Thongchai Thailand

FOREST PRESERVATION FOR THE CLIMATE

Posted on: January 9, 2021

10 amazing ancient forests | Booking.com

THIS POST IS A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE CALL TO FOREST PRESERVATION AS A FORM OF CLIMATE ACTION AND THE ROLE OF THE GLOBAL NORTH IN PUSHING FOR FOREST PRESERVATION IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH SUCH THAT THE ECOLOGICAL AND CLIMATE CHANGE ADVANTAGE OF FOREST MANAGEMENT IS UNDERSTOOD IN TERMS OF MANAGING OTHER PEOPLE’S FORESTS.

{REFERENCE#1: EUROPEAN FOREST MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES OUTSIDE OF EUROPE}

In an IUCN paper on the need for forest preservation to fight climate: LINK: https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-briefs/forests-and-climate-change

This issue is explained in terms of the REDD Principle as follows: “Restoring forest landscapes helps enhance climate change mitigation and adaptation. The Bonn Challenge is a global effort to bring 1.5 million SQ-KM of deforested and degraded land under restoration by 2020 and 3.5 million SQ-KM by 2030 – IUCN supports national and sub-national decision makers in reaching this important goal. Reaching the 3.5 million SQ-KM target could sequester up to 1.7 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent annually. Enabling rights-based land use ensures community involvement in land-use outcomes. IUCN produces results on the ground through partners and projects worldwide to help strengthen community control over forests, alleviate poverty, empower women and men, enhance biodiversity, and sustainably manage forests. Unlocking forest benefits is critical to a sustainable and equitable supply of forest goods and services. (blogger’s translation: “You don’t have to clear forests to get rich like we did because we can show you how to enjoy life as forest people”). IUCN builds capacity for implementing restoration, engaging the private sector and striving to make sure benefits – such as those from Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) – are equitably shared with local landowners and forest communities“.

What do Amazon tribes eat? | Bushcraft Buddy

RELATED POSTS ON EUROPEAN FOREST MANAGEMENT OF OTHER PEOPLE’S FORESTS:

LINK#1:FOREST MANAGEMENT COLONIALISM: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/11/28/the-incredible-beauty-of-forest-cover/

LINK#2: AMAZONIA LUNGS OF THE EARTH: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/08/07/amazonia-lungs-of-the-earth/

PATA Micronesia Tri-annual Meeting held in Kosrae - Island Times
EUROPEAN TOURISTS IN EUROPE MANAGEMED FOREST IN MICRONESIA

