Final thoughts...

- It amazes me that you can pick one theme, and through a bit of research, realise how far the tendrils reach. Through this blog i've realised just how connected and essential tropical rainforests are to the rest of the planet: climate regulator, carbon sequester-er, human resource donor, soil stabiliser, biodiversity ensure-r, home provider, business contributor - the list is endless.

- It also amazes me just how much we as a human race are mindlessly disregarding such a vital resource - WE are: rainforest wreckers, deforesters, degraders, land-use changers, carbon-source creators, unsustainable users, extractors, poachers, deniers and sceptics - THIS list is endless...

- Final thought - the paradox that has arisen in my posts regarding environmental protection of rainforests and their location in (for the most part), developing countries. It's niggling at me, the demand (and rightly so) that we need to protect our rainforests, and the need of people whose livelihoods directly rely on rainforest resource extraction. Of course one might argue you could just say to the local farmer, 'just do it sustainably', or 'stop logging, in the long run it's better for you too!', but it's not as easy as that is it? It's very well being all high and mighty in the comfort of my home saying 'stop cutting down all those trees' - but what if my family's life depended on it? This article - although quite old perfectly summarises this current day conundrum...

Thanks for reading, Ruth.

Zooming in: on south-east Asian tropical rainforests - using GFW

The Global Forest Watch (GFW) - is an online platform that publishes data about the world's forests. As a keen physical geographer (lol) - I like anything that is based on interactive maps, remote-sensing scenes and is GIS centred (this site has the lot). I thought i'd have a play around with GFW's interactive map and data platform - 1. as an alternative way of looking into south-east Asian rainforests, and 2. so I can give a mini-review of the platform at the end of the post!

Indonesia:
According to GFW tree cover loss between 2015 and 2016 totalled 4,172,540ha. Some explanations for this worryingly high figure are provided by Sahide & Giessen (2015) - land use change for non-forestry purposes is a key driver. The correlation between the location of tree cover loss and land used for oil palm appears to support Sahide and Giessen's findings (surely these locations aren't coincidental)...

Screenshot from GFW - tree cover loss between 2015 and 2016 in Indonesia

Screenshot from GFW - land used for industrial-scale palm oil plantations in Indonesia

Philippines:
Tree cover loss between 2015 and 2016 in the Philippines was less than Indonesia - 195,005ha (area of forested land, size of country etc plays a part in that). What I actually found interesting with the Philippines was the amount of land that appears to have been designated some kind of protected area status, and the amount of tree cover loss taking place in these areas. On the island of Palawan - the majority of the island is designated a 'habitat and species management area' (presumably due to the high endemism of this island) - yet deforestation is taking place in these areas (see recent article from The Guardian). Apan et al., 2017 have researched deforestation in Filipino protected areas, they found:

'there was a significant number of PAs with phenomenal forest cover loss in terms of extent (48,483 ha over 12 years) and rate (up to 21%)' (P.32).

The GFW figures seem to corroborate their results, suggesting that these trends have continued all the way into 2016...

Screenshot from GFW - protected area designations and tree cover loss between 2015-2016 in the Philippines

Review time:
First of all, I have to commend the site on the wealth of information it has available to users, not only does it provide ecological data on forest change, different land-use types and protection zones - but data on the people using and effected by forest change is included. 'Resource rights' and 'land use rights' are interesting layers you can turn on, I found this added depth and another aspect to consider concerning the data when I was browsing. I did find it somewhat difficult to create a composite picture of the current situation in south-east Asia for this post due to the lack of a 'regions' category/layer. Although the product provides country level data - it's tricky to get an idea of regional trends when you have to specifically pick each country you want to display. Furthermore, it wasn't possible to categorise the kind of forest you wanted to view data on, in this case obviously that would have been tropical rainforests. However, I was using the site for quite a specific purpose and the criticisms mentioned are merely nitpicking, they certainly wouldn't stop me from returning to GFW!

