The wave of globalization has transformed the way human beings consume different materials and produce products that are marketed hundreds of miles away. The increasing demand for energy, food, bio-fuels, and tropical wood has affected the global environment. In southeast Asia, different forces and factors are currently driving the process of deforestation. The discussion presented below examines this problem from different perspectives, some of the possible causes, and proposes evidence-based solutions to transform the situation.
Deforestation and Driving Forces
Palm oil is currently supporting economic growth in different parts of South East Asia. However, many people and corporations have engaged in constant deforestation of the natural environment to acquire land for producing it. The demand for palm oil and its use as a bio-fuel means that more farmers and companies will be keen to maximize production. These aspects show conclusively that palm oil production is the primary force that is driving deforestation in the region (Wright et al., 2019). The participants involved or those who are taking it to the next level include companies that rely on the product, farmers who want to transform their livelihoods, and corporations that have been investing in plant-based oil.
The need for companies to minimize carbon emissions has triggered an increasing demand for bio-oil. Most of the involved organizations and producers have partnered to maximize output. Different farmers have appreciated the benefits and rewards associated with palm oil since it requires little land, chemicals, and management. Additionally, many citizens in the region have been facing poverty and inequality over the years. The demand for palm oil has encouraged them to maximize production and transform their life experiences (Siregar & Tan, 2019). The region has also capitalized on the existing climatic conditions to grow the plant and increase its bargaining power in the globalizing world. These descriptions reveal that economies, culture, and politics have a role to play regarding the expansion of palm oil fields and the increasing level of deforestation.
These forces are both local and global since they attract SE Asians as key stakeholders while influencing economic performance in different parts of the world. Locally, many citizens, government officials, and environmentalists have been involved to strike a balance between palm oil production and deforestation (Villadiego, 2018). Similarly, international corporations, policymakers, and environmentalists are involved to minimize greenhouse gases emissions at the global level. The international community is also considering how different stakeholders can address the problem of deforestation.
Impacts of Palm Oil Deforestation
Palm oil deforestation has emerged as a major challenge that has numerous negative impacts that can affect local societies. First, this problem is encouraging more partners, farmers, and companies to deforest more land to cultivate palm oil. Such malpractice has affected the integrity of the natural environment and the ecological system (Martinko, 2018). Second, increased levels of palm oil deforestation have disoriented or changed the climatic patterns of such regions. These developments have triggered new conditions characterized by extreme temperatures.
This deforestation triggered by palm oil farming has affected the global society in various ways. First, the process of climate change affects different regions across the world due to changing rain patterns. Second, palm oil is becoming a common product cultivated in various continents (May-Tobin, 2014). Latin America has been considering such a practice as a way to improve economic performance and support people’s lives. Third, the produced oil is eventually used in industries and automobiles across the globe (“About,” n.d.). Such a development creates a new scenario whereby many countries record increased levels of greenhouse gas emissions.
Similarly, palm oil deforestation is becoming malpractice that has significant impacts on many people. For instance, some individuals are displaced from their regions to pave way for agricultural activities. They also find it hard to live in unpolluted and healthy environments. The trends associated with palm oil production have affected many children negatively since they are required to provide cheap labor (Gies, 2014). Such individuals find it hard to complete their studies successfully. Consequently, the cycle of poverty remains a major challenge in SE Asia. The environment has also been affected negatively due to the loss of fauna and flora. Its integrity becomes obliterated, thereby being unable to support the lives of different creatures, such as wildlife and domesticated animals.
Possible Solutions
The above problem has the potential to affect the integrity of the global environment and worsen the experiences of many people across the globe. I believe that various solutions are possible to solve this challenge. First, sustainable palm oil production processes are needed whereby different stakeholders consider new ways of conserving forestlands while at the same time maximizing the production of palm oil (“Our global goals,” n.d.). Second, individuals can consider the importance of agro-forestry and combine the trees with native ones in different parts of SE Asia to reduce the current challenge of deforestation (Johnson, 2014). This approach will ensure that more people do not destroy their surrounding environments to achieve their potential.
Third, different stakeholders can collaborate to sensitize farmers and encourage them to focus on high-priority landscapes to promote cultivation processes that are sustainable. Fourth, the international community can join hands to deliver better production systems and reduce the level of deforestation. Fifthly, the consideration of research and development (R&D) can become a new opportunity to find better alternatives to palm oil that do not pollute the environment or trigger increased levels of deforestation.
In the recent past, some stakeholders have been considering various efforts to deal with this challenge. For example, the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) has been engaging in advocacy to provide advice to local farmers and promote sustainable practices (“The search for sustainable,” 2019). In Indonesia, some district governments have promoted participatory plans to promote farmland management and improve the sustainability of the available forests (“The search for sustainable,” 2019). Different agencies and industries relying on palm oil have introduced additional deforestation policies that compel farmers and producers to protest the surrounding environment and ensure that their practices are sustainable (Johnson, 2014). Some professionals have gone further to propose better alternatives to palm oil that do not threaten the integrity of the natural environment.
Conclusion
Palm oil deforestation remains a major challenge that affects both local citizens and global stakeholders. This problem continues to threaten the integrity of forests in SE Asia. The solutions outlined above are essential and capable of transforming the situation and improving the experiences of both capitalists and farmers at the international level. The concept of R&D is, therefore, needed to provide superior measures that can minimize the negative implications of palm oil, promote sustainability, and ensure that more people are able to achieve their economic aims.
Wright, R., Watson, I., Booth, T., & Jamaluddin, M. (2019). Borneo is burning: How the world’s demand for palm oil is driving deforestation in Indonesia. CNN. Web.
The composition and appearance of the humid tropical forest of the Amazon amaze with the abundance of plant life forms, the exceptional richness of the species composition, and the density and complexity of the canopy. This richest plant mass on Earth possesses, especially in the west of the Amazon, innumerable resources of food, technical and medicinal raw materials, building, and ornamental materials. The Amazon basin plays an important role in global metabolism, accounting for about 10% of the primary biological production of the Earth. The species composition and appearance of forests vary depending on the situation concerning the rivers. Periodic spills of the Amazon and its tributaries greatly affect vegetation. The main causes of the deforestation process in Amazon forests are political discourse, poverty, and globalization.
Brazilian Influence
The states, within which Amazonia enters, primarily Brazil, began to develop forest areas. To this end, Trans-Amazonian highways and other roads were laid, including a railway through East Amazon, along which there is a clearing of forests for arable land and pastures, exploration and extraction of minerals, construction of settlements, and industrial enterprises (Schmidt & McDermott, 2015). A gradual settlement of vast areas of South American people began. Since the early 1960s, the population within the Brazilian Amazon increased by ten times, and by 2002 reached 20 million people (Barbanti, 2015). As a rule, the settlement is accompanied by uncontrolled deforestation, as well as the destruction of unique species of flora and fauna.
A sharp reduction in the forest area of the Amazon is also evidenced by observational data from space. Since 2000, a large-scale economic development plan has been implemented in Amazonia, called the “Advance Brazil,” which provides for the construction of new roads and railways, gas pipelines, power plants, power lines, and other infrastructure elements (Meijer, 2015). As a result of the implementation of this project according to the plan within the Brazilian Amazon, by the middle of the XXI century, up to 40% of forests can be destroyed (Meijer, 2015). Thus, Brazil plays a major role in both advancing and stopping the deforestation process.
Globalization
The problem of forest death, as well as environmental issues in general, is closely related to the global political issues of modern globalization. This relationship is two-way: along with the undoubted influence of the ecological situation on political decisions, in general, on politics, there is also the inverse effect of the political situation in the world on the environment in certain regions of the world. As for the forests of the planet, in most cases, they will not be eliminated on a whim, but to survive, not to die of hunger. The world is divided into developed countries of the West, where less than 1 billion people or the golden billion and all the rest, the developing countries of the third world, the refuge of the rest, more than 5 billion people live in conditions of economic prosperity (Coe et al., 2017). Approximately 1.3 billion people in these countries live in poverty, and 840 million people, including 240 million children, are starving or suffering from malnutrition (Boucher & Chi, 2018). Composing approximately 20% of the world’s population, the golden billion controls about 85% of the resources (Barbanti, 2015). Therefore, the growing demand for the globalized world forces Amazon deforestation.
Poverty
Both categories of countries contribute to the destruction of the bios, although for various reasons. However, specifically, the elimination of forests is directly carried out on the territory of the Third World countries. The rich countries of the West, which had previously destroyed most of their forests, are now engaged in their restoration, and carefully protect the remnants of virgin forests and newly created stands from pollution. However, a resident of developing countries is not up to environmental considerations, because due to their tremendous population growth, these people must provide themselves with food through archaic means.
