In their intentions to solve the crisis of deforestation, many environmentalists offer specific ideas. In the Jane Byrne’s article “New Report Documents Soy-Linked Deforestation in Argentina and Paraguay” that was posed in Feed Navigator in 2018, deforestation is introduced as a complex problem that is based on multi-stakeholder efforts and the necessity to promote new production on the already cleared land. The SoyM and deforestation-free soya production are good ideas for several Brazilian regions.

Current legal documentation does make the population re-consider their attitudes towards soy production or search for other options to continue their business. Farmers and land-owners sell the already cleaned and forest-free property. There are no guarantees that a property seller of soy land will find another area for such business, and the promotion of deforestation becomes an indirect outcome of soybeans production.

Despite numerous attempts to find a solution and stop destroying forests, new steps are expected to reach consensus between forest reservation and soybean production. As one of the possible improvements, the idea to focus on yield increase rather than land expansion is offered. Soy has already displaced the cattle industry, and its production is organized in different regions. People must stop using new land for soybean cultivation to avoid dangerous ecosystem outcomes.

The discussion of economic and environmental changes within the regions where soybean production is increased has to be promoted. Society must understand their direct and indirect roles in deforestation and introduce new standards for appropriate and unacceptable numbers for soy production. The creation of new movements is a step forward for society to identify the threats associated with soy and deforestation.

It is possible to stop using new land for soy production and take the already deforested areas. Many questions remain open like who deforested the chosen land, or why these doers moved. New land can hardly be protected against deforestation, and even if soy production is not the direct cause of this process, it may become in several years. To solve the problem of deforestation because of soybeans, people have never to stop talking about it and contribute to open discussions, statistical and illustrative reports, or public questionnaires.

To conclude, it is hard to deny the connection between two crucial processes like deforestation and soybean production. Soy has already become one of the leading crops in the United States. It is used in the food industry for humans or for animals.

The solution to stop producing soy can never be made. It is important to analyze this issue, discover new opportunities, and understand possible contributions. In the paper, two approaches to reduce deforestation volumes because of soybeans are offered: to reconsider the process of soy production by focusing on its quality but not on new land and to promote the creation of specific organizations to raise deforestation-soybean relationships as a public or even national problem.

Works Cited

Byrne, Jane. “New Report Documents Soy-Linked Deforestation in Argentina and Paraguay,” Feed Navigator 2018. Web.

Kastens, Jude H., et al. “Soy Moratorium Impacts on Soybean and Deforestation Dynamics in Mato Grosso, Brazil,” PLOS ONE 2017, Vol. 12, No. 4: 1-21.

O’Connell, Erin. “Blinding Consumers to the True Cost of Soy?” Forests News. 2018. Web.

“Soybeans,” Union of Concerned Scientists. Web.

Introduction

Harmony between man and land is represented by conservation. The propaganda on conservation has been going on for nearly a century. It still goes on at a snail’s pace. Progress convention oratory and letterhead devoutness consist the commitment and progress that has been promised for decades. The ideology that the population should obey the law, vote the right people, practice profitable conservation on ones land and the government will do the rest does not yield any fruits unless the leaders have conviction.

The call fails to differentiate between right and wrong, fails to call for sacrifice, does not dispense any responsibility and does not mean any alteration in the modern-day thinking of values. With respect to land use, the ideology only urges enlightened self-interest (Leopold n.p.).

When the Wisconsin’s top soil continuously slipped seaward, it was clear for all that the land was loosing its value ecologically; that the land pyramid had been interfered with, substitute for land and ecological conscience were lacking. This paper explores the ecological situation in the Dominican Republic to establish how human action affects the environment for better or for worse.

For the Dominican Republic, actions that were taken helped the country to preserve the environment by instituting several new measures. These actions have created a major difference between the Republic and Haiti, which is literally a desert of poverty although both countries were largely forested.

Case study from Collapse

The Dominican Republic borders Haiti on the Caribbean Island. The 120 mile long border that divides the two countries appears to have been literally cut with a knife due to the difference in environment between the two countries. The difference is brought about by the actions the countries’ leaders and citizens took or failed to take to preserve the environment.

