Logging in the Amazon rainforest

Logging in the Amazon rainforest

The global timber industry is highly lucrative and has consequently been a major cause of deforestation worldwide. Unfortunately, the Amazon rainforest has fallen victim to this industry and has suffered from large scale deforestation and biodiversity loss over the past decades as a result. Most of these logging operations are illegal and contribute to between 60 to 80 percent of all logging activities in the Brazilian amazon and 80% in Peru. These illegal operations are widely prevalent for a number of reasons. Firstly, many use false permits and get away with it due to their geographical isolation which makes it difficult for federal environmental agencies such as IBIMA to monitor them efficiently. Secondly, it is also very frequent for legal operations to break the law as they often cut more than their authorised quotas and cut outside of concession areas. In Peru for instance, 93.75% of all operations audited by OSINFOR in 2014 showed evidence of illegal practices. Sadly, it comes as no surprise that these highly unsustainable operations are causing many environmental problems which I will discuss in this blog post.

Illegal logging activities very often involve selective logging (figure 1 and 2) which consists of cutting down certain species of trees while leaving the non lucrative ones intact. This is the case in the Amazonian basin, where only a few species contain timber. As a result, the Amazon rainforest is being selectively logged at 20 times the rate at which it is being cleared causing large scale forest degradation. This can be seen in many areas such as the southwestern Pará region of Brazil for instance, where selective logging is caused by the high transportation cost of trees. Therefore, only the most profitable trees are cut down. Unfortunately, the area's cutting practices are inefficient and destructive resulting in the significant damage of surrounding trees, lianas and epiphytes. Furthermore, gaps in the canopy caused by tree cutting has been linked to increases in plant disease, fires and edge effects. As a result, since the year 2000, selective logging in that area has been responsible for more land degradation than all other cutting activities combined.

Figure 1: selective logging vs clear cutting

Figure 2: Before and after selective logging

Not only is this logging method responsible for land degradation, it is also responsible for disturbances in biodiversity. Indeed, it can result in both the death or destruction of animals and the alteration of their physiology. This is proved in a study of a selectively logged area in Brazil, which showed that two species of dung beetles decreased in abundance with the remaining survivors exhibiting higher levels of fat storage. We can therefore infer that their increased fat storage ability is a strategy used to conserve energy for vital survival processes. Evidently, not only is selective logging responsible for the death of many species, it is also responsible for sub lethal responses in living organisms.

Furthermore, selective logging seems to alter the natural equilibrium of some of the area’s animals such as bats. Indeed, Neotropical studies show that this kind of logging adversely affects the abundance of animalivorous phyllostomids whereas frugivorous and nectarivorous species tend to increase in abundance. This finding confirms a 2005 study in Trinidad, which discovered that changes in species composition are connected to the intensity of timber harvesting.

Amazonian logging has also caused many social conflicts with indigenous tribes. Indeed, although many indigenous and non-indigenous communities are recognised, most do not have legal titles. Consequently, these communities are unable to defend their land and are thus vulnerable to exploitation. It is therefore no surprise that the logging industry takes place in areas of inter human conflict and or corruption.

In conclusion, the Amazonian logging industry is principally led by illegal activities. These activities often result in selective logging which is responsible for land degradation, biodiversity changes and conflicts with indigenous tribes. Therefore, it is vital that the governments of the major Amazonian countries reform their governance over the timber industry to limit its destructive consequences.

Brazil’s environmentally destructive cattle ranching industry

Brazil’s environmentally destructive cattle ranching industry

In the Amazon rainforest cattle ranching is the leading cause of deforestation. This is then followed by the cutting and burning of forests to convert land into crops for family farming and finally by the deployment of grain crops by the agro industry.

Of all the Amazonian countries, Brazil has the largest cattle industry which is still rapidly growing. Indeed, the number of Brazilian cattle has increased from 147 million in 1990 to around 200 million in 2007. Unfortunately, 83 percent of this growth has occurred in the Amazon rainforest as can be seen in figure 1. The cattle industry is unfortunately associated with numerous environmental problems such as the release of high amounts of Greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, loss of species, water cycle disturbance, soil erosion and more. In this blog post I will examine some of the environmental consequences of this highly destructive industry in Brazil.

Figure 1: Herd production trends in Brazil.

 As mentioned earlier, Brazil’s ranching industry is responsible for a large amount of greenhouse gas emissions: 60 to 80% of all GHG emissions caused by land use change in Brazil. These enormous emissions can be attributed to the fact that cattle ranching occupies more land than any other agricultural activity in the Brazilian Amazon.