It is critical to note that this method is unproductive in the rain forests of the tropics because the layer of nutrient humus in their soils is very thin. The main reason is that after 2-3 crops the soil is depleted and it is necessary to destroy a new section of the forest (Schmidt & McDermott, 2015). The uncontrolled exploitation of natural resources, including forests, is facilitated by the significant financial indebtedness of the Third World countries about creditors from the golden billion countries so that the Golden Billion is indirectly responsible for the fate of the Third World forests, from which depends on its survival (Monteiro & Rajão, 2017). Measures were proposed to remove or postpone part of the debt from developing countries, subject to their mandatory compliance with forest protection standards and the general bio-environment.
Possible Solutions
In general, since 1982, the total forest area on Earth has grown by 7%, and space without trees has become smaller. It was Brazil that lost most of the forests, about 385 thousand square kilometers of the jungle (Coe et al., 2017). According to forecasts in the next decade, the rate of destruction of forests in the Amazon will decrease by 40% (Schmidt & McDermott, 2015). Large amounts are allocated by international funds to support forest conservation projects. For example, the Norwegian government donated a billion dollars to Amazon. The plans of Brazil until 2030 to restore 270 thousand square kilometers of forest (Boucher & Chi, 2018). All this allows experts to consider the problem of destruction of the Amazonian forests as being in the stage of an active solution and an optimistic forecast in the coming years.
Therefore, that deforestation does not become a disaster for the world, it is necessary to create a whole range of measures aimed at restoring the ecological balance and reviving the extinct species of plants and animals. They relate to the field of legislative, executive, and judicial power. The most promising is the increase in productivity and the rational use of existing pastures and arable land to get rid of the need for deforestation (Monteiro & Rajão, 2017). It is also important to restore the sites where the forest was still partially preserved to its original state and to increase the territories in the Amazon basin that are under state protection. It requires control by government agencies on the work being done in the forest, as well as on the trade turnover of some types of trees and the creation of a system of control on the roads, to timely detect illegal logging.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the world needs to realize that the death of the Amazon is a deterioration in the environment. It is a greater threat to the future of people than military aggression, which over the next few decades, humanity will be able to eliminate poverty and hunger, get rid of social vices, revive the culture and restore architectural monuments if only there is money, but it is impossible to revive the destroyed nature with money. It will take centuries to halt its further destruction and push the approaching environmental disaster in the world.
References
Barbanti, O. (2015). Economic cycles, deforestation and social impacts in the Brazilian Amazon. Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy, 4(2), 169-196.
Boucher, D., & Chi, D. (2018). Amazon deforestation in Brazil: What has not happened and how the global media covered It. Tropical Conservation Science, 1(1), 2-5.
Coe, M. T., Brando, P. M., Deegan, L. A., Macedo, M. N., Neill, C., & Silvério, D. V. (2017). The forests of the Amazon and Cerrado moderate regional climate and are the key to the future. Tropical Conservation Science, 1(1), 2-6.
Meijer, K. S. (2015). A comparative analysis of the effectiveness of four supply chain initiatives to reduce deforestation. Tropical Conservation Science, 1(1), 583–597.
Monteiro, M., & Rajão, R. (2017). Scientists as citizens and knowers in the detection of deforestation in the Amazon. Social Studies of Science, 47(4), 466-484.
Schmidt, C. A., & McDermott, C. L. (2015). Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon: Local explanations for forestry law compliance. Social & Legal Studies, 24(1), 3-24.
The topic selected is “Brazil Amazon deforestation soars to 11-year high”. The article was written by Marcelo Teixeira for Reuters. The article is about the deforestation levels in Brazil’s Amazon rainforest, which has reached its peak over the past decade. The data to support this was provided by Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research, INPE. This presentation highlights the article’s main and supporting points.
Article’s Main Points
In the annual period August 1st, 2018 to July 31st, 2019, Brazil’s Amazon rainforest experienced the worst deforestation levels in over a decade. These levels were last experienced in 2008. Furthermore, the recent forest fire in the Amazon forest turned the world’s attention to how current Brazil’s government is handling the deforestation issue.
Environmentalists and other nongovernmental organizations have criticized the Brazilian government for handling the issue, stating explicitly the policies formulated by the government are fueling this issue. However, the Brazilian government has categorically stated that it would develop strategies to combat and reduce the level of deforestation in the Amazon rainforest.
Supporting Points For Main Article
The National Institute for Space Research, INPE, through the annual research on deforestation levels on Brazil’s Amazon, revealed the destruction level at 9762 square kilometers for the year through 2019 (Teixeira, 2019). This data shows that the destruction level was up 29.5%. This is the highest level in a decade, last experienced in 2008. Also, preliminary data for research on destruction levels from August 2019 to October 2019 revealed that the levels had more than doubled compared to the same period in the previous year. Interestingly, these levels are being experienced after the current government of Brazil under President Bolsonaro took over power in 2019.
Relevance Of This Topic To UFV Students
This topic is relevant to UFV students since they can learn and reason how different policies formulated by the government have a significant effect on forest conservation. The issue of policy development is equally critical in the understanding of government operations. Students can also join different organizations to champion forest conservation to help their countries reduce the levels of forest destruction.
The issue of policy development is equally critical in the understanding of government operations. Arguably, there are numerous activities government officials undertake in an effort to successfully manage a country’s resources. The impact of the individual actions of politicians is always felt by others who had no direct say in the decision made. Due to this, it is always important to select the right leaders in an attempt to ensure that society’s best interests are aligned with those of the leaders.
Conclusion
Brazil’s Amazon rainforest has recorded the highest level of forest destruction experienced in over a decade. This data was from an annual report by Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research, which showed an increase of 29.5% in the amount of deforestation to 9,762 square kilometers through the year 2019. Environmentalists blame Brazil’s government for the surge in the destruction level of the forest. Students can learn from this topic how government policies can negatively affect forest conservation in a country.
All inhabitants of the mountain forest receive the Wolves’ bawl with mixed reactions; depending on the nature of relationships existing between them and the wolves. To the Wolf, its loud bawling may be a sign of adversities it faces daily, but to other inhabitants of the forest, its echo implies something else depending on whether they are predators or victims. For example, to the Deer, the echo makes it alert due to awaiting danger, whereas to the hunter the bawling is a warning of the awaiting dangers. To humans, the wolf’s echoes and signs of their presence also send feelings down their spines; for are signs of adversity that await them (Leopold, 2010, p.1).
Seeing a wolf die proved to be the nature of animosity that exists between these members of the same habitat. This happened the other day when we were having lunch by the riverside on a big rim rock as we watched the water flow downstream. As it was usual that, its only Deers that swim in this river, this day it was different because after carefully watching as the animal swimming emerged out of the water, to our surprise it was a group of Wolves. As it was usual, the best thing one could do to wolves is to kill them, which we went ahead and did. Although the whole experience was exciting, it changes a lot my perception of wolves a: fewer wolves, more deers and better hunting opportunities (Leopold, 2010, p.2).
Since that experience, I have observed countries reduce their number of wolves and deers. This has not only happened to animals, but also to plant species, hence depriving the mountain of its habitats. This makes one thing clear all the mountain habitats are in danger of extinction, owing to the fact that the rate at which the forest predators are destroying it is faster than nature can replace it. It necessary to note that, the fear by humans of wolves trimming their herds, is not comparable to the fear they should have of their herds destroying natural habitats. Owing to the fact that humans strive for safety by using all means to eliminate obstacles surrounding their results to one simple thing; peaceful existence. In most situations, this is never the case because complications associated with such safety measures seem to have more harm than gain to both humans and their environments (Leopold, 2010, p.2-3).
Summary of Excerpts
Naturally, the creation duty belongs to only poets and gods, a duty other society members can do with know how. A simple task as panting trees needs one to apply common sense and dedication. This is because although tree planting has no immediate fruits, in the end it will result in good results (Leopold, 2010, p.1).
There exist clear differences when comparing past living standards and present one, which humans have always fought to improve. Maybe their struggles are main causes of the currently existing lack of environmental peace. Although industrial development and innovations make living comfortable, one main question that lacks proper answers is; what are their contributions to the well-being of the environment?
From the Darwinian thoughts of human existence, all creatures must exist in harmony for life to have a meaning; a policy that humans have failed to obey. No living creature can live as an island because the interdependence makes life worthy, something that seems like a dream in present times. This is because egocentric thoughts drive humans, hence lack of respect for other living species. Humans can liken this to the Cro-Magnon who kills with thoughts of juicy meat, forgetting they are eliminating important species. This egocentrism has made humans to only care about their personal well-being; a practice that other living species could adopt were they humans too (Leopold, 2010, p. 2).
The preservation of the world’s natural habitats and living organisms is the primary aim of land ethics. Although this is the case, humans have failed to adhere to this because they have adopted practices that have contributed to environmental degradation for example, sewage disposal into water bodies and uncontrolled destruction of vegetation. All these have led to great environmental degradation; a practice that is reversible if only humans could take responsibility of their actions, hence respect all God’s creation the respect they deserve (Leopold, 2010, p.3).