Today, the Dominican Republic is covered by 28 percent of forest (Diamond 220). Even the richest farmlands between Santiago and Santo Domingo have thick woodlands. The Republic has been impacted by deforestation just like any other country around the world.

The existence of the forest is attributed to democracy presented by the 1978 presidential elections. This resulted in the defeat of the incumbent dictator. The country had previously been ruled by dictators who threatened the countries environment through deforestation. The country’s forests were gradually diminishing due to logging that benefitted the dictators personally.

One factor that helped the Republic to conserve its forests is that the governments in the early 1800 helped the population in the development of cash crops. This assistance helped the citizens to concentrate on agriculture on the land they were allocated as opposed to cutting down trees for charcoal. They were encouraged to help in developing an export economy and overseas trade (Diamond 349). This kept them away from destroying forests.

Although destruction of forest would later be forced on Dominicans by several factors including dictatorship, they initially maintained the most of the forest cover. However, in the 1860s and 1870s, there was increased exploitation of trees. This resulted in the extinction or depletion of some tree species. This rate was accelerated in the 19^th century because forests were being cleared for cash crops particularly sugar plantations.

The demand for wood increase as urbanization rose and railroads required ties. In low-rainfall areas, damage of forests started soon after 1900 (Diamond 229). Trees were being cut down for fuel. Agricultural activities contaminated streams. All these activities contributed to the disruption of the land pyramid. The pyramid consists of complex tangles of chains that may appear disorderly (Leopold n.p.). The great organization of the structure is confirmed only by the solidity of the scheme.

Changes occur in the pyramid when one part is interfered with and the others are forced to adjust. Cutting down trees disrupts the land pyramid. Since the soil that the tree was growing on is affected, it has to adjust to release the energy it had. This often results to soil erosion. By polluting water, animals and plants that were supposed to have kept the energy in the pyramid circulating are excluded through death (Caldwell and Shrader-Frechette 167).

In 1934, Trujilo established a unit of forest guards to buttress forest protection, established the earliest national park, concealed the clearing of land for agriculture using fire and barred the cutting of trees.

These moves were motivated by personal economic considerations. An environmental scientist was hired by his regime in 1937 to survey the commercial logging potential. The president eventually allocated himself huge chunks of pine forests (Diamond 227).

Although the president had verbally and in writing committed to protecting the countries forests, the obligation he had allocated himself had no conscience. Having been a dictator for many years, he had no conscience for people and this was effectively transferred to land. The alteration he had brought about lacked assurances, fondness, loyalties and inner alteration in intellectual importance.

Citizens who used to depend on logging started burning down forests to clear land for agriculture. This illustrates the lack of good relationship between man and the environment. The individuals lacked the ecological conscience (Leopold n.p.).

The individuals were not willing to conserve the environment. Everybody was seeking immediate economic gain from land for themselves. The president had been requested by the citizens for alternative source of livelihood but he did not offer them anything. He lacked a substitute for land ethics (Lynton 332).

Consequently, the citizens invaded forest that were not highly regarded by the regime and cleared for agriculture. The citizens justified these actions by claiming economic validity of their actions. They argued that this was the only alternative they had else they would starve. According to Leopold, ecology should exist whether it has economic advantage or not.

The regime watched as the forests were being destroyed because the forest areas that were not banned for agriculture or logging were considered to have low value. The regions that contained pines trees were highly regarded by the regime. Trespassers into those areas would be prosecuted.

Lack of economic value is a character of the entire biotic community. If the citizens were ecological minded, they would have been proud custodians of the vast areas where logging and farming had not been prohibited. The importance of the areas that were initially considered unimportant was realized decades later when everything had been destroyed living the country arid (Lynton 332).

When Joaquin Balaguer was elected president, he recognized the urgency for conserving forested watersheds. He banned all commercial logging that had been initiated by his predecessor. When powerful rich families pulled back and started logging in remote areas away from public, he turned over the protection of forests to the armed forces. The president’s obligation was conscience-driven and he acted with passion and conviction (Diamond 235.).

Illegal loggers would be raided at night when logging and shot. The drastic actions to a large extent helped protect forest. A law was legislated stating that logging was a crime against national security. To some extent, land ethics came to play. Even though the loggers were forced to stop cutting down trees, the president on his part was practicing ethics towards land. He did not want anybody to interfere with the ecology especially through logging.