Consequently, this business emits large amounts of GHG in two major ways. Firstly, 205 Million metric tons of CO₂ is released through the deforestation itself: by the burning of trees and by the loss of the forest’s carbon sink ability. Secondly, an additional  256 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents of emissions is released through direct ranching activities. The two direct major contributors of GHG emissions on cattle farms are enteric fermentation (which accounted for 74% of total GHG emissions from cattle farms) and manure management (accounting for 22% of total GGH emissions from cattle farms) as shown in figure 2.  

 Figure 2: sources of GHG emissions

 Deforestation caused by the cattle industry is another major environmental problem.

Over the past 40 years up to the 20 percent of the Amazon rainforest has been cut down. In Brazil, 75% of all deforestation was due to the meat industry. Unfortunately, this leads to a destructive negative feedback.  Indeed, the Amazon rainforest produces half of its rainfall through the moisture released by vegetation into the atmosphere. Removing these vital trees will inevitably contribute to an increasing frequency of droughts. More droughts in turn will lead to further plant and biodiversity loss. Furthermore, trees and other vegetation are also of essential importance in filtering polluted water and prevent it from running off into and contaminating streams. Changing this precious dynamic equilibrium can have catastrophic environmental consequences as the Amazon River basin has the most diverse fish fauna on Earth

The Amazon’s water cycle is also impacted through the direct activities of ranching. Indeed, connectivity and flows in smaller tributaries have been affected by these land use changes. Stream impoundments created to support cattle ranching and roads in the Xingu watershed have also resulted in elevated steam temperatures extending at least 2.4km downstream.

Not only did stream temperature increase, the stream network length decreased as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Major drainages of the Curua-Una basin impacted by impoundments.

The changing connectivity and flows of these smaller tributaries can have massive environmental consequences with the main one being loss of biodiversity.  This can be explained by the Landscape connectivity theory that states that more connected environments benefit from higher biodiversity as species can move freely from one area to another during their life cycle to find food resources, reproduce etc… In short, the Brazilian cattle industry is a leading cause of Amazonian habitat fragmentation which can lead to habitat and biodiversity loss.

Yet even though there has already been catastrophic damage, the Brazilian government is trying to change this around. This can be seen through the increasing amount of farms participating in sustainability programs. On average, these farms resulted in 18% less GHG emissions than regular neighbouring farms. Furthermore, it appears that the longer a farm is on a sustainable program the more environmentally friendly it is. Indeed,  farms participating in sustainability programs for more than 2 years had 35% lower GHG emissions per kg of beef than their peers. This seems to suggest that it may take a while for theses farms and programs to reach their full benefits.

Not only has there been initiatives to reduce GHG emissions associated with the meat industry, there has also been efforts to reduce deforestation. Recent reports from many NGO’s such as Green Peace showed that major meat and leather brands were selling products sources from ranches implicated in illegal deforestation. They also showed that the Brazilian National Development bank was the main funder of the rapidly expanding slaughterhouses in the Amazon. All these discoveries have put pressure on Brazilian meatpackers and international retailers. Consequently, they have announced new policies against deforestation in their supply chains.

In conclusion, Brazil’s cattle industry has many negative environmental impacts. It is associated with very high levels of illegal deforestation, GHG emissions and biodiversity loss. Only recently has there been any major efforts to revert this situation through environmentally friendly policies and programs. For now, we can only hope that these changes get implemented swiftly to stop this wide scale destruction.

Brazil's bioethanol program

Brazil's bioethanol program

Our increasing dependence on fossil fuels is causing many environmental and social problems. Indeed, not only is the burning of fossil fuels extremely polluting as it’s a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. It is also a potential source of world conflict as fossil fuel reserves are finite and are quickly dwindling away. As a result, more and more people are increasingly focusing on biomass as a form of renewable energy.

Brazil is without a doubt leading the way in the consumption and production of biofuels derived from biomass. Indeed, 1975 saw the launch of the world’s largest commercial program on biomass by the Federal government (Coelho S.T et al 2006). This program was created with hopes of reducing oil imports, which were consuming one half of Brazil’s total amount of hard currency from exports Goldemberg, J., 2007).

The main biofuel used in Brazil is bioethanol which is produced from the country’s vast sugarcane plantations. Indeed in 2007, sugarcane plantations used solely for biofuel production covered 10% of the country’s total cultivated land (equivalent to 3 million hectares shown in figure 1) and generated 16 billion litters of bioethanol (or 4.2 billion gallons) (Goldemberg, J., 2007). To produce this bioethanol, 2.16 million tons of sugarcane is processed annually. As Brazil is such a large country these sugarcane plantations have not had a significant impact on food supplies as they only consist of 1% of Brazil’s total available agricultural land (Goldemberg, J., 2007). 