Conservation efforts should not only emphasize preservation of one living species while destroying the other, but rather should aim to preserve all living species. For example, individuals cannot argue that, they are conserving water while cutting trees. The two have a correlation hence; destruction of one affects another’s existence. Land issues are complex owing to the relationships that exist between world living species, hence the need for collective efforts when it comes to conservation (Leopold, 2010, p.3).
Most destroyers of the world habitats are those who solely depend on them for a living. Although thy always promise they will protect this source of their livelihoods, there is little they do, hence even degrading the environment more. This makes it clear that, currently adopted poor environmental protection policies are main contributors to existing land problems (Leopold. 2010, pp. 3-4).
Most individuals aim to satisfy personal aims like having beautiful houses, educating there children but one thing they have never endeavored to do is return back to mother nature profits it gives them. This is because everything thriving on earth originates from the earth. For example, individuals can socially look down upon a country because it is poor; something that never happens to a degraded environment.
Compounding these factors has made propagating of ecological education hard, hence continual degradation of the environment. One such factor causing havoc to the environment is development, where humans consider economic gain more important that anything else no even physical fitness. Economic factors have caused the destruction of habitats to pave way for construction of houses and industries, forgetting impacts such developments can have on the environment (Leopold, 2010, pp. 7-9).
In conclusion, all this factors result due to egocentrism, whereby humans aim to do well and please themselves while forgetting the environment they are destroying is where livelihood thrives. For example, government can clear natural habitats for road constructions, forgetting that in the process they are contributing to extinction of some plant species.
Reference List
Leopold, A. (2010). Wolves and deforestation: thinking like a mountain. Dead trees EF. Web.
Leopold, A. (2010). Excerpts from the works of Aldo Leopold. Web.
Deforestation is currently becoming one of the major global ecological issues. Whether it occurs in the temperate or tropical regions, deforestation is an environmental problem that continues to endanger the wellbeing of the world population, cause an extinction threat to most of the plant and animal species as well as increase the global warming (Colfer 10). Currently, about 15 million hectares of tropical and temperate rainforests are lost annually with the deforestation in Sumatra rainforest in Indonesia accounting for over 70% of this estimate. The deforestation in Indonesian Sumatra has surpassed that of the Amazon in Brazil and is estimated that it accounts for about 15% of all greenhouse gas emissions (Colfer 51).
The main environmental or socio-political/economic issues
Trade in timber is the major cause of deforestation in Indonesia. About 70% of the Indonesian rainforest particularly in the Sumatra region has been cleared as a result of logging. While most countries have illegalized timber exports, Indonesia has far fallen short of these regulations. Besides, timber exports contribute about 10% of the Indonesian GDP, making it difficult to eliminate timber logging and trade. As indicated by McDermott and Kanowski, countries like Indonesia with large forest cover are more likely to benefit from the lucrative timber trade 254. However, ecological footprint resulting from such trade is far and wide. While the Indonesian government is reluctant to reduce the trade and logging activities in its major forests, the effects of deforestation have a profound effect on other industries such as tourism and fishing. Continuous logging has also been found to have adverse effects on the social settings. Communities that depended on the forest have been displaced or their economic activities changed due to clearance of natural forest cover (Perez 163).
Causes and the results
As indicated, one of the major causes of the deforestation in the Indonesian Sumatra rainforest is the logging for timber trade (Weatherbee 47). About 36 hectares of forest cover are cleared daily as a result of timber harvesting. Apart from the unsustainable logging, other factors such as fuel wood harvesting, climate change and conversion of forest cover for farming and infrastructure development have also accounted for the clearance of natural forest in Indonesia (Brown and Pearce 13). As mentioned, the results range from reduced biodiversity to disruption of livelihoods. The other effects include increased greenhouse gas emissions, disrupted water cycle and increased soil erosions. Studies indicate that tropical forests such as that found in Indonesia hold over 200 gigatonnes of carbon (White 53). Destruction of such forests release large volumes of carbon into the atmosphere. Essentially, it is estimated that the destruction of Indonesian natural forests accounts for over 50% of the total forest carbon release into the atmosphere.
Actions taken to reduce deforestation in Indonesia
Both local and international conservationist groups have succeeded in raising awareness for the need to conserve the forest. In fact awareness for the need to conserve the forest has been raised at local, national and global levels. As a result, national policies and strategies aimed at combating the deforestation process have been put in place (White 229). Besides, increased funding either from the government or international organizations has been set aside to replace the destroyed forests or reduce the clearance of the natural forest cover. The government has also expressed greater effort towards replacing the timber trade with another form of commerce in order to reduce the unsustainable logging.
Summary
While timber trade is one of the lucrative export-oriented business, it is critical to understand that the effects of unsustainable logging is greater compared with the benefits gained from such trade. Therefore, there is increased need for not only the national policy against the timber trade but also a considerable global ban on timber trade and exports. Generally clear strategies encompassing both local and national actions need to be put in place to reduce the severe clearance of natural forest cover.
Works Cited
Brown, Katrina and David William Pearce. The Causes of Tropical Deforestation: The Economic and Statistical Analysis of Factors Giving Rise to the Loss of the Tropical Forests. Vancouver, Canada: UBC Press, 2004. Print.
Colfer, Carol J. Human Health and Forests: A Global Overview of Issues, Practice, and Policy. London, UK: Earthscan, 2012. Print.
McDermott, Constance and Peter Kanowski. Global Environmental Forest Policies: An International Comparison. London, UK: Earthscan, 2010. Print.
Perez, Oren. Ecological Sensitivity and Global Legal Pluralism: Rethinking the Trade and Environment Conflict. Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing, 2004. Print.
Weatherbee, Donald E. International Relations in Southeast Asia: The Struggle for Autonomy. Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2008. Print.
Human beings have understood how to use various natural resources for economic growth and development. Natural resources play a significant role in promoting the welfare of many communities and countries. Throughout the Early Modern Period (1453-1789), many countries in Europe were engaged in numerous activities aimed at strengthening their respective economies (King, 2008).
This period took place from the year 1453 to 1789. During this period, natural resources were used to support most of these economic activities. From the 15th century, global society has used different resources to pursue a wide range of economic activities and goals (Chakravarty, Ghosh, Suresh, Dey, & Shukla, 2012). Today, how some natural resources are exploited is something that has led to numerous challenges. The current rate of global population explosion continues to impact natural resources such as forests negatively. This practice has led to the depletion of various resources and natural resources.
This research paper will explore several issues such as the historical destruction of forests in different parts of the world. The study will also analyze the effects of deforestation on different regions across the globe. Although some societies have managed to achieve their economic potentials, the rate at which natural forests have been exploited is a major challenge that must be reexamined from an ethical perspective. This calls for new strategies to safeguard the integrity of every surviving forest in the world today.
Over-Exploitation of Forests
Historical Background: 15th to 19th Century
The history of colonialism gives a comprehensive image of deforestation in different parts of the world. Throughout the 16th and 17th centuries, many European powers were engaged in different voyages across the globe (Lemon, 2012). Such missions were undertaken in an attempt to get raw materials for their respective industries. During this period, ships were widely used for transportation. The number of ships in different seas grew significantly throughout this period.
However, historians have argued that most of the ships used during this time encountered numerous challenges. The demand for better, superior, and long-lasting ships was on the rise (Killingray, Lincoln, & Rigby, 2014). Most of the ships could not return home. One of the best approaches to dealing with this challenge was to manufacture superior ships. With this goal in mind, the European powers were forced to look for wood supplies from different parts of the globe.
The countries wanted to increase their economic strengths and military powers during the Early Modern Period (1450-1789). Many European nations began to control global trade routes and timber supplies (Killingray et al., 2014). Different continents such as Africa and South America were targeted by most of these European powers. These powers wanted to obtain wood for their ship industries. The move would ensure such countries controlled more colonies and regions across the globe. For instance, Britain managed to control wood supplies from Jamaica to India. The forests in Jamaica were targeted because they were characterized by giant pine trees.
These woods were logged and shipped back to the United Kingdom (Chakravarty et al., 2012). Consequently, many countries such as Britain, Italy, and France continued to over-exploit more forests in different parts of the world. With the increasing level of competition and rivalry, most of the countries focused on the best approaches to strengthen their naval fleets. The above goal forced such nations to look for wood from different regions.
The increasing waves of militarism and nationalism encouraged more countries to expand their naval powers (Killingray et al., 2014). This fact explains why more wood supplies were needed than ever before. Wood was the main resource used to manufacture superior ships and weapons. The demand for these products required an increased consumption of wood. Incidentally, the supplies of wood in the continent had diminished significantly. It was the right time to look for wood from different corners of the globe. A medium-sized single ship required around 2,000 mature oak trees (King, 2008). This fact explains why the consumption of wood in the industry was a major issue that could lead to over-exploitation.