The country has a reserve system and faces rigorous indigenous movements. Non governmental organizations are staffed by Dominicans as opposed to being foisted by foreign countries. The higher level of education relative to Haiti also helps the citizens to comprehend the importance of environmental conservation. The Dominicans’ attitudes, institutions, self-defined identity, recent government leadership and history have helped protect the environment.

Conclusion

Humans are responsible for the destruction of the environmental. They destroy the ecology for economical gains. The Dominican Republic has had its share of destruction of its forests. The destruction interferes with nature balance resulting to disruption of the land pyramid.

The destruction of forests in the Republic was primarily facilitated by dictators for selfish gains. Poverty also contributes to the destruction of the ecosystem. It is possible to restore the balance in nature. For instance, in the Dominican Republic, actions that were taken helped the country to preserve the environment. Indeed, these actions have created a major difference between the Republic and Haiti, which is literally a desert of poverty although both countries were largely forested.

Works Cited

Diamond, Jared. Collapse: One Island, Two Peoples, Two Histories: The Dominican Republic and Haiti. New York: Penguin Group, 2005. 570. Print.

Leopold, Aldo. A Sand County Almanac: And Sketches Here and There. London: Oxford University Press, 1968. 226. Print.

Leopold, Aldo. “A Sand County Almanac: Land Ethic.” A Sand County Almanac: Land Ethic. 1948. Web.

Lynton, Caldwell and Kristin, Shrader-Frechette. Policy for Land: Law and Ethics. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 1993. Print.

Why did the Paragominas support their mayor?

Firstly, Adnan Demachki was efficient in his previous term (Duncan, 2013). Secondly, the mayor persuaded the people to stop deforestation to save the Amazon. Traditionally, this decision would have been unpopular with most people because it infringed on their capacity to generate income. However, a number of events worked concurrently to initiate change. Chief among them was the fact that international pressure on the government caused it to blacklist Paragominas from cheap credit; this affected the citizens of Paragominas financially and socially. Additionally, Greenpeace’s boycott of soya, beef and leather also caused people to consider supporting the mayor. Interestingly, the mayor managed to convince 88% of the people to support his re-election (Imazon, 2013).

What level of biodiversity does the Brazilian Amazon support?

Amazonia supports the world’s highest level of biodiversity. Brazilian Amazon supports more than half of the world’s animal and plant species. Amazonia is considered to be among the world’s largest natural resources. It produces 20% of the world’s oxygen. It is estimated that Amazonia contains more than 500 mammals, 300 reptiles, and 175 lizard species. Moreover, the rainforest supports about a third of the world’s birds (BluePlanetBiomes, 2003).

What is deforestation and why is it practiced?

Deforestation refers to the lasting destruction of forests with the aim of making the cleared land available for other uses. It is estimated that the world loses about 18 million acres yearly to deforestation. Deforestation is usually done for various reasons namely to make land available for cattle ranching and to harvest timber for use in making commercial items such as furniture and paper, among others. Deforestation is also done to create space for urbanization and housing. Moreover, deforestation is sometimes done to make constituents such as oil from palm trees. However, the most common cause of deforestation that affects more than half of forests is for use as fuel (Bradford, 2015).

How does deforestation affect the Brazilian Amazon?

Amazon forest is one of the world’s biggest regions that support half the world’s animal and plant species. Deforestation destroys the ecology of the forest. This results in destruction of habitats of the world’s species. Secondly, deforestation in Amazon influences global warming because it is responsible for about 10% of greenhouse gas emissions. Deforestation also causes soil erosion in the Amazonia thereby destroying land for agriculture. Additionally, deforestation leads to displacement of indigenous people living in the Amazonia. Deforestation also leads to less forest cover, which eliminates natural filters for water that is utilized by the inhabitants of Amazonia (Lind, 2010).

What is the history behind the fight against deforestation? Who spoke out against it? What role did the population of Brazil play in changing Paragominas from logging town to a site of environmental protection?

It is estimated that Brazil has lost about 19% of its rainforest in the past. Moreover, Brazil makes the most of Amazonia at 63%. The fight against deforestation began in 2003 with pressure from the international community and public opinion to turn away from illegal logging. It had been established by an American scientist, Thomas Lovejoy that deforestation cut the forest into fragments that wiped away large swathes of biodiversity. The government of Lula da Silva, through his minister for environment, Marina Silva, provided improved protection for the Amazon. This led to blacklisting of centers for illegal logging like Paragominas. Key players in this role included Brazilian NGO Imazon, NASA and Greenpeace that utilized technology to show areas where deforestation was rampant. Other players in the fight against deforestation included Paragominas’s mayor Adnan Demachki, federal public prosecutor Daniel Avelion, Governor Simao Jatene and the federal environmental police (Imazon, 2013).

The Brazilian population played a big role in changing Paragominas from a center for deforestation to a center for environmental protection. Firstly, they realized that wiping out species was wrong. This change in attitude caused political transformation. This was done through the election of President Lula da Silva whose government ceded to pressure from the international community to protect Amazonia. Citizens whose municipalities were blacklisted decided to support the move to protect Amazonia. In addition, the people registered to be taught about the limitations of deforestation. This enabled many Brazilian scientists to be taught on the consequences of fragmenting the Amazon (Imazon, 2013).

What role did the Brazilian federal environmental police play and how were they appointed initially?

The federal police were forefront in ensuring that regulations regarding illegal logging were executed. In fact, the federal environmental police implemented the federal policies on protection of the Amazon. In particular, they collaborated with the law enforcement agencies as well as the political leaders and the Brazilian population to achieve their goal of reducing deforestation. Additionally, they collaborated with the public prosecutor to indict people who were found to escalate deforestation. In essence, the Brazilian federal environmental police helped reduce deforestation in the Amazon (Imazon, 2013).

How do education and technology play a role in reducing deforestation in Brazil?

Education and technology was important in helping reduce deforestation in the Amazon in many ways. Firstly, education and technology enabled the people and the government to know the level of destruction that had occurred in the Amazon through the help of Google and NASA platforms (Duncan, 2013). This enabled the people of Brazil and their leaders to locate areas, which were affected in the vast rainforest. Technology and education also enabled the people and the federal agencies to be trained on the effects and the ways of mitigating deforestation. In essence, education and technology was essential in providing effective communication and coordination to help reduce deforestation (Imazon, 2013).

References

BluePlanetBiomes (2003). Amazon rainforest. Web.

Bradford, A. (2015). Deforestation: Facts, causes & effects.Web.

Duncan, E. (2013). All creatures great and small. Web.

Imazon (2013). Trees of knowledge: How Brazil is using education, technology and politics to save its rainforest. Web.

Lind, D. (2010). Impacts and causes of deforestation in the Amazon basin. Web.

Introduction

The global meat production comprises large retail companies supplied by smaller firms lower in the supply chain. However, the responsibility for the environmental devastation often falls to the large businesses, which are placed under immense pressure by activists and policymakers. The case of Tesco explains the nature of this problem. For example, Tesco has faced protests from customers urging the company to drop those suppliers dubbed ‘Forest destroyers’, which implies those businesses whose actions are leading to massive deforestation across the world (Kirkman, 2021). Many scholars have also explored the relationships between global meat production and such environmental issues as deforestation and carbon emissions or footprint (Pendrill et al., 2019; Theurl et al., 2020). The focus of this paper is to explore the conflict involving global meat production and its link to deforestation and to evaluate Tesco’s response to the issue from a stakeholder management perspective.

Conflict from a Stakeholder Management Perspective

Conflict management can be challenging for most business managers and leaders. According to Wang and Wu (2020), the problems arise from the sophisticated nature of relationships among the stakeholders. Therefore, all conflicts must be approached from a stakeholder’s perspective. In such contexts as project management, NIMBY (not in my backyard) conflict management has been explored by (Sun et al., 2016) to offer a glimpse of how stakeholders determine the approach adopted. Such a framework can be applied in Tesco’s case scenario because some of the people are opposed to deforestation in their respective regions, which is similar to the expression of NIMBY. Additionally, the arena approach effectively places the conflict at the centre and the stakeholders surrounding it. In this case, deforestation is the conflict, which attracts such stakeholders as Tesco itself and its suppliers, customers, governments, pressure groups, and native tribes whose habitats face destruction.

Deforestation across the Amazon and the tropics has become a hot topic due to the rate at which it is taking place and the fact that governments and businesses appear to have failed in controlling it. According to The Economist (2020), the big firms may not be the ones cutting down the trees but their suppliers are doing so at an unrelenting pace. Across the Amazon, massive chunks of land have become deforested to create room for both beef and soya production. Tesco and other large stores source their products from suppliers directly involved in these practices. While Tesco can claim not to cut trees, its sourcing practices are unsustainable and unethical because of its affiliation with the deforesters. An argument can be made that Tesco will seek to reduce costs of supplies, which mean cheaper suppliers are preferred. Such firms will require large scale production lines, which drive them towards more unsustainable practices. Therefore, Tesco and its suppliers are automatically among the primary stakeholders in this conflict.

As major stakeholders, the conflict outcome depends on how Tesco and the suppliers respond to the pressure from other stakeholders. Tesco needs to stay afloat and continue offering good prices to its customers. The cost of food production keeps growing and the suppliers bear much of this burden. A commentary on Tesco’s food problem given by Willoughby (2021) explains this dilemma where the company and its suppliers need to offer adequate products to meet the demand and at the same time remaining environmentally sustainable. A key point noted is that meat production contributes more to climate pollution, contaminated drinking water, and requires more land for livestock feeding than the combination of all other food crops. in the case of Tesco, efforts to place requirements for suppliers remain ineffective because these firms face different problems. For example, a supplier of beef can only be profitable when producing on large scale, which means more land. In many cases, the land can only be obtained by encroaching forests. The interests of Tesco and its suppliers seemingly go against the environmental needs.

Another key stakeholder is the pressure groups, which include environmental activists and affiliated movements. A good example is Greenpeace, which has been spearheading massive campaigns against both Tesco and its suppliers. The independent environmental campaign organization has been targeting Tesco on many occasions, especially because Tesco is associated with many South American suppliers directly responsible for deforestation. In this case, Greenpeace accuses Tesco of being complicit in such events as deliberately setting fires to Brazilian forests (Nelson, 2021). Greenpeace is extremely vocal as evidenced by the fact that its activities attract the attention of international governments, including the UK where Tesco is based. Greenpeace has also been successful in advocating environmental issues and exposing the vices of Tesco’s suppliers. For example, Greenpeace revealed that a Brazilian firm, JBS, operated across ranches that were illegally deforested lands (Shankleman, 2020). The organization uses these exposés to pressure Tesco to cut ties with such businesses. The pressure has been so massive that the company now also faces a backlash from consumers, another group of key stakeholders.

The consumers are another stakeholder whose role in the conflict can be contentious. The rationale is that their consumption patterns often dictate the practices adopted by businesses. in this scenario, Tesco desires to meet the growing demand for meat in the UK and other countries where it operates. Therefore, the company has to engage the suppliers who can bridge the gap and offer prices that will allow Tesco’s products to be affordable. In other words, there is a knock-on effect from the customers to the suppliers. However, many people across the planet are becoming conscious of the environmental effects of certain practices, which can be attributed to the efforts of such groups as Greenpeace. Recently, thousands of shoppers in the UK have accompanied activists in the campaigns to force Tesco to drop those suppliers labelled as forest destroyers (Kirkman, 2021). The protests can be followed by boycotts by consumers, which means that this group of stakeholders can have a massive influence on the conflict. Therefore, deforestation is a problem that will have to be resolved because consumers have joined the fight.

Deforestation is a conflict that also draws in governments across the world, especially where deforestation takes place or where Tesco operates. In the UK, the government has a responsibility to force Tesco and its local suppliers to become more sustainable and to source from ethical suppliers. Additionally, Tesco will also need the help of the UK government in setting up policies and frameworks within which Tesco can operate sustainably. Some of the key responses by Tesco, as will be examined later, have included beseeching the UK government to help in controlling businesses associated with deforestation (Just Food, 2020). An argument can be made that Tesco can fail to control the activities of overseas suppliers but the government can achieve this goal. For example, if the UK government bans imports from companies bringing in deforestation-linked foods, then Tesco can be sure that all imported products are from sustainable businesses. fostering a good relationship with the government can help the company get better outcomes in this conflict.

Other governments that can be drawn into this conflict include the Brazilian government and other states in South America where deforestation is taking place. The rationale is that deforestation is a problem that should be fought against by the government, whose role includes protecting key resources and implementing the necessary environmental policies. However, a Brazilian president was known to encourage mining and agriculture in the Amazon rainforests, which works against the efforts of all other stakeholders fighting against deforestation (BBC News, 2020). The growing deforestation can be attributed to a lack of government efforts to control the damage. For Tesco, all businesses approved by the South American governments can become potential suppliers, which creates a conflict of interest. Therefore, Greenpeace and other campaigners should also pay attention to the role of government instead of placing all the blame on Tesco.

Lastly, other stakeholders that would be interested in the outcomes of this conflict include the native tribes of South America and other regions that depend on the rainforests for their existence. However, such groups lack the necessary influence to fight both the government and large corporations responsible for destroying their habitat. In this case, only a slight consideration can be given that these populations are negatively affected by deforestation and that their existence is endangered. They remain a significant stakeholder since they have all the right to protect their home. Therefore, the arena approach placed deforestation at the centre of the conflict. All companies, groups, governments, and individuals involved in the practice become stakeholders whose roles in the conflict vary depending on their relationships. However, the nature of the conflict places Tesco in the hot seat because many people believe that the company’s complicity is to blame for the conflict.

Tesco’s Response and Criticism

Tesco has responded to the conflict in several ways but none of them seems to have any real impact. As mentioned earlier, Tesco has sought help from the UK government to ban imports from firms involved in deforestation (Just Food, 2020). Such a response placed all the burden on the UK government because further cases of association with such businesses can be blamed on the inability of the government to fulfil its mandate. Additionally, Tesco cam appears to support the calls to end deforestation, which could be a public relations move to cleanse its name. however, it is important to acknowledge that if the government is successful the Tesco will avoid rogue suppliers.

A second response has involved addressing activists and explaining the company’s position regarding the conflict. For example, the company’s corporate and legal affairs director, Lucy Neville-Rolfe, addressed reports and claims from Greenpeace that Tesco was supporting deforestation. In a letter, Lucy stated that the company has made it clear to suppliers that beef from illegally deforested farms across the Amazon was not acceptable. The main question from this response is whether the company’s commitment extends to actively discouraging the suppliers from deforestation or Tesco simply makes statements without actions to follow up on the matter. At the moment, the fact that Tesco continues to be supplied by rogue suppliers means that the company is not keen on acting against them. Tesco can be seen as the main conduit for such companies and should continue to face pressure to drop all those directly involved in deforestation. The accusations of complicity remain valid until effective responses are given (Nelson, 2021). In other words, the voice of the activists will not stop until action is taken by Tesco.

Lastly, Tesco has come out to support Greenpeace and the consumers’ protests by acknowledging the problem and vowing to act. The chief executive officer, Dave Lewis, stated that the company has seen the terrible images of Amazon burning, something which must stop (Tesco, 2020). To illustrate Tesco’s commitment, Lewis added that Tesco will not be purchasing meat from Brazil. The CEO also expresses commitment towards a policy of zero deforestation. However, the actions leading towards these visions are yet to be seen, which means that Tesco remains culpable.

Conclusion

Deforestation and the destruction of tropical forests have placed Tesco at the centre of a global backlash and conflict. From a stakeholder management perspective, deforestation is a problem that requires deliberate efforts and commitment from all stakeholders, from the consumers to the suppliers. The roles and current efforts towards the conflict have been explored where Tesco, suppliers, and specific governments can be considered to have failed in resolving the conflict. Additionally, the responses from Tesco are inadequate because the company’s actions defy the statement made by various organizational leaders. Overall, all stakeholders agree that deforestation must stop and the rogue suppliers must be eliminated from Tesco’s supply chain.

Reference List

BBC News (2020) Brazil’s Amazon: deforestation ‘surges to 12-year high’.Web.

Just Food (2020) Tesco calls on the UK government to act on foods linked to deforestation.Web.

Kirkman, A. (2021) Giant protest at Tesco AGM as 10,000 shoppers say “drop forest destroyers”. Web.

Nelson, S. (2021) Greenpeace film targets Tesco’s meat over ‘burning secret’ of deforestation. Web.

Pendrill, F. et al. (2019) ‘Agricultural and forestry trade drives large share of tropical deforestation emissions’, Global Environmental Change, 56, pp. 1-10.

Shankleman, J. (2020) Activists push Tesco not to use supplier linked to Amazon deforestation.Web.

Sun, L. et al. (2016) ‘Issues of NIMBY conflict management from the perspective of stakeholders: a case study in Shanghai’, Habitat International, 53, pp. 13-141.

Tesco (2020) Tesco supports Greenpeace aim to end Amazon deforestation and calls for deforestation-free food in the UK. Web.

The Economist (2020) ‘Of chainsaws and supply chains’, The Economist, pp. 33-36.

Theurl, M. et al. (2020) ‘Food systems in a zero-deforestation world: dietary change is more important than intensification for climate targets in 2050’, Science of The Total Environment, 735, pp. 1-12.

Wang, N. and Wu, G. (2020) ‘A systematic approach to effective conflict management for program’, SAGE Open, 10(1), pp. 1-15.

Willoughby, R. (2021)Tesco’s meat problem (commentary).Web.

Methods

The first method of preserving and conserving forests is the planned and regulated cutting of trees as there should be a pre-determined plan of cutting before it occurs to ensure that some areas remain preserved. Besides, there should be more control over forests fires by adopting latest firefighting techniques and the proper use of forest products and trees overall. For example, there is a practice of making forests into ‘national parks’ or ‘game sanctuaries,’ which can be an effective conservational method. Finally, more control over the areas of forests intended to be cleared for agriculture.

Education

Education is among the most effective ways for saving forests from being cut down (Butler, 2020). The public debate and education on the issue is important because the global population has to acknowledge and understand its role in the loss of forests. Education is imperative because it will help learn more about the environment and enhance the overall ecological awareness of the population. In rainforest countries, more control should be given to the public as to whether forests should be cut down for economic benefit since there are Indigenous people who depend on the ecosystems for survival.

Solutions

Despite the challenges of deforestation, the problem can be mitigated through the application of several solutions. It is important to establish policies and regulations that will enforce strict rules and laws controlling the cutting down of trees. Forests’ clear-cutting should be banned for curbing the total depletion of the forest cover while reforestation can help recover the vicinity of urban areas with newly-planted trees. On a larger scale, it is important to reduce the consumption of paper and engage in raising awareness of the issue to strengthen the actions for addressing it.

Ethical Perspectives

Media outlets regularly cover the latest news on deforestation in their environment-dedicated columns, with news spanning globally (The Guardian, 2022). State policies are passed for the preservation and protection of public forests by US Forest Service (USFS) to reduce the risks of forest exploitation. Thus, there is general public awareness that deforestation causes environmental issues. However, there are supporters of deforestation that see forests as resources necessary for the survival of the human population. According to them, forests have to be cut for economic stability and wellness, especially among lower-income economies.

Positive-Negative Balance

In the case of deforestation, in the balance between the positive and negative outcomes, the negative ones prevail because the adverse impact is long-term and, to reverse it, the same number of trees cut down needs to be planted, which is nearly impossible. To balance the negatives, the positive outcomes of deforestation include the production of usable materials, freeing space for industrialization and farming, the creation of job opportunities, and allowing for generating revenue. However, the negative outcomes prevail because forest is a limited resource, and its elimination leads to wildlife extinction and drought development due to the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Personal Impact

Individual contributions matter, and there are actions that can be put in place to reduce the adverse impact of deforestations. A person can plant a tree where it is possible or choose to go paperless at their home and/or office. It is important to buy products made from recycled paper or wood and recycle them again instead of trashing them. It is also recommended to avoid using palm oil or products containing palm oil. Finally, individuals can participate in raising awareness of the problem of deforestation in their local community and support businesses that are dedicated to reducing deforestation.

References

Butler, R. A. (2020). Saving rainforests through education. Web.

Chand, S. (n.d.). Forest conservation: Useful methods for forest conservation. Web.

The Guardian. (2022). Deforestation.The Guardian. Web.