Figure 1: Brazil’s sugarcane plantations

In 1980, although sugarcane reserves were plentiful, the cost of bioethanol was still around three times that of gasoline. To solve this problem, the Brazilian government put taxes on regular gasoline. The money generated from these taxes was used to pay for the price difference between the two fuels (Goldemberg, J., 2007).  Through this initiative, the price of bioethanol became economically competitive with the one of gasoline (Coelho S.T et al 2006). Over time however, these subsidies were progressively removed and by 2004 ethanol become fully competitive with gasoline thanks to technical advances in ethanol plants such as the use of high pressure boilers that allow co-generation of electricity who’s surpluses were sold to the electric power grid (Goldemberg, J., 2007).  Figure 2 clearly shows the increasing efficiency of ethanol production over time. 

Figure 2*: Evolution of ethanol yield between 1975 and 2004 (there are no good figures of that yield after 2004 but many sources state that it has continued to increase). 

* There isn't any more recent graphs demonstrating the increasing ethanol production yield per ha. However, there are many recent graphs demonstrating Brazil's increasing ethanol production but its difficult to tell if it is a result of bio refinery improvements or increasing sugar cane cultivated areas.

As of 2005, bioethanol in Brazil is used to fuel 4'000'000 cars running on pure hydrated ethanol and 700'000 flex fuel vehicles(Coelho S.T et al 2006). These flex fuel vehicles can run on blends from E0 to E100 (fuel mixes with 0% to 100% ethanol). However, Brazilian flex fuel cars typically run on a fuel mixture containing between 20 to 26% ethanol with the rest being gasoline. These flex cars are of massive importance in Brazil and represented 70% of all new sold cars in Brazil in February 2006 (Sandalow, D., 2006). The extensive use bioethanol has led to several outstanding results including substantial reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and massive improvements of air quality in metropolitan areas (Goldemberg, J. 2008). In Sao Paulo for instance, Lead levels dropped from 1.4 ug/m³ in 1977 to less than 0.10 ug/m³ in 1991. Sulphur dropped from 50 ug/m³ in 1984 to 15 ug/m³ in 2003. Finally , particulate matter dropped from 90 ug/m³ in 1986 to just 50 ug/m³ in 2003 (Coelho S.T et al 2006)

Even though biofuels solve many environmental questions, they are still responsible for some environmental and social impacts. Currently, the country’s bioethanol industry is linked to atmospheric pollution from the burning of sugarcane for harvesting, to the degradation of soils and aquatic ecosystems and to the exploitation of cane cutters (Martinelli, L.A. and Filoso, S., 2008). These impacts can be seen in many regions such as in the Ipojuca River basin. There, the river's self purifying abilities were massively impacted by the sugarcane industry.  The river was unfortunately also subject to overheating, acidification, increases in turbidity, oxygen imbalance and increases in coliform bacteria levels (Gunkel, G et al 2007)

Furthermore, expanding sugarcane plantations will inevitably impede into other plantations such as soybean. This presents a grave environmental threat as this will increase deforestation pressure from dislocated soybean crops into the Amazon region (Martinelli, L.A. and Filoso, S., 2008). All of these issues need to be urgently addressed as Brazil's sugarcane industry is showing no signs of slowing down.

A few different initiatives could help assure that bioethanol production remains environmentally and economically sustainable. First of all, the expansion of sugarcane plantations into new regions would require proper planning and environmental risk assessments. There should also be an improvement of agricultural practices to reduce soil erosion and nitrogen pollution. Furthermore, streams and riparian ecosystems should become much more protected. Finally, sugarcane burning practices should be banned and there should be fairer working conditions for cane cutters (Martinelli, L.A. and Filoso, S., 2008).

In conclusion, as of 2008 Brazil’s ethanol program is replacing around 40% of the gasoline that would have been otherwise used(Goldemberg, J. 2008). The use of this biofuel has led to substantial environmental benefits and show that through governmental help it is possible to replace fossil fuels at a large scale. Globally, Brazil’s ethanol has replaced around 1.5% of all gasoline. A tenfold increase in Brazil’s ethanol program could replace up to 10% of the world’s current gasoline usage (Goldemberg, J., 2007). Encouragingly, this could feasibly be achieved as it would entail planting 30 million more hectares of sugarcane plantations which is a very small proportion of the 1 billion hectares of land currently available for primary crops in our planet. However, it is very important to realise that Brazil’s bioethanol industry still has some negative environmental impacts which urgently needs to be addressed as bioethanol production will only continue to grow.