File:European Parliament logo.svg - Wikimedia Commons

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT POLICY FOR THE AMAZON

Brazil and the Amazon Rainforest. Deforestation, Biodiversity and Cooperation with the EU and International Forums. For the largest tropical rainforest on Earth, an aggravated forest fire and deforestation regime in Amazonia put at risk the world’s richest biodiversity assets and a major climate regulator. For the EU27, it highlights the need to associate the question of embodied deforestation consumption by placing deforestationfree supply chains at the centre of negotiations surrounding the EU-Mercosur Association Agreement, given the volume of trade between these economic blocs in meat, leather, soy, coffee, rubber, wood pulp, biofuel and timber. This document was provided by the Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies at the request of the committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI). The largest and most well preserved tropical rainforest on Earth, housed within the important Amazon River System, and containing one in ten of global species, Amazonia is shared by eight South American countries, and one European Union outermost region. The renewed intensity in 2019 of seasonal forest fires, and continuous overall deforestation numbers in the region, especially in Brazil and Bolivia, have been greeted by countries the world over with dismay. At stake are some of the most important issues affecting human life on Earth today: climate change and the conservation of natural systems essential to our survival as a species. Two related issues are highlighted: forest fires and overall deforestation, both of which affect the global climate and weather patterns, and contribute to the depletion of assets in medicine, agriculture, and other key industries, as a result of an impoverished biodiversity regime. As the region’s second largest trade partner after China, the EU27 recognises that consumption patterns in its own domestic markets are drivers of ‘embodied deforestation’, ‘creating high pressure on forests in non-EU countries and accelerating deforestation.’ To curb this practice, it is required to secure trade in ‘products from deforestation-free supply chains.’ 2 The finalisation of the EU-Mercosur Association Agreement poses an opportunity, where increased technology exchange and cooperation in science, research, and experience in governance may provide a change to environmental management in the Mercosur and neighbouring countries across South America, as well as increased awareness and adherence to environmental due diligence among the EU27. In parallel to the EU-Mercosur discussion, the world is poised to renew pledges on two legally binding international environmental commitments -the 2015 Conference of the Parties (COP21) to the UNFCCC, and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). As these commitments provide the legal backdrop to comprehensive protection of the global environment, it is paramount to secure the buy-in of the Mercosur governments. With 60% of the Amazon forest lying within its boundaries, and the primary Mercosur trade partner with Europe, Brazil was one of the first signatories of both the CBD and the Paris Declaration. But the current rate of Amazonian deforestation, and the country’s infringement of a longstanding pro-indigenous social compact challenge global trust in the country’s commitment to international agreements. Despite a drop in deforestation numbers from 2005 to 2014, recent figures issued by the Brazilian government show that by 2015 illegal logging, clear-cutting, and forest fires had already begun to gather momentum; in 2019 they contributed to a 46% increase in deforestation, compared to the 2012 deforestation rate which was the lowest in recorded history (see Figure 1). The forest fire figures also arrived at a key juncture in the battle to mitigate climate change, with global warming reaching 1.1°C. 3 Quite seriously, accumulated drought and deforestation, and the consequent drop in forest-based photosynthesis undermines Amazonia’s role as a net intaker of CO2 -predicted to drop to zero by 2030 -, and its fundamental function in temperature, humidity and rain pattern regulation, affecting the livelihood of millions in Latin America’s largely commodities-based economies. Moreover, forest depletion across South America’s biomes is already causing damage to valuable fresh water aquifers, and their symbiotic relationship to landscapes and weather patterns. Far from a new phenomenon, fires in Amazonia are generally set intentionally, often for clearing of secondary growth forests by small producers and indigenous populations, as a tool to free cropping areas, and to release nutrients. Far more devastating are large-scale forest fires, which follow the illegal 1 The entire scope of the Amazon Basin, its forests and ecosystems is known as Amazonia. 2 European Commission, ‘Towards a Sustainable Europe by 2030’, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/publications/reflection-pap ertowards-sustainable-europe-2030_en. 3 UNFCCC news, ‘2017 Was Among Top Three Hottest Years On Record’, https://unfccc.int/news/2017-was-among-top-three-hottestyears-on-record. Brazil and the Amazon Rainforest -Deforestation, Biodiversity and Cooperation 9 PE 648.792 extraction of valuable timber to make way for cattle ranching and large-scale agriculture. In years of drought, these fires may also consume old growth forests. Closely following this trend, for the first time in more than three decades, deforestation reportedly increased during the rainy period from January to April 2020. Known as the ‘winter months’, this is a normally quiet period for logging in Amazonia, given the sheer logistical difficulties in operating logging equipment in the rain. In 2020, new data released by the Brazilian National Spatial Research Institute (INPE), revealed a record 51% year-on-year (December to March) increase in deforestation in the Amazon, equivalent to about 796.08 km², or 80,000 football pitches. The loss of ecosystem services associated to deforestation is of particular concern. Thought to host 40,000 species of plants and trees, 2.5 million species of insects, and at least 2,000 species of mammals and birds 4 , Amazonia provides ecosystem services fundamentally connected to its genetic diversity. Sometimes called ‘hotspots’ of genetic diversity, genetic centres of high plant diversity such as Amazonia are the target of medicinal bioprospecting. This is because they are ‘de facto’ live laboratories for the production of seeds and other vegetative propagules, which ensure genetic adaptability in a changing environment (i.e. large gene pools to produce diseaseresistant and high-yielding seeds to counter famine), and adaptation to climate change, among others. 5,6 A closer examination of the issues reveals a troubling picture of regional governments, national and international partners working at cross-purposes, polarised by the false dichotomy of nature conservationversus poverty alleviation. Addressingthe underlying causes of Amazonian depletion and degradation and of other valuable South American forests, and achieving lasting livelihood solutions for millions living in the region – most in urban settings – require historically contextualised actions, conducive to increased national, regional and international partnerships and cooperation at all levels. Programmes such as the World Bank’s Sustainable Landscapes programme, connect international biodiversity conservation and management and climate change action to science-based solutions designed to harness natural resources sustainably into the economy, valuing renewable natural resources, biological and biomimetic assets, environmental services and materials. The EU-Mercosur Association Agreement is seen by some as an opportunity for the EU to promote a new type of trade policy, including provisions on labour rights and the environment. Complex issues such as biodiversity depletion and climate change are often judged on non-objective criteria, and are thus unforeseen in the current trade regime. Enhancing the importance of these issues requires changes in both mentality and modus operandi. For example, aligning the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) managed by the World Trade Organization (WTO) to instruments such as the Paris Declaration and the CBD, provides the construct to legally binding trade relations that recognise and value ecosystem services. In the meantime, a trade agreement, which contemplates embedded commercial cooperation and private sector partnership models, guided by hybrid investment in nature conservation that generates economic development may serve to curb embedded deforestation consumption within the entire EU-Mercosur trade spectrum.

