We are mostly aware of deforestation occurring in third world countries. Which is exactly why I must convey the findings of a particularly illuminating paper, ‘Quantification of global gross forest cover loss’, by Matthew Hansen, Stephen Stehman, and Peter Potapov of South Dakota State University and State University of New York (SUNY), published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (April 2010).
The researchers used satellite imagery to quantify the Gross Forest Cover Loss, GFCL, defined as ‘the area of forest cover removed because of any disturbance, including both natural and human-induced causes’ from 2000 to 2005 (‘forest cover’ is specified as 25% (or greater) of canopy closure for trees over 5 metres tall).
To summarise the findings:
Firstly, during this time period, 3% (1011,000 km2 ) of the world’s forest disappeared, which relates as a loss of 3.1% from the estimated total forested area in 2000 (32688,000 km2).
Secondly, amongst the biomes, the 
boreal experienced the largest GFCL (where 60% was due to fire), followed by the humid tropical (mostly due to clearing for agriculture and plantations, especially in Brazil, Indonesia, and Malaysia), dry tropical (again, due to clearing for agriculture, and mostly in Australia, Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay), and temperate biomes.
Thirdly, amongst the continents, North America had the greatest GFCL (around 30%), followed by Asia and South America. Interestingly, Africa exhibited the least GFCL.
Fourthly, amongst the seven countries which has over 100,000 km2 of forests (Russia, Brazil, US, Canada, China, Indonesia, and Congo), Brazil showed the largest GFCL (165,000 km2; of which 26000 km2 were rainforests and 7000 km2 were dry tropical forests) followed by Canada (160,000 km2).
Fifthly, the greatest proportional GFCL was exhibited by US, which lost more than 120,000 km2 (6% of its forest cover in 2000) mainly due to logging. Canada’s proportional forest loss was 5.2% of its forest cover, higher than Brazil’s. Of the remainder, Indonesia lost 3.6%, Russia lost 2.8%, China lost 2.3%, and DRC lost 0.6% of their respective forest covers.
There are some caveats with this otherwise illuminating study: it did not factor in forest gains during this time period. Secondly, the study period is from 2000-2005, and obviously is not indicative of what happened over the past half decade. It is also limited by its definition of forest cover. Yet, it does serve to remove some amount of misconceptions!
Hansen, M., Stehman, S., & Potapov, P. (2010). From the Cover: Quantification of global gross forest cover loss Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107 (19), 8650-8655 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0912668107
My new post on FAO's Global Forest Resources Assessment can be accessed at the Ecoratorio blog.
I welcome my readers to join me for a quick jaunt to the nearby forests….
… and here we are, standing amongst the soaring verdant trees, with their chestnut coloured barks and branches reaching out towards the blazing Sol. One can make out the distinct canopies and the undergrowth with ferns and mosses. A gentle breeze sends a few reddish leaves fluttering down to the ground, where it joins its companions in enriching the soil. There is peaceful silence, sometimes interrupted by the forests’ orchestra- the rustling of leaves reaching sporadic crescendos when played upon by gusts, the chirping of numerous unseen birds, accompanied by the fluttering of wings, the croaks of a tree frog, the piping of grasshoppers and crickets, the distant milieu of a pure cascade, and the nearby gurgling of a hidden spring watering the rushes. How much long until these trees are made way for humans? Until when will the silence of the forests be interrupted by the whirring of the chain saw and the felling of trees?
Over the next few weeks, I am hoping to post a series of posts on deforestation and biodiversity. As always, I welcome your contributions and comments.
A few months ago, a research team led by Dr. David Beresford-Jones (Fellow, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge) published some interesting findings in the Latin American Antiquity journal ('The Role of Prosopis in Ecological and Landscape Change in the Samaca Basin, Lower Ica Valley, South Coast Peru from the Early Horizon to the Late Intermediate Period') Nearly two millennia ago, a civilisation existed in Peru. Their claim to fame was their strange creation of ‘Nazca Lines’ in the desert plains between Nazca and Palpa. Many were the hypotheses behind these bizarre etchings.
In their paper, the research team points out that this civilization was obliterated, around AD 500, as a result of their deforestation activities aimed at clearing away forests for agriculture. Specifically, the annihilation of huarango (Prosopis), an unlikely jack of all trades (providing food, fuel, and timber, apart from nitrogen fixing/recycling and water retention) led to the irreversible calamity. The result: the civilisation could not recover when the climate changed for the worse, helped by an El Niño event. Eventually, it all resulted in persistent drought and famine.
A civilisation, thus, met its demise because of their own unsustainable anthropogenic activities. Perhaps their unwise disregard could be excused: after all, they did not possess the knowledge and tools which the current generation has. It may always be tempting for entities (countries/regions/companies/individuals) to make the fullest and pillaging use of the vast resources offered by planet Earth, without remembering that these resources are mostly nonrenewable. Such lucrative ventures may neglect the importance of maintaining the ecosystem, that fragile web of balance where excessive stresses can change and destablise the dynamics. If the planet continues to be maligned and stabbed…. even the optimist shudder to visualise the future.
Much time, energy, and capital is invested in the protection of equatorial and tropical forests, a characteristic seen not just in India, but also in many other nations who have been blessed with such green lungs and hotspots of biodiversity. As a consequence, one also reads of how the natives of the forests, a.k.a tribals, are often evicted on the grounds that they have been practicing activities resulting in deforestation/forest degradation. Their pathetic huts are torn down, and the families are left by the wayside (some lucky ones are rehabilitated elsewhere) without a roof over their heads. Is it indeed necessary to evict these people from the very places where they were born and which they know well like the back of their hands? And that too citing deforestation?
I doubt. Tribals are hardly the sole perpetrators of deforestation. Indeed, their settlements may be located deep within the forests. But so has it been for their fathers, grandfathers, and countless ancestors from centuries ago. They live in sync with the environment, using sustainable practices, including gleaning resources from the forest. They may indeed hunt various animals and may even have converted a tiny area into agricultural land. They may speak their own language, which might sound like gibberish, may be scantily clad, and unaware of the world beyond. But they are happy to remain in their simplicity and seldom have anyone advocating their cause. But since education has reached most of them, they may (like anyone else) try their fortunes in the lush green cities. But I may be erroneous, for my views are based on my observations on the Keralite tribals. One study elsewhere stated that tribals are responsible for 5% of deforestation, and this might be true in other areas where they encroach and build settlements, in the process, destroying the forests.
But when I observe the nearby mountain ranges of the Western Ghats, I find that the main culprits are others. Although much of this deforestation has been reduced due to efficient forest preservation legislation, timber thieves do find leeway to lay hands on rosewood and ebony, so freely available without a price tag. Then there are highland tea and coffee plantations (for which forested area were cleared which had been a century or two ago) who believes in the maxim ‘slow and steady wins the race’- for they gradually encroach into the forest by planting their crops amidst the scrub in one year, and gently annexing that area later. Or, of course, the blatant encroachment by burning the existing vegetation and planting their crops on the fertile soil. These annexed/encroached areas are of a gargantuan scale than the petty cents trespassed by the tribals. Are these activities noticed by the powers-that-be? Does anyone raise a voice of dissent? Perhaps not.
boreal experienced the largest GFCL (where 60% was due to fire), followed by the humid tropical (mostly due to clearing for agriculture and plantations, especially in Brazil, Indonesia, and Malaysia), dry tropical (again, due to clearing for agriculture, and mostly in Australia, Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay), and temperate biomes.
