Causes of Deforestation Essay Example

are least equipped to manage such growth.

Simons (1998) predicts that the global population will grow by 3 billion by 2050, mainly in developing nations. Consequently, an estimated 3.4 billion individuals will require crucial resources like food, energy, shelter, water, wood, paper, and other forest-derived goods and services. Henceforth, approximately 4 billion people will necessitate these essential resources.

Approximately 75% of the global population, which is around 5 billion people, lives in developing countries. Within these nations, about one billion individuals are experiencing extreme poverty. This situation primarily impacts tropical regions where deforestation poses a significant challenge (FAO, 1998). Moreover, approximately 2.8 billion people reside in rural areas and heavily rely on agriculture for meeting their basic needs. Although the exact number of individuals who depend on forest clearance for subsistence farming is uncertain, it is widely acknowledged that around 500 million people, or roughly one in twelve individuals worldwide, practice this method. Poverty further exacerbates the problem of deforestation, especially in rural areas.

Although poverty is not the direct cause, it is a widespread problem faced by the majority of people around the world. While some individuals deforest areas out of greed and power, most do so in order to survive and escape poverty. Poverty creates a socioeconomic environment that limits economic choices, damages health, hampers rural capital formation, restricts income opportunities, and inhibits institutional and infrastructure development – ultimately leading to deforestation. In developed countries in the Northern hemisphere, evidence indicates that as societies become more economically stable, economic pressures driving deforestation gradually give way to an increasing concern for the environment and a greater appreciation for its value. However, this shift has yet to occur

in developing nations.

The rural poor, whether residing in urban or rural areas, encounter limited opportunities for off-farm employment. These scarce job prospects are fiercely competitive, and individuals with illiteracy face even more constraints in terms of economic choices beyond subsistence farming.

In certain scenarios, individuals move from overcrowded and distressed areas to the forest frontier in pursuit of a better and safer life. Poverty and food insecurity often accompany each other, leading to chronic undernourishment. With limited options, the rural impoverished turn to the forests as a temporary resolution to their economic challenges. Extensive research has explored the connections between rural poverty and deforestation as well as population growth and deforestation.

Deforestation is a complex issue influenced by various factors. For instance, the dynamics of rural land use play a crucial role in determining deforestation patterns. It is not solely caused by one factor but rather the result of multiple forces interacting together. On the island of Java in Indonesia, despite high population densities, forest cover has not been eliminated. However, in the Andean highlands, high population densities have led to settlement projects in the Amazonian lowlands, resulting in deforestation.

The impact of population pressures on deforestation depends on several factors. These include the carrying capacity of the land, prevailing land use practices, the significance of forest-derived products and services to local communities, and the strength or weakness of the institutional framework in place. In many cases, increasing population pressure combined with rural poverty creates a favorable environment for deforestation to occur. Additionally, underlying forces such as greed and the pursuit of economic and political power also contribute to deforestation.

The actions of numerous agents involved in deforestation highlight

their selfish pursuit of excessive profits, disregarding both human suffering and environmental damage. The absence of regulations on land use and the dominance of monopolistic national markets prioritize those with political influence while neglecting the majority. As a result, there are competing land uses that give priority to export-oriented agriculture and exploitative logging. Amongst these practices, slash-and-burn farmers, who are among the most impoverished and marginalized individuals globally, suffer particularly harsh consequences.

Residents of remote areas in their countries lack attention from political and economic decision-makers and have limited access to advanced technologies that could improve their productivity and economic stability. Furthermore, both government fiscal and development policies, as well as global policies on debt repayment, structural adjustment, and trade, also contribute to the indirect factors impacting forest resources.

Structural adjustment programs have promoted the growth of export crops that earn foreign exchange, resulting in the depletion of forest resources through accelerated timber harvesting or the conversion of forests into farmland. The expansion of cash crops has led to either direct deforestation for these crops or the displacement of subsistence farmers, who then resort to slash-and-burn agriculture in the forest. Incentives such as low interest rates or tax exemptions have allowed industries that were previously less profitable or even unfeasible to thrive, causing harm to forests that would have otherwise been avoided.

Government policies aimed at promoting economic development have led to deforestation in various sectors. These policies include subsidized credit for agricultural and livestock expansion, offering lower interest rates on loans for agricultural development. There are also reduced rates of income and corporate taxes for competing land uses, along with tax "holidays" for importing equipment that is

detrimental to forests. Additionally, high taxes on imported petroleum products discourage the use of alternative fuels like firewood. Infrastructure and energy development projects often disregard the loss of forest capital. Furthermore, commercial farmers relying on cash export crops force displaced small farmers to cultivate marginal forest soils. Many governments have utilized government-sponsored colonization programs, such as Indonesia's transmigration program or Peru's Amazon colonization schemes, under the guise of "development" initiatives.

Sometimes, colonization schemes have been officially sanctioned by governments while other times they have occurred spontaneously. These schemes have been appealing to governments because they helped them avoid addressing politically sensitive topics like population control and land reform. Additionally, they relieved the burden of overcrowded and underserviced urban areas and allowed governments to postpone investments in urban infrastructure. Similarly, colonization schemes provided a way for countries to assert their national sovereignty on their frontiers. Peasant farmers were encouraged to move to border areas and establish a physical presence in the forests.

The watershed of the Rio Putumayo, located at the convergence of the Ecuador, Peru, and Colombia borders, has been a target for settlement programs sponsored by all three governments in order to assert their sovereignty. These programs have involved clearing forests and replacing them with subsistence farming, which has been only marginally productive. The implementation of economic structural adjustment and macroeconomic reform programs in various countries poses a significant threat to tropical forests. This is particularly evident in sectors that have experienced increased unemployment as a result of these reforms, leading to greater poverty. The resulting poverty has motivated people to migrate to forested areas where they can engage in slash-and-burn farming. Additionally, the focus on

exporting goods has sometimes led to unsustainable timber exploitation and the encroachment of commercial agriculture onto forested lands.

The World Bank and bilateral donor agencies have been advocating for the privatization of public resources as part of structural adjustment programs to obtain loans. This involves the privatization of state forest resources, with an emphasis on management choices that offer immediate economic advantages for new owners, such as local governments, communities, or the private sector. Nonetheless, this market-driven approach fails to recognize the true worth of forests that possess non-monetary values like soil conservation. By 1996, developing countries had amassed a total external debt of US$ 2.

The World Bank (1998) reported that the global population has exceeded 1 trillion and continues to increase. Among developing nations, Brazil and Mexico are significant contributors to deforestation and have the highest external debts. This issue of debt impacts all countries as it diminishes financial resources that could be allocated towards crucial government responsibilities like sustainable forest preservation and management. Consequently, there is a scarcity of funds for staffing, operating costs, infrastructure advancement, as well as investments in education and training.

According to the World Bank (1998), the average debt/GNP percentage for the "Top 10" deforesting countries rose from 26% in 1975 to 60% in 1996. To repay their debt, forest-rich nations may exploit their natural forests more rapidly. The failure of government policies in addressing deforestation can be attributed to weaknesses in both policy and institutions. In some instances, policies were formulated without a comprehensive understanding of the complexities and potential consequences involved.

Political decisions often result in deforestation because decision-makers fail to acknowledge the true value of forests compared to other

forms of land use. This problem can also arise from the ineffectiveness of the national forest institution and its inability to establish and enforce robust policies. Furthermore, certain choices are intentionally made to favor a small group of influential individuals while disregarding the larger society. Ultimately, government policies reflect the country's political climate, power dynamics, democratic processes, and public awareness levels.

Despite good intentions, adopted policies can sometimes have unforeseen negative impacts due to the complexity and far-reaching consequences of the issues they address. The task of rescinding such policies can be daunting for institutions. Nevertheless, many countries have made significant strides in reforming their policies and legislation that previously contributed to deforestation. For instance, Brazil has repealed its subsidies aimed at promoting cattle ranching in the Amazon, while Costa Rica has begun considering the depletion of forest capital in its national economic accounting.

In many developing countries, there is a scarcity of suitable land to meet the demands of their growing population. The available farming land is limited and most remaining arable land is currently being utilized. While advanced technology can enhance agricultural productivity, expanding cultivation into forested areas is unfeasible due to the lack of unused forested land appropriate for farming. As the number of farmers increases and land is inherited by future generations, individual farm plots become too small to be economically feasible. Furthermore, a significant portion of fertile land is owned by large landowners or corporations, rendering it inaccessible to the majority of farmers in desperate need.

In many countries, particularly in Latin America, the majority of agricultural land has traditionally been controlled by latifundistas, who are large landowners. This situation worsened in the

latter half of the 20th century when numerous small farms were purchased to achieve economic viability. The profitability of farming shifted toward those landowners with sufficient capital for investment because new agricultural pesticides, fertilizers, and increased mechanization of farm labor were introduced. Consequently, small farmers were displaced and often forced to start anew on the forest frontier.

In such circumstances, most families have no choice but to either migrate to urban areas in search of employment opportunities or move to the forest frontier and clear trees to establish new farms.

Forested lands, both fertile and infertile, have served as a social safety valve for land pressure. Rather than tackling the difficult issues of land reform, job creation, and population control, governments have chosen to ignore deforestation. Limited alternatives exist for the rural poor in accessing arable land, making it a pressing concern. The ownership and control of land significantly influence its utilization. Many slash-and-burn farmers lack formal land titles and may only possess customary rights or none at all. Farmers lack motivation to enhance productivity when they are uncertain about retaining ownership of the land.

Given these conditions, it makes sense for farmers to clear the forest and plant crops for a few seasons before repeating the process on additional land. Unfortunately, governments are either resistant to granting titles for state-owned land to small farmers, or their land titling procedures are overly complex and expensive, making it impossible for small farmers to obtain legal ownership. This lack of ownership prevents them from accessing much-needed credit for farm supplies and deters long-term investments that could improve productivity, prosperity, and overall well-being. As a short-term solution, farmers resort to slash-and-burn

techniques on the forest.

In numerous countries, individuals who settle on land are required to clear it in order to establish their land rights. This process of deforestation is seen as a way to enhance the land and demonstrate the occupant's sincere intention to develop the property. Additionally, tree tenure systems can disincentivize the cultivation and maintenance of tree crops as a viable economic option compared to agriculture. Certain countries, such as the Dominican Republic and Guinea, have implemented legislation that grants state ownership over all trees and forests, regardless of whether they are located on private or state-owned land.

When the state owns the trees, the rural population does not have any motivation to invest their time and energy in managing the forest because they do not reap any benefits from it. This has actually led to deforestation, as many farmers illegally remove trees on their land to avoid government interference. Market pressures, specifically the demand for forest products and other goods that are produced on deforested lands, are often cited as causes of deforestation. Without this demand, there would be no economic incentive to cut down trees. However, with the increasing human population, the demand for goods derived from forests continues to rise.

Similarly, as we become more prosperous, our per capita consumption rises. This is evident in the great discrepancy between per capita consumption of almost all goods by North Americans in comparison to the less affluent peoples in developing countries. For example, paper consumption per capita rises as individuals become more prosperous. Paper and paperboard product consumption in North America averaged 339 metric tons per 1000 people in 1995 compared to 3 metric tons

per 1000 people in Africa and 31 metric tons per 1000 people in Latin America.

The impact of our consumption habits on the exploitation of forests cannot be denied. However, there is ongoing debate regarding the significance of the export market in contributing to deforestation. According to section 2.2 of this document, developing nations account for approximately 25% of global production of industrial wood products (such as sawnwood, panels, wood pulp, and paper) and nearly 90% of fuelwood.

The significance of global market demand for industrial forest products cannot be easily generalized. The graph provided showcases the proportion of 1995 sawnwood and plywood exports in relation to total production for the "Top 10" deforesting countries (FAO, 1998). Sawnwood and plywood are reliable indicators of natural forest disturbance and susceptibility to subsequent deforestation. The exports clearly exhibit the relative importance of international markets. Exports accounted for more than 50 percent of total production in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Myanmar, making them influential factors in timber exploitation and its role in deforestation within those nations.

The exports of Brazil, Mexico, and Thailand make up only 10% of their total production. Meanwhile, the Congo, Bolivia, Venezuela, and Sudan have very low levels of exports. Pulp and paper are highly significant commodities in global trade, contributing over US$ 80 billion in exports in 1996 (FAO, 1998). This industry has seen remarkable growth in several countries where deforestation is a concern, especially in Asia. Thailand has experienced a six-fold increase in paper and paperboard production since 1980, while Malaysia has witnessed an eleven-fold increase and Indonesia an astonishing seventeen-fold increase. Most of this production comes from plantations of fast-growing species that were established on

non-forest lands, forest fallow lands, or logged-over forests that were not being sustainably managed. In certain instances, natural forests were cleared for the purpose of establishing these plantations.

To a limited extent, natural forests have been logged for the purpose of supplying mixed tropical hardwoods as the raw material for pulp and paper manufacturing. The majority of new pulp and paper production in developing nations has been directed towards meeting the demands of expanding local populations, many of which are becoming wealthier. In regards to paper and paperboard goods, Indonesia and Brazil are the only countries that have seen significant levels of exports (FAO, 1998b). In 1996, Indonesia's exports of 1.5 million metric tons of paper and paperboard products constituted 28 percent of the total production of 4.4 million metric tons.

Brazil exported 1.2 million metric tons of paper and paperboard in the same year, accounting for 21% of its total production of 5.9 million metric tons. On the other hand, other paper and paperboard producers primarily focused on meeting local demand, with less than 10% of their total production being exported.

The wood pulp market reflects a similar situation, with most of the increased production being consumed within the country of origin. Overall, the demand for forest products is increasing due to population and affluence growth. The primary cause of deforestation in countries where deforestation occurs is the national demand for forest products, rather than the demand on international markets. However, this varies from region to region and from country to country within each region. It's important to note that this contradicts the belief held by many Northern NGOs that deforestation is driven by industrialized countries'

excessive demand for tropical timber. Similarly, in the agriculture sector, it is difficult to make a generalization about the role of export crops as a driving force behind deforestation.

Rice is the main food crop in Asia, but it is not exported by most Asian countries that are losing their tropical forests. For instance, Indonesia and Malaysia import more rice than they export, and only Thailand, among the major deforesting countries, exports a significant portion of its 1996 rice production, around 40% (FAO, 1998). In Central America, maize is the most important crop for slash-and-burn farmers. All countries in the region import more maize than they export, indicating that the forest land converted for maize production is for domestic consumption only and not for export.

In 1996, Central America's production of 2. 87 million metric tons had to be supplemented by importing 1. 07 million metric tons of maize and maize products to feed its population. In Indonesia, exports of palm oil have remained relatively constant at 6 to 8 percent of total production in the past ten years, despite the steady growth of palm plantations. This shows that the majority of the demand for palm oil is originating from Indonesia itself, fueled by its large and continuously expanding population. The livestock industry experiences a comparable situation.

Between 1980 and 1996, beef production in Brazil increased significantly, going from 2.85 million metric tons to 4.96 million metric tons (FAO, 1998). This rise in production coincided with a drastic surge in deforestation, as individuals involved in ranching, farming, and land speculation took over forested areas within the Amazon watershed. In the mid-1980s, beef exports reached their

highest point, accounting for around 500,000 metric tons or roughly 15% of total production.

While production was still increasing in 1996, exports accounted for less than 270,000 metric tons, which is about 5% of the total production. It is evident that the growth in beef production and its detrimental effects on Brazil's forests are driven by the domestic beef market rather than the demand from Europe, North America, or Japan. In 1995, beef exports from Central America made up 20% of the total production. Despite the initial significance of the American market in driving the expansion of the Central American cattle industry, most of the production was directed towards meeting local demand instead of being sold for export. The percentage of exports in relation to total production reached its highest point in the early 1970s at approximately 45%, but gradually decreased to between 20% and 30% in the subsequent two decades (FAO, 1998; Leonard, 1987). The popular belief that the Central American forests were sacrificed to cater to Americans' fondness for cheap and quick hamburgers is only partially true.

The growth in agricultural production and its impact on deforestation is primarily driven by domestic market demands rather than international demand. While international market pressures play a role in deforestation, it should not be overemphasized. The causes and solutions for controlling deforestation lie within each affected country. International trade can help address deforestation in some countries, but it is not a cure-all solution. Additionally, there is a lack of understanding of the economic value of tropical forests and the true costs of forest management for resource users.

Due to their undervaluation, forests have a diminished role in

decisions regarding resource allocations, development priorities, and land use. Consequently, they are more vulnerable to conversion for potentially more advantageous land uses. The undervaluation of tropical forests stems from their production of various consumable products across diverse markets, often beyond the cash economy. This creates the perception that they hold lesser significance. Additionally, tropical forests produce numerous non-market goods.

Forests provide various goods (such as forest food, game, resins, and fibres) as well as environmental services (such as climate control, water regulation, and soil conservation) that are not included in national economic accounts. These "downstream" benefits of conservation are enjoyed by beneficiaries without being paid for. The rotation cycle of natural forests in the tropics is much longer compared to agricultural crops, even outside of conventional commerce. The establishment of natural forests does not incur direct costs for exploiters, making them seen as "free" commodities. The potential value of forests is still largely unknown due to the lack of systematic research, resulting in imprecise market knowledge. Prices of forest products, other than traditional timber, are often set by monopolies (government or private sector) and may not reflect society's value. Forests are highly important to the rural poor, a social group with limited political and economic influence. Forests perceived to have low value are often cleared and replaced by more attractive land uses. To ensure accurate perceptions, it is crucial for people to have a comprehensive understanding of the true value of all goods and services provided by forests.

There has been much discussion and writing about the potential of ecotourism and pharmaceutical research to save tropical forests. While they can be alternatives to slash-and-burn farming on a

local scale, their impact on global land use is limited. The challenge is immense, and fair distribution of benefits to the millions involved outweighs the grassroots benefits they can provide. However, the economic potential of carbon sequestration and storage in forests could be huge through climate change convention agreements.

5 Weak Government Institutions - Many institutional failures have been identified as contributing factors to deforestation. Forestry departments in most countries typically have a low status within governments in comparison to other land uses, reflecting the economic power base in those countries. These departments often face challenges such as underpaid staff, insufficient budgets, inadequate staffing, and lack of training. Consequently, they have been ineffective in promoting pro-forestry arguments to political decision-makers and the general public. Even when policies and legislation are in place, the weakness of these departments in law enforcement, resistance to political pressures, and maintaining a field presence has led to disregard and indifference towards the law. Government corruption has had a devastating impact on forest conservation.

At all levels of government, there has been evidence of corrupt practices involving the granting of timber concessions and permits, approval of deforestation for agriculture or ranching purposes, undervaluing timber exports, tolerance of illegal logging, and even permitting the cutting of endangered tree species. In exchange for cash payments or political support, government officials have turned a blind eye to such activities. As a result, government decisions have prioritized personal gains for corrupt bureaucrats over sustainable forest management. This has led to a loss in government revenues that could have otherwise been used for funding sustainable forestry and a lack of incentives for private investors to engage in

sustainable forest management. Moreover, corruption undermines the authority of forestry departments as enforcers of the law. Consequently, people have become skeptical about the effectiveness of forestry departments' efforts to combat deforestation. Despite being recognized as a widespread issue, the absence of coordination among different government agencies' policies continues to hinder sustainable development efforts.

Narrow sectoral analysis and planning processes have resulted in conflicting objectives among agencies, as they have been developed without proper consultation and consideration of their impacts on neighboring sectors. The lack of participatory planning has led to generally weak government leadership in land use planning. If interest groups do not perceive any benefits from the land use plan, it becomes ineffective. Recognizing this, international donor agencies are increasingly collaborating with non-governmental partners that have strong connections to local populations.

Numerous government agencies, including the forestry departments, have formulated ambitious plans that exceed their capabilities to execute. These failures have led to a rise in skepticism and disrespect towards the government and a general disillusionment regarding its role in society. At an international level, the field of forestry has been negatively impacted by a dearth of strong leadership. This has been evident on numerous occasions during global discussions, where forestry and forest-related issues have been given lower priority compared to other sectors in resource allocation decisions.

Many governments have chosen to disregard deforestation in the face of political decisions regarding urban migration, food production, agrarian reform, employment generation, national security, economic structural adjustment, and other important issues. Deforestation has served as a safety valve, alleviating socioeconomic pressure in other areas and preventing inevitable political turmoil. While this may be politically convenient, it is a short-sighted approach

that does not benefit anyone in the long run. In various cultures, publicly owned forests are not seen as opportunities for collective management of valuable resources but rather as "free" commodities that can be used by anyone without restriction.