Europe using wood as biofuel will increase deforestation, warming •  Earth.com

{REFERENCE#3: DEFORESTATION OF EUROPE}:

FIGURE DOE-1: DEFORESTATION OF EUROPE

Image result for ancient european deforestation map | Deforestation,  Nature, Natural history

A HISTORY OF THE DEFORESTATION OF EUROPE:

LINK: https://www.wsl.ch/staff/niklaus.zimmermann/papers/QuatSciRev_Kaplan_2009.pdf

Humans have transformed Europe’s landscapes since the establishment of the first agricultural societies in the mid-Holocene. The most important anthropogenic alteration of the natural environment was the clearing of forests to establish cropland and pasture, and the exploitation of forests for fuel wood and construction materials.

While the archaeological and paleo-ecological record documents the time history of anthropogenic deforestation at numerous individual sites, to study the effect that prehistoric and preindustrial deforestation had on continental-scale carbon and water cycles we require spatially explicit maps of changing forest cover through time. Previous attempts to map preindustrial anthropogenic land use and land cover change addressed only the recent past, or relied on simplistic extrapolations of present day land use patterns to past conditions. In this study we created a very high resolution, annually resolved time series of anthropogenic deforestation in Europe over the past three millennia by 1) digitizing and synthesizing a database of population history for Europe and surrounding areas, 2) developing a model to simulate anthropogenic deforestation based on population density that handles technological progress, and 3) applying the database and model to a gridded dataset of land suitability for agriculture and pasture to simulate spatial and temporal trends in anthropogenic deforestation. Our model results provide reasonable estimations of deforestation in Europe when compared to historical accounts. We simulate extensive European deforestation at 1000 BC, implying that past attempts to quantify anthropogenic perturbation of the Holocene carbon cycle may have greatly underestimated early human impact on the climate system.

FIGURE DOE-2: DEFORESTATION OF EUROPE#2

Since the establishment of the first agricultural societies in Europe in the mid-Holocene (Price, 2000), humans have substantially altered the European landscape. The most evident and influential of these anthropogenic land cover and land use changes (LCLUC) has probably been the clearance of forests and woodlands for cropland and pasture and as a source of fuel wood and construction materials (Darby, 1956; Hughes and Thirgood, 1982). The rich paleoecological and archaeological record in Europe provides ample evidence that many European regions experienced intensive, continuous human occupation throughout the Holocene (e.g., Clark et al., 1989; Brewer et al., 2008; for a review see also Dearing, 2006). Indeed, some regions of Europe probably experienced successive cycles of deforestation, abandonment, afforestation, and deforestation again in the 6000 years of human history preceding the Industrial Revolution (e.g., Behre, 1988; Bintliff, 1993; Lagerås et al. 1995; Berglund, 2000; Vermoere et al., 2000; Cordova and Lehman, 2005; Gaillard, 2007). This long history of anthropogenic activity had important implications for environmental change, from regional hydrology to possibly global climate, and contains lessons for our understanding of what constitutes environmental sustainability.

DEFORESTATION OF EUROPE DATA FROM KAPLAN ETAL 2009: LINK: https://www.wsl.ch/staff/niklaus.zimmermann/papers/QuatSciRev_Kaplan_2009.pdf

FIGURE DOE-3: DEFORESTATION OF EUROPE#3

GLOBAL DATA FOR FOREST COVER PROVIDED BY WIKIPEDIA: LINK: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_forest_area_(percentage)

EIGHTEEN GLOBAL LEADERS IN FOREST COVER PRESERVATION ARE IDENTIFIED AMONG COUNTRIES WITH MORE THAN 200,000 SQ KM OF FOREST. THE OUTLIERS ARE BRAZIL AND RUSSSIA WITH MORE THAN 5 MILLION SQ KM OF FOREST. THE TOTAL FOREST AREA IN THIS SAMPLE OF 18 COUNTRIES IS 35.7 MILLION SQ KM.

GLOBAL FOREST COVER CHART#1: TOTAL FOREST COVER OF GLOBAL LEADERS

GLOBAL FOREST COVER CHART#2: PERCENT FOREST COVER OF GLOBAL LEADERS

Global Forest Cover Chart#1 and #2 above are a comparison of the top 18 countries in the world in terms of the fraction of the land area of the country covered by forest. To avoid the insignificant statistics of a large number of tiny countries with large fractional forest cover, we limited the size of the country to a minimum of 200,000 square kilometers (SQKM) down to and including Cameroon 212,450 SQKM but excluding Malaysia 195,200 SQKM.

Chart#1: shows that most of the countries in our sample fall into the category of less than a million SQKM (200,000 to 1,000,000 SQKM). There are two dramatic outliers these being Brazil at 5 million and Russia at 7 million SQKM.

Chart#2: The relevant parameter in this study is percent forest because it is a measure of deforestation. Countries with higher percent forest are considered better at managing the deforestation problem while those with lower percent forest may have a deforestation problem as a national forestry management issue.