Zooming in: on the Amazon

"A picture can tell a thousand words" 

...And the case below is no exception. I came across this photograph taken by photojournalist Rodrigo Baleia, the juxtaposition of the soya crop on deforested land next to Amazon rainforest is quite striking. It got me thinking about soya farming, I'd never really thought about its potential for destruction before. My automatic thought in response to soy is veganism. My good friend Ruth and author of mysearchforgreen.blogspot.co.uk would often seek out dairy replacements on her quest to decrease her carbon footprint, soy products often aiding her on this mission. 

The aim of this post is to delve a bit deeper into the Amazon rainforest, but rather than try and tackle it as a whole, I will focus on Brazil, and the case of the soya bean as it seems there's more to the story than just dairy replacement.

Soya Farming in Mato Grosso, Brazil

Although in my tiny world, soya products have only recently seen a rise in popularity, as i've mentioned meat and dairy-free diets are becoming trendy in my corner of London. It appears that the real rise of the soya bean started to take place in the 90's (Barona et al., 2010). Many NGOs, WWF for example, are really trying to raise awareness around soya. It appears to be, directly and indirectly, in so many everyday products. The big players are commercially produced meat products (soy meal is used in animal feed), soy oil can be used as a table oil but is also being used more and more for biodiesel and there exist many other non-food soya-based goods too. 

The growing world-wide demand for soya is one of the most damaging contributors to Amazon deforestation in Brazil. Land-use change is a huge problem with the conversion of rainforest to cropland destroying habitats and needless to say, having huge impacts on biodiversity. However, further to this, Fearnside (2001) raises the issue of destructive development known as the 'dragging effect'. The article details this effect in the context of Brazil:

"The impact of soybeans greatly exceeds the loss of natural areas directly converted to this land use because of the massive infrastructure development needed to provide transportation for harvest and entry of inputs" - P.24.

Local Brazilian populations and economies seem to 'take the hit' when it comes to the destruction associated with the soya industry. 

"Costs include biodiversity loss when natural ecosystems are converted to soybeans, severe impacts to some of the transportation systems, soil erosion, health and environmental effects of agricultural chemicals, expulsion of population that formerly inhabited the areas used for soybeans, lack of food production for local consumption..." P.24

...the list goes on. The global demand for soya is pushing the industry to grow and produce more. The levels of forest clearance for cropland has been monitored through satellite imagery, in 2006, Morton et al. published their findings on Brazilian deforestation. They reported that almost 1/5 of forest loss between 2001 and 2004 in the Brazilian region of Mato Grosso could be attributed to large-scale agriculture. Staggeringly, as world food demand grows, especially for mass-produced meat, the likelihood of a slowing down and decrease in the soya bean industry is extremely unlikely. Recently, the Mighty Earth organisation published a report detailing the devastation the soya industry is causing in many parts of South America.

When I started to write this post, I thought I was going to end up slamming a vegan diet - 'you think you're helping by cutting out dairy, but really you're just making things worse by consuming loads of soy!' would have been my opening line. But in reality, it appears that soy in moderation, sustainably sourced is okay - again it's the mass meat-eaters among us that seem to be perpetuating the problem. Hmm - MORE food for thought then.

Un-wrecking the rainforest, un-wrecking the climate.

Geo-engineering is the name of the game and reforestation is one of the big players.

I'm talking about carbon dioxide removal (CDR) here, a widely discussed and fairly self-explanatory method of geo-engineering (see: Caldeira et al., 2013; The Guardian).

Schematic of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)

Today's post is a short one, dipping into just one of a plethora of methods for CDR. There are many methods currently being researched and developed with the aim of trying to limit/reverse the effects of anthropogenic climate change. It's a highly controversial topic with pros, cons and unknowns attributed to every approach. When looking into CDR, it struck me that reforestation of tropical rainforests has the potential to have a dual effectiveness. Fairly obvious really, however, the focus of the majority of research is on carbon removal or solar geo-engineering, the indirect benefits are often missing from the conversation.With the reforestation CDR approach, surely one of its key qualities is the possibility that we could be killing two birds with one stone (if you'll pardon the pun) - or rather - could be helping to reduce the effects of global warming whilst simultaneously bettering and developing degraded rainforest habitats. Win-win?

The benefits of reforestation have been discussed by Zhang et al., 2015 - what becomes apparent through their appraisal of the approach is how reforestation has the potential to remove atmospheric carbon dioxide and act as a store whilst improving the quality of the regulating ecosystem services that forested areas provide. Their review of relevant papers highlights just how much land has the potential to be reforested, specifying too, how much of this land could be targeted at tropical rainforests:

"Globally more than 760 Million Hectare (Mha) of land, which includes 138 Mha for avoided tropical deforestation, 217 Mha for regeneration of tropical forests, and 345 Mha for plantations and agroforestry, is suitable for CDM projects" (P.900). 

Although this all seems peachy, of course there have been utterances of problems associated with mass reforestation. Specifically reforestation for meeting CDR targets, there are questions as to how effective the approach actually is, especially if it is relied upon without any attempts to curtail our carbon dioxide expenditure (Caldeira et al., 2013). However, what seems to be the over-arching conclusion, and one that I tend to agree with, is, when talking about climate change and the CDR approach, reforestation and afforestation is something that can be taking place all the time. With continued efforts in combination with other approaches, it has the potential to be an effective tool in climate change mitigation. On a wrecking-the-rainforest note, reforestation is a no-brainer - it's helping the climate, salvaging biodiversity AND boosting the effectiveness of ecosystem services. Let's get planting!

Hi, I'm Ruth, and I'm (unintentionally) wrecking the rainforest.

Unintentionally wrecking the rainforest, that's what I'm doing (don't get me wrong, the fact it's an unintentional act doesn't give me any kind of excuse). Basically, all this posting about wrecking the rainforest got me thinking, what am I doing that is potentially harmful and threatening to biodiversity. 

When researching my post on African Rainforests I came across a very telling report published earlier this year produced by the Mighty Earth Organisation exposing the illegal cocoa trade in West Africa. Reading through the report I was truly astounded that large companies declaring their worthy corporate social responsibility standards had no response nor denial when hit with claims of using illegally produced cocoa for their products. Every time I've wandered down to the local shop to indulge in a sweet treat, there is the potential that I, unknowingly, have been consuming chocolate that has been produced using illegally farmed and highly destructive products. The reason why this thought is so alarming to me, is the effect that consuming these products has on tropical rainforests and their biodiversity. I thought it would be interesting (and an education) to try and follow this path from the consumer (me), through the supply chain, all the way to the source as an attempt at revealing the influence unsustainable cocoa is having on biodiversity. 

Schematic of Cocoa Supply Chain

1. Take any average weekday evening, I've had dinner, still a bit peckish. Fancying something sweet.

2. Malteasers are just fab, but Merryteaser Reindeers are even fab-er. Decision made.

3. I walk to my local supermarket, it just happens to be a Sainsbury's - they stock many chocolate brands, one of which are Maltesers (phew).

4. The Maltesers brand is owned by a larger umbrella company Mars, they own loads of chocolate brands and they were one of the companies to come under fire in the Mighty Earth Chocolate's Dark Secret report for using cocoa grown after illegal deforestation has taken place. 

5. Cargill is one of the agri-businesses that supplies chocolate bars to brands like Mars, and through that, Maltesers potentially being one of them. Cargill buy the chocolate from farmers in the Ivory Coast and then sell it on. On Cargill's 'about' page, one of the key messages being disseminated is their commitment to sustainability. Even as an ethical consumer who makes an effort to research the products they buy, at this point, you could be forgiven for thinking that the Merryteaser reindeers supply chain is squeaky clean.

"We work alongside farmers, producers, manufacturers, retailers, governments, and other organizations to fulfil our purpose to nourish the world in a safe, responsible and sustainable away" - About Cargill 

However, Mighty Earth reports - 

"Through the investigation, we found three of the world's largest cocoa traders - Olam, Cargill, and Barry Callebaut - buying cocoa grown illegally in protected areas." P.8

6. The Ivory Coast is the largest producer of cocoa in the world, and according to Protected Planet it is home to 254 protected area (PA) designations of different kinds. The 'protected' status would flag to those doing some retail research that monitoring is taking place and thus no illegal clearing is happening (another moment where the conscious consumer needs to do further digging to reveal what is actually going on).

Map taken from Mighty Earth Report

7. The Ivory Coasts rainforests are on the decline and deforestation for hunting and full-sun cocoa farming are on the up. Bitty et al., (2015) carried out research into forest degradation in the Ivory Coast, 23 PAs were surveyed. They found that the culprit for the majority of the degradation observed in these sites was cocoa farming, they reported a staggering figure:

"When the 23 PAs are considered collectively, cocoa comprises 93% of illegally grown agricultural products." P.100

8. The illegal cocoa growth that is on the rise in the Ivory Coast is not only affecting rainforest biodiversity through the direct effects on trees caused by deforestation - but there are also huge indirect effects on the wildlife. Deforestation causes habitat displacement and degradation, huge problems for many species, and of importance for this case, for Pan troglodytes - Chimpanzees. Chimps are under the 'endangered' category according to the IUCN red list - essentially they are:

 "considered to be facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild" (IUCN, P.14).

Not only are chimpanzees at great risk, the biodiversity picture continues to look worse and worse. Bitty et al., mentioned above, found that of the protected areas they studied in the Ivory Coast, 13 had lost their entire primate populations - illegal cocoa farming being cited as one of the main drivers of this astonishingly high figure. Facts like those just mentioned are especially saddening when you consider the fact that the Ivory Coast was a country holding claim to (almost) the highest biodiversity in Africa (Mighty Earth). 

-- And there we have it - from craving chocolate to the demise of the chimpanzee. However, this whole exercise has left me with and a whole load more questions:

• How can you really be a conscious consumer without spending hours researching where your products are coming from? Is it ever possible to reveal the whole truth?
• Are all the stamps of approval and awards for sustainability that many corporations boast merely greenwash?
• Why is full-sun cocoa growth so widespread when it appears that shade-grown cocoa production is better for productivity AND the environment?
• How can countries like the Ivory Coast, who are trying to support a growing population, protect their environmental integrity whilst simultaneously empowering people encourage good business?

I don't know the answers to these questions - but they've certainly given me some food (not chocolate) for thought!

A market-based approach to biodiversity - conservation or commodification?

First of all, what am I on about 'a market approach to biodiversity'? - hopefully this explanation taken from a report by The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity (TEEB) initiative will clear up the confusion (a little bit):

“Market-based instruments, such as taxes, charges or tradable permits can, if carefully designed and implemented, complement regulations by changing economic incentives, and therefore the behaviour of private actors, when deciding upon resource use. When set at accurate levels, they ensure that the beneficiaries of biodiversity and ecosystem services pay the full cost of service provision. Experience shows that environmental goals may be reached more efficiently by market-based instruments than by regulation alone. Some market-based instruments have the added advantage of generating public revenues” (TEEB, 2009., P.32).

Essentially, what the above quote is arguing, is that there are several methods that have been developed, that could be used in modern market-based societies, that attend to both the needs of progressive and accelerating economies, as well as ecosystems that need protecting and sustaining in order to ensure their longevity (and services) in this advancing world. Biodiversity is in the driving seat when it comes to sustaining ecosystem services, as is very clearly illustrated by this schematic that I keep referring to in my posts...

There are several mechanisms that have been widely discussed in terms of market-based biodiversity conservation - one of the most well-established methods is 'biodiversity off-setting'. The essential 'mantra' behind the approach is that any development (and of course, we want to keep developing, don't we?) should cause no net-loss to biodiversity. Reid (2012, P.219) perfectly summarises biodiversity offsetting:

"those whose activities cause a loss of biodiversity can offset this by undertaking activities elsewhere that enhance biodiversity in some way". 

Offsetting can come in many forms, investing in renewable energy, reforestation or rebuilding habitat elsewhere. The diagram below provides a simple graphic example carbon offsetting in action:

Carbon Offset Diagram

It is clear to see how biodiversity offsetting has the potential to have considerable consequences for tropical rainforests (be those positive or negative, the jury's still out). There are many contentious issues when it comes to marketising biodiversity - how effective it is as a governance/management approach, how do you assign an 'environmental currency' to the environment, how much are people willing to pay to conserve The Amazon, for example? In a bid not to disregard any of these concerns, but to bring to attention another of the controversial matters surrounding this topic - does a market based approach to biodiversity actually conserve, or are we just commodifying nature? And is this a bad thing? It's actually more of a moral question that anything else - one that you could argue the likes of certain large companies or even governments are more than happy to skip over if it means providing a loophole for 'meeting' conservation targets. This very interesting article in Nature discusses the misuse of biodiversity offsets for 'meeting' targets. Maron et al. (2015), highlight the growing concern with governments using offsetting for damage caused to biodiversity and habitats in the name of development. They note that in most cases offsetting isn't being used as a last resort after all other mitigation methods have been exhausted, but as a go-to quick-fix solution that keeps them on track to achieving international conservation targets to which they have previously committed to. 

The confounding nature of morality in the instance of biodiversity offsetting is revealed when considering both sides of the argument. Reid (P.232) uses the example of water to epitomise the point: 

'On the one hand it is said that:

[Water] is not a commercial product like any other but, rather, a heritage which must be protected, defended and treated as such.

On the other hand, it is said:

Past failure to recognize the economic value of water has led to wasteful and environmentally damaging uses of the resource. Managing water as an economic good is an important way of achieving efficient and equitable use, and of encouraging conservation and protection of water resources.' 

It is possible to see how this point applies to the case of tropical rainforests. As with water, a lack of complete understanding of the resource that is the rainforest: a medicinal resource, a habitat, a source of the highest biodiversity, has led to the haphazard destruction and deforestation of trees hundreds of years old. However, proponents of the approach, for example Tom Tew of the UK Environment Bank, have argued otherwise:

“It is a great opportunity to fund landscape-scale restoration projects. There is little money in biodiversity. [Offsetting ] can deliver local schemes or regional or landscape-scale ones.” 

Others like Tew argue of the conservation benefits biodiversity offsetting can have. By marketising biodiversity, it becomes something with value, something that business-economisty-types can start to understand and see the benefits in protecting, closing the gap between economy and environment.

In my view, biodiversity offsetting and other market-based approaches to biodiversity are walking a very fine line, I feel it is almost too tantalisingly tempting for governments, especially governments in advancing nations, to continue with development full steam ahead with no care for the environment as they have 'it' 'covered' by offsetting schemes. As with other contentious 'solutions' such as bioengineering, offsetting is risky in that it has the potential to be used as a scape-goat for a laissez-faire attitude to our environment. When I think of a market-based approach to biodiversity I feel just about as concerned as the animals do in the cartoon below...

Biodiversity Offsetting Cartoon

A poignant picture.

'Palm-oil Survivors' - Aaron Gekoski

This picture, for me, is one of the most poignant and hard-hitting photographs featured in this years wildlife photographer of the year exhibition. Bornean elephants searching for their home that no longer exists due to rainforest clearance for palm oil plantations. This photo resonates - even to someone who doesn't have a blog on tropical rainforests. The success? Just by looking at this photo, anybody can see and start to understand the devastating effects that humans are having on nature - it's tragic (in the real sense of the word).