The challenge of shipworms affected the strength and efficiency of many ships during the period. These mollusks were identified as one of the major threats affecting different ships (Lemon, 2012). This knowledge forced more countries to obtain durable wood from other parts of the world. King (2008) argues that the best solution towards dealing with the shipworm problem was the Tectona grandis (teak tree). Studies indicated clearly that such trees were resistant to shipworms, insects, and fungi (King, 2008). The British Navy decided to get new wood from India. The decision led to increased deforestation in India.
The other important observation is that many countries such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were involved in shipbuilding practices. Throughout the 18th century, the Arabian Gulf was used mainly for trade activities. The Chinese were also known to build superior ships for various expeditions (Fearnside & Figueiredo, 2015). Such initiatives played a critical role in undermining the integrity of the natural environment (Chakravarty et al., 2012).
The European powers used their strengths and economic muscles to colonize different regions throughout the period. The major European powers engaged in continuous deforestation in an attempt to pursue their objectives. For example, deforestation was undertaken to create new farms and grazing lands (Lemon, 2012). The Europeans destroyed many forests for agricultural purposes. The Americans also promoted the idea in an attempt to create urban centers and public places (King, 2008). Many people believed that the existing dense forests were scary because they were inhabited by wild animals. Such animals viewed human beings as potential sources of food. That being the case, many forests were cleared at an unprecedented rate.
Deforestation was embraced as a powerful approach towards promoting human progress. According to many colonial powers, forests did not appear to have any significant value to individuals who wanted to engage in farming. This fact shows clearly that agriculture was embraced as a positive practice towards supporting human civilization (Lemon, 2012). Mining activities were also found to result in continued deforestation in North America and other parts of the world.
The fight for survival continued as more forests continued to be lost. However, many environmentalists and scholars did not view deforestation as a major challenge. On the contrary, many people focused on the issue of development and human civilization (Lemon, 2012). The ultimate goal was to ensure more people were able to lead better lives. Rural dwellings were characterized by agrarian landscapes. The landscapes of many regions characterized by dense forests changed significantly towards the end of the 19th century.
From the 20th Century: Future Predictions
The 20th century transformed how the wood was used by mankind. The demand for different goods such as beds and chairs increased significantly from 1900. The global population required new food supplies. That being the case, human beings needed to destroy more forests to engage in different agricultural activities. New improvements in healthcare reduced the number of deaths caused by different diseases. Consequently, the number of people demanding food supplies and natural resources continued to increase (Yao et al., 2014). This development forced more people to destroy their surrounding environments to sustain themselves.
Throughout the 20th century, forests were destroyed quickly. Incidentally, the rate of reforestation was extremely low thereby threatening the survival of future human generations. Throughout the century, forests were destroyed through continued logging and clearance for construction purposes (Lemon, 2012). The rate of deforestation decreased because more people wanted land for food production (Yao et al., 2014). Agricultural practices such as livestock grazing forced many communities to clear forests and natural habitats. The economic growth experienced in Europe forced many companies to obtain raw materials from other regions. Consequently, many forests in different corners of the globe were obliterated.
Human beings continued to demand more products obtained from wood. For example, the increasing human population coincided with the demand for wood for fuel and timber for construction. These demands shaped the relationships between humans and their surrounding environments (Chakravarty et al., 2012). Many societies began to consume more water than ever before. This development affected the integrity of many environments. Such issues led to new climatic changes and eventually resulted in droughts. These changes continue to affect the integrity of many natural environments and forests today.
The modern world continues to use wood to construct houses, manufacture paper, and produce medicine. Wood is used in the developing world as one of the major sources of fuel. Studies have indicated that over three billion human beings across the globe use wood for cooking (Fearnside & Figueiredo, 2015). This fact explains why more forests have been destroyed within the past five decades. At the same time, such people require land to produce their food supplies. This issue has affected the sustainability of many forests. The continued demand for wood products is something that is putting much pressure on different forests (Zhou, 2013). The demand for timber has increased more than ever before. This is the current situation even though more forests have been destroyed by man.
Effects of Deforestation on Different Regions
The effects of over-exploitation and deforestation cannot be underestimated. To begin with, overexploitation of various natural resources such as forests has affected the integrity of the environment. The malpractice has also been associated with pollution. The current “level of pollution has led to the depletion of the ozone layer” (Chakravarty et al., 2012, p. 9). This situation explains why numerous changes have been recorded in different parts of the world. For example, the Antarctic region has been characterized by drastic climatic changes. These changes have affected the survival of polar bears and other indigenous species.
Fearnside and Figueiredo (2015) argue that deforestation destroys biodiversity. The tropics have been affected the most by continued deforestation. Some of the destroyed natural habitats and biodiversity takes many centuries to recreate (Zhou, 2013). Some plant species have become extinct because of overexploitation and overuse of natural resources (Chakravarty et al., 2012). Environmentalists have indicated that deforestation is malpractice capable of provoking irreversible destruction of natural habitats. The process of reforestation has failed to record positive results within the past century (Zhou, 2013).
Deforestation has been associated with the depletion of soil minerals and nutrients. This has been the case because the malpractice is associated with soil erosion. Continued erosion decreases the number of soil nutrients. In the tropics, deforestation is associated with desertification and loss of natural habitats (Chakravarty et al., 2012). The absence of proper policies in different countries is a major challenge that affects many communities.
Overexploitation of forests has led to the impoverishment of citizen’s living standards. This is true because the overutilization of natural resources and forests makes it impossible for more individuals to pursue various economic goals. For example, Ethiopian citizens have been observed to destroy over 98 percent of their forests (Chakravarty et al., 2012). These forests have been destroyed in an attempt to satisfy various human needs. The outstanding fact is that the government has failed to undertake new measures to address the problem of deforestation.
The case of Amazon gives a clear image of the negative impacts of deforestation (Fearnside & Figueiredo, 2015). Many species have been lost due to deforestation. The majority of people living around forests have been cutting trees for personal use. This malpractice has affected the forest’s biodiversity. China has recorded similar results due to the increased level of deforestation. Rapid growth in the country’s population has led to the overutilization of various natural resources.
This issue has led to numerous environmental problems in different provinces across China (Yao et al., 2014). Soil erosion has remained a major challenge in this county. The demand for heating and cooking products also explains why deforestation has remained a problem in this country. The basins of the Mekong River and Yellow River have been prone to soil erosion (Yao et al., 2014). The reforestation efforts undertaken by the Chinese government have failed to yield positive results.
The economy of every society is supported by forest products. Experts have supported the concept of sustainability in an attempt to safeguard many forests. Such forests will eventually support the needs of many citizens (Fearnside & Figueiredo, 2015). Any attempt to destroy a natural forest makes it impossible for more people to acquire different products. The destruction of forests and natural ecosystems will eventually affect the lives of more people.
Deforestation has been observed, “to lower the water table” (Yao et al., 2014, p. 2549). This is true because of the rate of water run-off increases. This development is associated with prolonged droughts. Such developments make it impossible for more people to have quality lifestyles. The continued overutilization of natural resources remains a major challenge that affects many societies.
Many scholars argue that the current rate of human overexploitation of natural resources will result in numerous environmental disasters (Fearnside & Figueiredo, 2015). Such disasters will affect more societies than ever before. The destruction of ecosystems is something that will eventually have far-reaching consequences. Environmentalists strongly believe that malpractice will result in the death or extinction of different species. The destruction of different civilizations such as the Maya, Aztecs, and Inca describe how human actions can dictate the future of every society.
Ethical Considerations
Ethical theories and arguments can be used to dictate the future of different forests. Utilitarianism is a theoretical perspective that focuses on the best actions and decisions capable of maximizing happiness for the greatest number of people (Lemon, 2012). Some analysts and skeptics have argued that the global climate has been changing over the past million years. However, scientific researchers have proven that the global climate is currently changing due to various human activities. The increasing demand for various products such as wood explains why more people have been destroying their forests.
Governments have been using different policy measures and initiatives to protect the remaining habitats and natural forests (King, 2008). The best ethical approach is to protect such forests and minimize the level of deforestation. Communities should be supported to strike a balance between the conservation and use of their forests (Fearnside & Figueiredo, 2015).
Conclusion
Deforestation has remained a major challenge since mankind has been using wood for a wide range of economic activities. Destruction of natural habitats has increased due to population growth. Natural resources have been exploited for many years. This situation explains why governments should implement powerful policies to protect every natural habitat. This approach is necessary because many countries such as China and Ethiopia do not have enough sustainable natural habitats.
The use of sustainable and effective conservation measures will, therefore, play a positive role in supporting the welfare of many populations (Fearnside & Figueiredo, 2015). This approach will also address the negative effects of deforestation. Future generations will eventually benefit from most of the conserved natural habitats and forests.
References
Chakravarty, S., Ghosh, S., Suresh, C., Dey, A., & Shukla, G. (2012). Deforestation: causes, effects and control strategies. Global Perspectives on Sustainable Forest Management, 1(1), 1-28.
Fearnside, P., & Figueiredo, A. (2015). China’s influence on deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: a growing force in the State of Mato Grosso. Global Economic Governance Initiative, 1(1), 1-51.
Killingray, D., Lincoln, M., & Rigby, N. (2014). Maritime empires: British imperial maritime trade in the nineteenth century. New York, NY: Boydell Press.
King, G. (2008). The development of free trade in Europe. Free Market Forum, 1(1), 1-19.
Lemon, J. (2012). Colonial America in the eighteenth century. Web.
Yao, Y., Liang, S., Cheng, J., Lin, Y., Jia, K., & Liu, M. (2014). Impacts of deforestation and climate variability on terrestrial evapo-transpiration in Subarctic China. Forests, 5(1), 2542-2560.
Zhou, J. (2013). China’s rise and environmental degradation: the way out. International Journal of China Studies, 4(1), 17-39.
Deforestation has an adverse impact on humans, wildlife, and ecosystems, with its influence traceable at different biological levels of organization.
However, deforestation is most commonly explored within the context of its impact on the ecosystem context. As a result of forests’ destruction for the purposes of agricultural development and urbanization, the overall climate is altered. Consequently, animal and plant species located in former woods become extinct, with wildlife diversity plummeting and species being displaced.
On the level of ecosystem, deforestation reduces the quality of waters in streams and rivers located near forests because soil nutrients are removed through leaching. This disrupts the waters’ ecosystem as the species residing in them cannot handle sudden changes to their environment. The atmosphere also duffers because of the increase in greenhouse emissions from burning trees and the reduction in photosynthesis intensity.
Analysis
The three biological concepts/processes essential to life relevant to the topic of deforestation include sensitivity or response to the environment, homeostasis, and adaptation.
Sensitivity or response to the environment (stimuli) entails the reaction of diverse living beings to different changes in their surroundings, such as plants dying as a response to high temperatures during forest fires.
Homeostasis represents the adequate functioning of a living organism irrespective of environmental shifts due to their capacity to preserve their internal conditions.
Adaptation is the capacity of living organizations to adjust to environmental changes without disrupting their life and reproductive cycle.
Relationship to Topic
Sensitivity or response to environmental stimuli is closely connected to deforestation because the latter leads to a significant disruption in the living beings’ surroundings. Some organisms and animals cannot survive when forests are destroyed, with their responses ranging from moving to another livable area to becoming extinct.
Homeostasis is essential to consider in the context of deforestation because forests are essential for creating balance for living beings.
Finally, adaptation is relevant to the topic of deforestation because the elimination of forests enables living species to adapt to the new environment.
D. Characteristics of Life
Among the discussed concepts, homeostasis is significantly affected by environmental problems like deforestation. The forest ecosystems exist in a state of homeostasis, with different organisms interacting with one another to sustain stability and the natural life cycle.
With deforestation, the state of homeostasis is disrupted because there is no longer a steady climate, there are changes in water, temperature, plant and animal populations, and nutrient cycles (Nguyen, 2019).
Besides, it is projected that when deforestation reaches a critical threshold, especially in tropical forests that are affected the most, there will be severe halts in water recycling mechanisms, leading to the advancement of savanna regions (OpenLearn, 2022). The state of homeostasis inherent in the tropical forests’ ecosystems will thus get disrupted severely.
Impact on Health
Adaptation is not always feasible because as a result of deforestation both human and environmental wellbeing change when trees are destroyed. Forests provide ecosystems that add to the well-being of humans and reduce their social vulnerability, which is why they should be taken into account when planning adaptation policies (Locatelli & Pramova, n.d.).
When forests are destroyed, beings’ adaptation is imperative to help minimize the adverse impact of the destruction on humans’ health. More knowledge on the ecological processes is necessary to determine whether ecosystems can adjust to the environments and whether their vulnerability will progress.
The selected picture (figure 1) shows a green forest, which is represented in the form of human lungs. You can notice that one part of the forest has been cut down, which is why there is only empty brown earth in this place of the forest in the form of lungs. This painting uses symbolism to convey the relationship between forests and the health of human lungs. The authors of the image want to convey the basic idea that the problem of deforestation is relevant today. The main idea is that the more forests are cut down, the less oxygen is left for people. Thus, the picture evokes emotions and empathy in the audience. It shows that with the felling of trees, not only the forests themselves suffer, but also your lungs.
If to pay attention to the details, as already mentioned above, there is a black area on the site of the felled trees, where the black stones lying on the ground could be noticed. When there is a lung disease in humans, black areas on the lungs appear; further, this leads to serious diseases such as cancer. This parallelism makes the image realistic, evoking associations among the audience. In fact, the picture very realistically shows the real lungs of a person by imitating the structure of the lungs using lightpaths between trees. It is worthy of paying attention to the colors used in the image. Green is a symbol of life, and the dominance of the green color in the picture demonstrates the importance of forests in human life.
Contrarily, the brown color is a symbol of death, and the brown stands for the adverse consequences of deforestation for the whole of humankind and the environment. The color of the sky is not bright, it is gray, and there is an abundance of clouds. These clouds block sunshine, symbolizing the disappearance of hope. However, there is no total darkness; there is still some sunlight going through the clouds and falling into the forest. It means that there is still hope to save forests. I think the image is trying to convey the message that the more trees cut down, the less sunshine or less hope for life will remain.
The space taken by the sky in the image is not so big, and a clear sky is covered by clouds. The clear sky here is a symbol of a sustainable future. It could be noticed that in the area where trees were cut down, there is still some instrument for further work. That could mean that people are going to continue destroying forests and are careless about the problem. At the same time, they are careless about their health and future. Next, it is seen that there are several trees apart from the main forest. This means that people are thinking about plants as an endless resource, assuming that there are still many trees remaining. However, it is not true, and in the image itself, the number of trees standing behind the forest is small.
The image primarily introduces the cultural issue of deforestation. Deforestation is a global issue that causes many environmental problems and health-related issues among citizens. The commercial is called “Before it’s too late,” (WWF), which has its particular role and message. The image says, stop deforestation before it is too late. It might be too late for the environment since the whole forest has disappeared. In another way, it may be too late for humans since their lungs, and overall health is under threat. The audience might interpret the phrase in both ways; however, it is still understandable that it might be too late for both the environment and your health. Thus, the connection between these two terms is strongly presented by the commercial.
The commercial campaign seeks to address the idea that because the forests are being damaged for industrial and agricultural purposes, people are losing the essential thing in their lives, which is air. Today, when the air is extremely polluted, especially in regions with a high concentration of carbon dioxide and methane, green trees are essential. Texts cannot exist on their own since they are affected by outside topics and cultural trends (Bullock & Goggin 114). Thus, in order to understand a given text, it is required to look for a larger context. The term deforestation is related to the impact of human activity impact on the environment’s state and all the alive organisms on the planet.
Human activity influences and enhances climate change, which leads to global warming (Viana 177). This creates a risk of various diseases and other problems related to heat extremes, floods, and changing sea levels. Because of the economic activities, human actions are contributing to such environmental issues as air pollution, deforestation, and land degradation. Such changes, in turn, increase many diseases, such as respiratory diseases and cancer (Viana 178). Forests are a major oxygen source for humans; thus, destroying them will bring oxygen depletion, which will lead to the death of alive organisms.
The next aspect of the text that I would like to emphasize is that the size of the disappeared forest is quite impressive. It can be seen that a big part of the forest was simply cut down. Because if this were not the case, then the forest could become rarer evenly throughout the site. This shows that human influence is the cause of the situation depicted. Thus, the campaign emphasizes the threat of human manipulation of nature, in particular forests. A big ethical controversy may occur at this point. If humans are those who destroy forests, it would mean that people are damaging their own health.
Deforestation is a major concern, especially for developing countries. Many studies assume that because of the actions being held in the developing countries, there is a risk for them to become vast deserts and watersheds. The term deforestation describes different changes in various ecosystems; however, it influences a specific geographical area. Hence, deforestation causes severe problems in the affected regions. The disappearance of forests could negatively affect the wood fuel supply for household energy, water resources, and, consequently, the quality of life. In fact, deforestation can lead to global repercussions since the global carbon cycles will be changed.
The main message of the text is that by cutting trees and destroying forests, humans are pushing themselves to death. The campaign stands against cutting forests and addresses the issue of deforestation as a severe global problem. The author is conveying the idea that the trees are doing functions of the lungs for the whole planet and all the global citizens.
Works cited
Bullock, Richard Harvey, and Maureen Daly Goggin. The Norton Field Guide to Writing, with Readings. WW Norton, 2019.
Viana, Virgilio. “Health Climate Justice and Deforestation in the Amazon.” Health of People, Health of Planet and Our Responsibility. Springer, Cham, 2020. 165-174.
Deforestation is defined as a severe environmental problem that leads to a considerable decrease in forest area, affecting climate worldwide. The process of deforestation can be justified as a possibility to meet the needs of the population, including feeding or manufacturing. However, when millions of hectares of forest are lost annually, deforestation becomes a global concern with the necessity to find a solution.
Many man-stimulated factors can be the causes of deforestation, from agricultural expansion and timber harvesting to increased crop production. All of the arguments that stand in favor of continuing acts, which contribute to deforestation are rooted in pursuing an economic advantage. Palm oil is in high demand in many Asian and African countries, harvesting timber creates new land for roads, buildings, and commodities for people, and soybean cultivation promotes positive financial outcomes in many countries worldwide. Exporting naturally found resources becomes an easy profit for numerous countries.
Improving socio-economic conditions becomes attainable through the exploitation of natural resources. Evident benefits include the creation of working places and new opportunities, which, however, are inevitably conjoined to the processes’ disadvantages like climate change and unexpected natural disasters. Regarding a variety of economic prospects, people must realize the level of harm produced to plants, animals, and wildlife in the process of material extraction.
This topic lies beyond simple economics and even touches upon ethics, morals, and self-accountability. Humans are the prime cause of deforestation, and it is their responsibility to find a solution by implementing new strategies, using technologies, and gaining control via certification and law.
Soy Moratorium, abbreviated SoyM, is a governance agreement enacted in July 2006 and supported by local Brazilian sellers to stop the progress of deforestation, control the process of soy production, and not buy products from deforested land. Selective logging is one of the possible operations that is frequently used by modern landowners and aims at cutting countless trees. Blockchain is a recent digital technology that aims at recording various forms of transactions and linking them with the help of cryptography, including the possibility to control land documentation.
The problem of deforestation touches upon many countries around the whole world and causes a significant loss of rainforests because of the required agricultural expansion. There are immense plantations of oil palms in Southeast Asian regions, meaning that much land with rainforests has to be cleared to support the idea of palm oil cultivation. This type of vegetable oil can be used in the production of different cosmetics products, cleaning agents, and other household stuff.
Rachel Fritts, the author of the article “A New Study Reveals Global Drivers of Deforestation” published in Pacific Standard 17 September 2018, admits that “large-scale conversion of forest for agricultural land to grow commodity crops like oil palm and rubber tends to be more ecologically damaging” compared to logging, earthquake, or wildfire.
The citizens of Malaysia and Indonesia are the primary producers and suppliers of oil palm goods. Therefore, it is not a surprise to find out that many local companies frequently destroy trees and find out new natural resources to promote business and earn profits. Being a recognizable tropical vegetable oil, palm oil plantations turn out to be an important driver of deforestation.
The expansion of agriculture may have both positive and negative outcomes for society, and timber harvesting is one of the factors that have similar characteristics. Harvesting timber affects the environment in a variety of ways, including poor air quality, unpredictable climate change, and severe weather conditions. Natural disasters frequently occur, destroying houses, plants, and other subjects that are important for human living.
The investigations by Victor Baron, Alain Rival, and Raphael Marichal that was published in The Conversation 8 June 2017 stated that legal or illegal forest exploitation for timber led to the fact that “deforested areas are not immediately or automatically regrown, and as a result, Indonesia alone harbors more than 50 million hectares of degraded forest land” .
The absence of trees weakens nature and makes it vulnerable to many outside factors. Mathematical calculations may not be necessary here, and this information can be converted into rather simple but meaningful words: the more trees are cut down, the more dangerous consequences should be expected. The decision to harvest timber influences the conditions and the composition of the forest and its financial profits become attractive to several landowners. Furthermore, the act of harvesting timber will affect the next forest as well.
The increased production of soybeans cannot be ignored as one of the main causes of deforestation globally. The concern relates to the qualities of this product. Soybeans are the direct source of protein and nitrogen fertilizer. Soybeans are used to feed cows, chickens, and pigs, and the demand for meat increases the demand for soybean products. In this case, the connection is clear and cannot be misunderstood.
People want to eat cheap meat and do not pay special attention to the conditions and resources spent on animal breeding. The representatives of the livestock industry choose the methods that are most appropriate for their work, and soybeans are still one of the cheapest options. Landowners find it profitable to promote soybean production without considering the outcomes they provoke.
Several attempts were taken by the government bodies to control the production of soybean and report on the price changes, but the results did not demonstrate considerable changes. According to the report of Trump that is presented by Meg Kelly in the article “Both Sides of the Aisle Stretch the Truth in the Soybean Debate” published in Washington Post 13 August 2018, the prices on soybeans have not dropped fifty percent during the last several years with “soybeans peaked at $13.40 per bushel” in 2011 and “soybeans cost $9.55 per bushel” in 2018.
Such high prices and their annual stability do not motivate farmers and sellers to pay attention to another source of financial profits. The elimination of rainforests and unwillingness to search for new options create problems for environmentalists and researchers whose intentions include the necessity to reduce the number of deforested areas. The connection between human needs and soybean-driven deforestation is evident.
Finally, soybean production and deforestation problems are associated with poorly developed governmental control. It means that despite the actual picture connected to deforestation, agricultural expansion, and timber harvest, effective steps to solve the problem are not enough either for the whole globe or for a particular region. Deforestation is a complex problem with no definite solution to be offered to the global population. Unfortunately, even the most experienced professionals are not ready always to answer and offer an alternative.
In the article “New Report Documents Soy-Linked Deforestation in Argentina and Paraguay” that was published in Feed Navigator in 2018, Jane Byrne admitted that “controlling it will require government, industry, farmers, local communities and civil society to develop new systems”. The problem is the inability to comprehend the essence of soybean cultivation and introduce effective ways of how to connect all the bodies that may be involved in soybean production and deforestation prediction.
The implementation of SoyM by non-governmental facilities shows that some options exist for landowners and users in the modern world. The expected requirement is to take a step and not to be afraid to change something regardless of the already established norms and rules.
Many local organizations and people who believe that the loss of trees can lead to serious environmental changes frequently discuss deforestation. Indonesia and many Southeastern Asian countries face a serious ecological issue because of a considerable number of trees continuing to disappear. Palm oil production is blamed for these changes and new tensions between the necessity to preserve nature and the obligation to succeed in agricultural expansion occur. The economic development of the South cannot be ignored, and people cannot stop working in the chosen agricultural industry.
Farmers are ready to destroy indigenous rainforests for the sake of palm oil plantations. In the article “Effect of Oil Palm Sustainability Certification on Deforestation and Fire in Indonesia” published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2018, Kimberly M. Carlson, Robert Heilmayr, Holly K. Gibbs, Praveen Noojipady, David N. Burns, Douglas C. Morton, Nathalie F. Walker, Gary D. Paoli, and Claire Kremen admitted that “palm oil producers current have few incentives to expand the area of forest under their control” (P 126). People do not make corporate decisions but focus on their independent profits and development.
Timber harvesting remains a grave cause of environmental degradation in many countries. At the same time, it is necessary to admit that people are those who are responsible for the development of this problem and the promotion of new challenges. Greenhouse gas and carbon emissions, the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem, and climate change are the outcomes of timber harvesting. There is a thought that people can support sustainable timber when these activities do not create any harm to nature.
Jaclyn Fitzgerald in the article “What Is Sustainable Timber?” posted in HI Pages 14 September 2018 explained that “when one tree is cut down for use, another is immediately planted to replace it”. However, it is hard to find enough evidence to prove the absence of negative effects even if sustainable timber is used. Environmentalists and observers state that when trees are cut down, these activities interfere with an ordinary state of affairs and change the living conditions of local animals and plants. The protection of air, water, and wildlife cannot be ignored because, if people do not respect nature, one day nature may begin to disrespect humans.
The specified problem could be avoided by assessing the properties of every forest individually and deciding what areas can be used for harvesting timber. The proposed solution implies the evaluation of the sustainability of the forest, its current condition, and the health thereof to ensure that the negative impact will be reduced to its bare minimum.
However, the specified technique can hardly be seen as viable due to the difficulties associated with the assessment of a forest’s maturity, evaluating the possible impact of the timber harvesting process, and the tools for managing possible negative consequences. Even with the introduction of the specified methods of handling the outcomes of timber harvesting, the damage that forests will suffer will be devastating, and the resources that forests will lose will not be replenished. Change in the current approach to handling the issue of deforestation is needed urgently.
Humans should never forget about their responsibilities to protect nature and improve the conditions they create when they want to use the land for a living. Many universal rights are broken because of the necessity to achieve certain economic and financial benefits. Soybean production is a good chance for farmers to feed their animals and save their money and for landowners to earn from their properties. Some supermarkets and suppliers believe that the presence of deforestation-free products is a step forward to reduce the number of negative effects of deforestation and soybean as its indirect cause.
In the article “Blinding Consumers to the True Cost of Soy?” published in Forests News October 2018, O’Connell explained that “two to four percent of global soy production is certified as responsible”, and consumers stay concerned if they are always able to find products which are emission- or deforestation-free. Many people do not even guess how much soybean production they use daily. Therefore, this concern is usually treated as a hidden commodity that can be found in food, including chocolate or sausages, or cosmetics, including soap and shampoos.
In the modern world, people are obsessed with the idea of controlling everything. In the majority of cases, they do not think about their possibilities or obligations, just about the outcomes they want to achieve. The necessity to control environmental problems is one of the responsibilities that cannot be neglected. The governmental and certified environmentalists are close to the promotion of effective ideas. For example, the concern of deforestation because of the lack of governmental control was addressed in Brazil in 2006.
According to Jude H. Kastens, J. Christopher Brown, Alexandre Camargo Coutinho, Christopher R. Bishop, and Júlio César D. M. Esquerdo, the authors of the article “Soy Moratorium Impacts on Soybean and Deforestation Dynamics in Mato Grosso, Brazil” published April 2017 in PLOS ONE, SoyM was a helpful policy that aimed to “eliminate the incentive to eventually use newly deforested lands for soybean production” (P 17).
This document has an impact on a general attitude towards the problem of deforestation because of soybean production. Still, the government gives no guarantees to society that sellers or farmers try or want to search for new options to continue developing their business. This kind of reaction indicates the disinterest in achieving ecological means of production, maybe due to their perceived economic inefficiency or because of a feeling of contentment with the current state of events.
The resolution of the current environmental crisis based on deforestation and agricultural expansion is not an easy task. As elaborated by Baron et al., “local communities and small farmers are the source of the majority of fires because they do not have the same means as agro-industries to get access to the land”.
This quote suggests that ecological disasters caused by destructive acts such as cutting down or burning trees are caused by a lack of tools and an uneducated approach to production. To change any of this, it is necessary to take serious action on a high level and even involve people from different countries. Therefore, it is not enough to stop palm oil production in Asian countries but to dig deeper and discover which countries are the main users of this type of oil. This route of action allows addressing not the effect but the cause of the issue, thus attempting to remove the root of the problem, rather than its effects.
Governmental control is the necessary improvement to reduce the number of activities were cutting down of trees is welcomed. Strategic management is a step with which the reduction of palm oil production begins. Even though societies have several specific laws and policies that regulate their trade and manufacturing relationships, the lack of strategies and clear examples prevent the population from understanding the problem.
The solution is to create a guide according to which farmers, landowners, and sellers should work. These plans include enough statistical information to prove the correctness of the chosen direction, the presence of certain profits, and evidence of being sustainable doers of action. When people refuse to use the products of organizations that break the law, deforested palm oil production will be decreased.
Timber harvesting is another problem with no effective solution being developed in Asian and African countries. When many trees are destroyed because of the necessity to gather timber, it is hard to make calculations and recognize the effects of activities. Documentation and credible records are required to obtain the necessary control. In the world of current progress and technological advance, there is a chance to find out technology and prove its appropriateness for the discussion of deforestation concern. A blockchain is the solution when all records about land use are unalterably available and easily traced.
Samantha Radocchia, the author of the article “How Deforestation and Timber Issues Can Be Battled with Blockchain” published in Forbes 15 May 2018, defined a blockchain as the technology that aims to “provide more accurate records, increase transparency into timber supply chains, and incentivize better behavior from participants in the logging industry”. This approach is effective for controlling the demand for palm oil, deforested areas, and concomitant products. Its peculiar feature is that some sellers or farmers remain unaware of this recording system but can be legally punished because of breaking the established norms.
The combination of the specified tools is expected to increase the chances of reducing the current levels of deforestation. Particularly, with the introduction of Blockchain technology into the process of managing economic transactions within the Brazilian market, one can create the tools for addressing the problem of deforestation on the level of resource usage. As a result, the timber supply chain management and the related processes will become visible to the state government, which will allow controlling them more rigid and preventing the instances of illegal timbers. This kind of visibility provides regulatory forces with direct access to evidence of malpractice, permitting them to take quicker action and making information accessible on a more extensive, even higher than the national level.
Furthermore, the specified technology provides a chain of custody for the timber materials that appear within the supply chain and are transported within it. The specified solution will allow establishing control over the issue of deforestation, which is currently growing out of proportion on a global level.
In the face of existing efforts to solve the problem of deforestation, soybean production remains a concern that bothers millions of people around the globe. The decision to focus on yield increase instead of land expansion is made. The investigation developed by Verena Fehlenberga, Matthias Baumanna, Nestor Ignacio Gasparrib, Maria Piquer-Rodrigueza, Gregorio Gavier-Pizarrod, and Tobias Kuemmerlea that presented in the article “The Role of Soybean Production as an Underlying Driver of Deforestation in the South American Chaco” in Global Environmental Change 2017, “soybean area and soybean yield were both positively related to deforestation” (P 29).
The essence of the cattle industry and deforestation has already been changed and proved as a serious threat to the ecosystem, and it is time to think about how to replace negative outcomes with positive alternatives. People must observe new options and understand their role in changing the environment. Although it is impossible to stop using soybean products, there is a chance to change the approach to cultivation and expansion. Soyo is not the last achievement that can be made in the field, and it is the responsibility of humans to discover another way of treating nature.
Finally, the role of the government in controlling soybean production and deforestation activities has to be improved. Economic and environmental changes influence the quality of human life, and society should understand the direct and indirect impacts of their actions and solutions. A government, as a reflection of its people, should presumably be demonstrative of society-wide ecological consciousness, resulting in a joint effort to battle man-caused natural disasters.
Radocchia further confirms this by elaborating that “solving the deforestation crisis is going to take willpower from everyone involved—consumers, governments and business interests”. The creation of new movements is a solution that does not cost a thing to an ordinary person. Regular open meetings and the discussion of problems may contribute to the further development of the relationships between a human and nature. Governmental bodies, in their turn, promote the creation of new laws and certificates to measure trade relationships between farmers and sellers. Questions like who chooses the land for deforestation, or why land protection does not work, as it should exist.
The use of actual data, the introduction of credible statistics, and the development of public questionnaires or interviews are the steps that are not hard to take. The results obtained from such research methods may change public opinions. It is the goal that has to be achieved at this moment of investigation when people understand that deforestation has both direct and indirect causes, the majority of which is hardly recognized.
In general, deforestation remains a significant environmental problem that requires multiple approaches for its solution. The progress of society through the use of new technologies, strategies, and operations cannot be neglected, but its impact on the environment and natural sources remains unpredictable and usually negative. The destruction of trees cannot be avoided when people contribute to manufacturing, researching, or food production.
However, when much land is deforested because of these needs, it becomes an inevitable global concern with many factors, including palm oil plantations, timber harvesting, and soybean production, causing deforestation. Deforestation because of palm oil may be controlled in case-specific strategic steps are taken. Management of human and natural resources is a significant step in solving the problem of cutting trees. Timber harvesting can be recorded to identify its impact on forests, and a blockchain is a solution for this case. It is recommended to focus on soybean yield instead of simple land expansion.
The role of the government and the development of new policies to regulate human behaviors and trade relationships should be elaborated. Deforestation is characterized by advantages such as working places, and thus people continue supporting it, not recognizing the truth that their actions change the climate and lead to natural disasters. Humans should take responsibility for every made decision to destroy a tree. A reverse action like planting a new one is not enough, and such steps as certification, new technologies, and strategies help achieve the desired results.
Carlson, Kimberly M., et al. “Effect of Oil Palm Sustainability Certification on Deforestation and Fire in Indonesia,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2018, Vol. 115, No. 1: 121-126.
Fehlenberg, Verena, et al. “The Role of Soybean Production as an Underlying Driver of Deforestation in the South American Chaco,” Global Environmental Change 2017, No. 45: 24-34.
The Amazon forest is one of the world’s most important ecosystems because of its role in regulating oxygen and carbon cycles in the atmosphere (Nepstad et al., 2009). However, recently, there has been a rapid increase in deforestation levels in the natural ecosystem, thereby threatening its sustainability (Araujo, Combes, & Feres, 2019; WWF, 2020). Reports indicate that Amazon’s landmass is depreciating at an alarming rate with statistics suggesting that the forest loses trees covering the land size of 30 football fields every minute (World Bank, 2020). Additional statistics from the World Bank (2020) give extra details of the destruction by showing that up to 600,000 square kilometers of forestland have been lost due to deforestation. The rapid rate of decline can be traced to the 1980s when Brazil and neighboring countries were experiencing a rapid rate of the industrial revolution, which created an increase in resource demand. It is estimated that about 80% of the lost forestland described above started at this time (World Bank, 2020). These statements suggest that the Amazon may quickly lose its ecological capability because it cannot withstand the ongoing rate of deforestation. The main driver of these destructive activities is agriculture (Ometto, Aguiar, & Martinelli, 2011). Particularly, unplanned farming has been the greatest contributor to the effects of deforestation in the Amazon.
The task of protecting Amazon’s forestland has been reserved for government authorities who understand the unique needs of each zone of the forest’s landmass (Pfaff et al., 2015; Moutinho, Guerra, & Azevedo-Ramos, 2016). However, they have failed to achieve their intended goal, which is to reduce or minimize the rate of ecological destruction in the forest. This is because their plans have not been developed with an ecological mindset. In other words, at the core of their design is an “extraction mentality” that is premised on resource exploitation, as opposed to environmental conservation (Evangelista-Vale et al., 2021). In this regard, they support efforts to build more roads and expand large-scale livestock rearing, at the expense of existing ecological considerations.
It is important to analyze Brazil’s policy regime of environmental protection to mitigate the effects of deforestation. This analysis may have policy implications on Brazil’s agricultural policies and land use regime with spillover effects being noted in logging and timber industries that benefit directly or indirectly from deforestation in the Amazon (Assuncao, Gandour, & Rocha, 2015; Stabile, 2020; Yanai et al., 2020). This policy analysis report is domiciled in the evaluative, as opposed to the selection stage of policy analysis because relevant policy programs relating to Amazon’s conservation efforts have been identified below and there is a need to understand their merits and demerits to come up with updated ones.
Critique of Policy Option
Political developments in Brazil and the ineffectiveness of existing policy proposals to mitigate the effects of deforestation on the forest have largely contributed to the ecological destruction of the Amazon rainforest. For example, political declarations made by President Meicher Temer about the conservation of the Amazon rainforest have undermined efforts to dissuade locals from destroying the forest (Pereira, 2019). The effects of failed political promises to direct funds into the ministry of environment, which is tasked with the responsibility of managing the forest, have compounded the problem. Consequently, government authorities have been unable to police logging activities in the forest (Pereira, 2019). This weakness in implementation means that Brazil’s political class has played a role in undermining conservation efforts in the Amazon rainforest.
Although the current policy regime is intended to reduce deforestation levels in Brazil, current policy and regulatory frameworks undermine this goal because it creates conditions that reward the opposite outcome (Rausch and Gibbs, 2021). Particularly, the effects of the current policy environment on conservation efforts at the Amazon are influenced by a distorted understanding of sustainable development goals, whose achievement is hindered by the quest to meet short-term economic interests, such as employment, at the expense of long-term goals, such as environmental protection. Andrade (2020) has delved deeper into this issue by stating that most concepts of environmental sustainability are designed with cultural and economic implications in mind. However, the current policy regime on environmental management policies in Brazil fails to acknowledge cultural variations and the economic cultures of various communities surrounding the Amazon. These gaps in implementation create variations in policy implementation and formulation processes, thereby making it difficult to create a holistic conservation plan. Consequently, it is important to come up with new policy proposals to address this need.
Policy Alternatives
Policy Alternative 1: Promoting Sustainable Infrastructure
Given the weaknesses of the current policy regime in regulating economic activities in the Amazon rainforest, there is a need to undertake extensive reforms that will seal the implementation gaps evident in the current plan. To achieve this goal, authorities should create a policy framework promoting sustainable infrastructure, as proposed by the WWF (2020). This proposal is centered on recognizing the ecological effects of economic activities and factoring in their value in the country’s taxation regime, especially on activities that depend on logging activities.
Policy Alternative 2: Creating a Conservation Fund
Part of the challenge associated with implementing the current policy proposals for conserving the Amazon rainforest has been traced to a lack of funds. Particularly, this problem stems from the political establishment in Brazil, through the Office of the President and the Ministry of Environment, which has failed to allocate adequate funds towards conservation efforts in the forest (WWF, 2020). To address this problem, there needs to be a restructuring of the financing framework supporting financing activities at the national governing council of the forest’s management body. This proposal may involve donor participation at both private and public levels through the establishment of a common fund. The resources could be used to expand policy implementation activities in the forest and purchase vital resources for patrolling vast swaths of land. Realizing the full benefits of this plan involves changing the financial policy regime of the government to include contributions from both private and private players to create a common pool of funds for financing policing activities.
Policy Alternative 3: Implementing Place-Based Conservation Programs
Changing Brazil’s policy regime of conserving the Amazon from one that is heavily government-centered to a place-based approach would boost efforts to conserve the forest. Notably, this plan will help to stop the illegal expansion of agricultural land in the forest (Scholz, 2005). Furthermore, it is designed to ensure that all players or stakeholders involved in conservation efforts meet their end of the bargain (WWF, 2020). This goal will be achieved by blending two approaches. The first one is premised on developing programs that involve the contribution of government agencies in management, while the second one should be focused on forging partnerships between market-based players and agricultural producers. Such engagements may be localized using the place-based conservation approach where efforts to protect the forest will be spearheaded by local authorities, subject to the terms of the partnership agreements described above.
PESTLE Feasibility Analysis
For purposes of understanding the feasibility of implementing the above-mentioned policy alternatives, it is important to understand the effects of environmental factors on the policy adoption process. This process underscores the importance of reviewing the political, economic, social, technological, legal, and environmental aspects of the policy implementation plan. The PESTLE analysis below will be used to carry out this review.
Political: The policy alternatives identified above require the participation of government agencies in their implementation phases. This plan is intended to secure government support when introducing policy alternatives.
Economic: The involvement of both private and public players in the establishment of a common fund for managing conservation activities in the Amazon rainforest means that the policy alternatives will be sufficiently financed. Coupled with the annual contributions made by the Brazilian Ministry of Environment towards the same cause, there is potential for the proposed interventions to secure adequate financial support for implementation.
Social: The three proposed policy interventions outlined above involve local communities in the implementation of conservation efforts in the Amazon rainforest. Particularly, the place-based conservation approach utilizes community resources in implementing the proposed plans. This action means that community support will be essential in adopting proposed policies.
Technological: Information, communication, and technology resources are crucial in implementing the policy proposals highlighted above. Particularly, they will be instrumental in creating a sustainable infrastructure for implementing the proposed plans through systems integration and supervision of policing activities, such as the use of surveillance cameras.
Legal: The policy proposals outlined above require legislative changes to finance the implementation directives outlined above. They allow for the inclusion of more players in the policy implementation process, thereby strengthening the legal basis for introducing new policy plans.
Environmental: Protecting the Amazon through the aforementioned policy proposals is intended to maximize the environmental objectives of the policy alternatives. This goal is the common identifier for all initiatives to be undertaken by concerned parties in Brazil regarding efforts to protect the Amazon rainforest.
Recommendations
Overall, it is important to take action to mitigate the negative effects of deforestation in the Amazon rainforest. Changing the policy regime of the Brazilian government to reduce the effects of deforestation will play a key role in promoting the development of a “green” economy, which will also subsidize the demand for logging and deforestation in the forest. The policy proposals outlined in this document will help Brazil to understand the value of its natural resources, and more importantly, those from the Amazon forest. Doing so will enable them to have a deforestation tax imposed on all economic activities in the sector. However, the plan should involve all stakeholders to improve their buy-in. This proposal will act as a deterrent to ongoing deforestation practices on Amazon.
References
Andrade, F. M. (2020). Sustainable development in the Brazilian Amazon: Meanings and concepts. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 28(187), 1-12.
Araujo, C., Combes, J., & Feres, J. (2019). Determinants of Amazon deforestation: The role of off-farm income. Environment and Development Economics, 24(2), 138-156.
Assuncao, J., Gandour, C., & Rocha, R. (2015). Deforestation slowdown in the Brazilian Amazon: Prices or policies? Environment and Development Economics, 20(2), 697-722.
Evangelista-Vale, J. et al. (2021). Climate change may affect the future of extractivism in the Brazilian Amazon. Biological Conservation, 257(2), 1-10.
Moutinho, P., Guerra, R., & Azevedo-Ramos, C. (2016). Achieving zero deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon: What is missing. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, 4(1), 1-10.
Nepstad, D. et al. (2009). The end of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Science, 326(5958), 1350-1351.
Ometto, J. P., Aguiar, A. P., & Martinelli, L. A. (2011). Amazon deforestation in Brazil: Effects, drivers and challenges. Carbon Management, 2(5), 575-585.
Pereira, E. (2019). Policy in Brazil (2016-2019) threatens conservation of the Amazon rainforest. Environmental Science and Policy, 100(3), 8-12.
Pfaff, A. et al. (2015). Protected areas impact on Brazilian amazon deforestation: Examining conservation development interaction to inform planning. PLoS ONE, 10(7), 1-17.
Rausch, L. L., & Gibbs, H. K. (2021). The low opportunity costs of the Amazon Soy Moratorium. Frontier for Global Change, 4(2), 1-19.
Scholz, I. (2005). Environmental policy cooperation among organized civil society, national public actors, and international actors in the Brazilian Amazon. The European Journal of Development Research, 17(4), 681-705.
Stabile, M. (2020). Solving Brazil’s land use puzzle: Increasing production and slowing Amazon’s deforestation. Land use Policy, 91(3), 1-11.
Yanai, A. M. et al. (2020). Deforestation dynamics in Brazil’s Amazonian settlements: Effects of land tenure concentration. Journal of Environmental Management, 268(23), 1-11.