TOP 6 PERFORMERS: We divide the sample of 18 countries into three groups of 6 as follows. In Chart#2 we find that the top 6 performers in forest preservation are 1. Mozambique, 2. Sweden, 3. Japan, 4. Zimbabwe, 5. Myanmar, and 6. Papua. This list contains 2 rich industrialized countries and 4 poor developing countries and only 1 European country (Sweden).

BOTTOM 6 PERFORMERS: In the bottom 6 performers we find 13. Congo, 14. Russia, 15. Angola, 16. Indonesia, 17. Tanzania, and 18. France. The only other European country in the list is in the bottom in terms of forest preservation. Though the Europeans are very active in the forest preservation campaign urging other nations to preserve their forests, or becoming actively involved in forest preservation in other countries, they are not very good at in their homeland. The European effort to manage the world’s forests appears grossly inconsistent with their forest management and forest preservation achievements at home.

Uncontacted Indians of Brazil

The Last Forest: The Amazon in the Age of Globalization: London, Mark,  Kelly, Brian: 9780679643050: Amazon.com: Books
This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is ama3.jpg

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS:

THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE WEALTH, POWER, AND GLOBAL REACH OF THE INDUSTRIALIZED EUROPEAN COUNTRIES {THE GLOBAL NORTH} SHOWS A PATTERN OF DEFORESTATION IN WHICH THE EXTENT OF THEIR RISE TO WEALTH, GLOBAL POWER, AND COLONIZATION OF THE GLOBAL SOUTH IS RELATED TO THE EXTENT OF DEFORESTATION. YET, NOW THAT THE EXTENSIVE FORESTATION OF EUROPE HAS BEEN CLEARED, THE EUROPEANS HAVE IDENTIFIED A NEED FOR FOREST COVER BY HUMANS FOR HUMAN WELFARE IN TERMS OF ENVIRONMENTALISM AND CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUES. THEY HAVE FURTHER DETERMINED THAT THESE ENVIRONMENTAL AND CLIMATE ISSUES IMPLY THAT CONTINUED EUROPEAN WELL BEING REQUIRES THAT THE DEFORESTATION OF EUROPE MUST BE COMPENSATED BY REFORESTATION AND FOREST PRESERVATION IN THEIR FORMER COLONIES IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH SUCH THAT FOR EXAMPLE, THE EUROPEANS AND NOT THE LOCAL RESIDENTS SHALL DETERMINE THE FOREST COVER NEEDED IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH.

HERE WE PROPOSE THAT THIS OUTREACH, THOUGH PRESENTED AS ASSISTANCE TO THE GLOBAL SOUTH IS IN FACT A NEW VERSION OF COLONIALISM WHERE THE GLOBAL NORTH IS STILL THE DECISION MAKER AND IN CHARGE OF THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF THE GLOBAL SOUTH AND THAT, AS IN THE COLONIAL DAYS, THE GLOBAL SOUTH MUST ULTIMATELY SERVE THE NEEDS OF THE GLOBAL NORTH.

RELATED POST#1: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/11/28/the-incredible-beauty-of-forest-cover/

RELATED POST#2: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/08/07/amazonia-lungs-of-the-earth/

RELATED POST#3: https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/10/14/racism/

What do Amazon tribes eat? | Bushcraft Buddy
Your Complete Travel Guide to Suriname in South America

POSTSCRIPT: A NOTE ON FIGHTING CLIMATE CHANGE WITH CARBON CYCLE INTERVENTIONS

Climate science is very clear on the issues of what causes global warming and how to mitigate global warming. This clarity is seen in a brief lecture by NASA Scientist Dr. Peter Griffith presented in a related post: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/06/19/vegandiet/ . What is explained there is that the issue in the science of anthropogenic global warming and climate change is fossil fuels. The carbon in fossil fuels is millions of years old and it does not belong in the current account of the carbon cycle. Therefore, the burning of fossil fuels injects external carbon dioxide that is foreign to the carbon cycle and that causes atmospheric CO2 to rise. The only solution to this problem proposed by climate science is that we must stop burning fossil fuels. This is what climate action means in the AGW context. It’s extension by environmentalists to carbon cycle management to offset fossil fuel emissions has no empirical support because carbon cycle flows cannot be measured. They can only be inferred and these inferred flows contain large uncertainties that make it impossible to support carbon cycle intervention methods of climate action empirical evidence. This issue is discussed in some detail in two related posts on this site: LINK#1: https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/05/31/the-carbon-cycle-measurement-problem/ LINK#2: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/06/10/a-monte-carlo-simulation-of-the-carbon-cycle/

salby
Deforestation Map Of Europe [Animated] - Tony Mapped It

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: