How can we sustainably develop an area of tropical rainforest Essay Example

How can we sustainably develop an area of tropical rainforest Essay Example How can we sustainably develop an area of tropical rainforest Essay How can we sustainably develop an area of tropical rainforest Essay Essay Topic: The Bean Eaters Rainforests can be found near the earth’s Equator where temperatures are high. Since the Equator is mostly tilted towards the sun, their biomes have high temperatures and humidity which allows for a large diversity of animals and plants to live there. This is unlike forests which consists of mainly one type of tree and doesn’t have much diversity in its plants and animals.Figure 1- Distribution of tropical rainforestsâ€Å"Earths lungs†Clearly, the largest is the Amazon Rainforest.Figure 2- Amazon in BrazilThe Amazon spreads on many countries in South America.The Amazon rainforest is disappearing fast from the earth’s surface because of deforestation which is putting a risk on the forest.Falls onto eight nations. 60 % of it is inside Brazil therefore they have large control on it. .4,100,000 square kilometresFigure 3- Layers of the AmazonEmergent Layer These are the tallest trees which get plenty of light. Monkeys, bats and butterflies can be found here.C anopy – Maze of leaves and branches that have many animals living in it due to so much food. Animals include snakes, toucan and tree frogs.Under Story – little sunlight gets here and so leaves grow out to be able to catch itForest floor – almost no plants grow here since it is dark and so it decays really fast.Giant ant eaters live here.solcomhouse.com/images/LAYER500copy.jpg Source of information.This is relevant to our research as it shows how unique the rainforest is. Unlike forests the Amazon has many layers to it and different types of trees that can only be found in the Amazon to show how important it is to protect it from any dangers. Not only that, but the Amazon took many generations to build up to this sort of environment and is really important for the development of the world and habitats.Causes of Deforestation:Figure 3 – Causes of DeforestationLogging, though it doesn’t contribute heavily, is still done so that the timber could be us ed for things such as chairs, home objects and other things that are made of wood inside the home.Large scale agriculture for example Soya bean plantations.Human exploitation is taking its toll on the Amazon Rainforest. When infrastructure is built it is easier for businesses in the Amazon to be able to transport and build up their companies which wouldn’t have been possible without infrastructure. For example, cattle ranching are the biggest cause of deforestation taking up to 65-70% of deforested land which can be seen on the Mongabay website who have done a study into the Amazon rainforest and its exploitation.Trees are cut down for the sake of breeding cattle whose beef and leather is exported to MNC’s and this land is cleared to make space for the cattle to graze and to move freely. The second biggest cause is small time agriculture (20 – 25 % as seen in Figure 3 taken from Mongabay). Since Brazil still has many poor people, they encourage poor farmers to m ove to the Amazon. Since there’s infrastructure farmers are further encouraged to move there since they can easily get around. When they settle down there they chop down trees to start farming, but due to lack of care the soil erodes quickly and becomes infertile so they cut down more trees to be able to farm.Among large scale agriculture is soy bean plantations. Brazil has become the second largest soy bean producer (26 % of the rainforest as seen in figure 3, Mongabay) in the world due to high demand from western society therefore more trees are cut down for this purpose. Infrastructure is again making it easier to import and export the soy. A high demand can be seen as they sell well in many countries which create economic developments which means the country could then become a significant country of produce and increase exports and continue to grow and prosper. (As seen in website evaluated in my bibliography)The main motivation for deforestation is to help Brazil to pro sper and continue to rebuild itself so that it can become a more wealthy country so that they could build up the economy and become an MEDC. This is positive since it will increase the countries economy and raise the Quality of Life for the people of Brazil however this comes with various consequences.Every time deforestation decreases, it then gradually increases againFigure 4- Amount of DeforestationDecreasing here largelyThough it is evident from the graph that Brazil tries to decrease deforestation however it always returns to rise. Also, according to the Mongabay, which is an environmentalist website that is dedicated to the well being of the Amazon rainforest, (refer to bibliography) and from the graph it can be seen that there is a correlation between Brazil’s economy and the deforestation there is also a decrease in economic profit and that when there was an increase in deforestation, Brazil experienced economic growth as explained in the Key Geography for GCSE textbo ok which detailed the effects of the Amazon on the Brazilian economy.(Greenpeace Activist) The Amazon contains 80-120 billion tonnes of carbon which if it is released could damage the earth’s atmosphere! Not only that, but the Amazon is also home to ingenious people who need the forest. If the rainforest is cut down the people would have no-where to go. Also, by cutting down the rainforest, we are losing all these natural medicines and herbs that could be useful. Many animals and insects would also be lost with every tree that is cut down!EFFECTS AND STAKEHOLDERS OPINIONS:(Ingenious People) There are over 200’000 of us in the Amazon in over 180 nations. If our home is cut down, it will cause us to lose the land that we tried so hard to protect and our homes will be destroyed. If we are forced off our land then we still wouldn’t be able to get jobs in the already overcrowded city which would then mean our culture will be destroyed and we will be forced to accusto m to modern day living which we do not want as we are content with out present life.(Brazil) The beef that is used in cheap things such as canned food or packaged food is most likely to be from the Amazon rainforest as that is where 80% of the Amazon that is being cut down is used for cattle ranching. We as a country are growing due to all this importing and exporting so we must keep all this demand so that we can keep providing jobs and prospering.(MNCs) Until demand for our products is reduced then we will keep on cutting down trees so that our company can prosper. Besides, we are contributing to the government by paying taxes and giving people jobs in our factories, therefore being more help to the government then the actual rainforest.Note: these sources are all biased from their own points of view.EffectExplanationPositive/NegativePeople have jobsThey can then spend more money inside the country and be more prosperous meaning money would circulate and the economy could growPosi tiveTrees being cut down and plants and animals dieReduces the biodiversity of the Amazon. By cutting down all those trees, CO2 is being released into the atmosphere which would damage the ozone layer and cause the earth to become more vulnerable. Also it is raising the pollution inside the world causing more damage.NegativeIndigenous people lose their homesMay result in people migrating to cities and creating overpopulation in as well as higher unemployment as those from outside the city may not have the suitable skills for life in the city. Also, by tourists, loggers or any other form of foreign contact, western diseases are brought upon the ingenious people. They are losing their culture and many are dying as their land that they feed on and live off is cut down.NegativeBrazil can set up more businessesIncreases import and export and Improves relations with other countries. The government is benefiting from all the taxes they get from MNCS setting up there and logging (excluding those done illegally). It is creating short term economic relief for the workers who are mining, cut down trees.PositiveMore CO2 levels in the atmosphereWhen trees are cut down this means that there would be less oxygen in the atmosphere and there would be more health problems due to pollution and there would also be more global warming.NegativeCheaper food and objects abroadWhen things are done illegally or in larger spaces, people abroad can buy these things more cheaply and not have to pay high prices. However for the government, they wouldn’t be able to control the situation and they are losing money because of those people.Negative and positiveSOLUTIONS:SolutionAdvantageDisadvantageJobs for local people outside of logging, mining by the Brazilian government(Economic)The Brazilian government can continue to get money from taxes but they need to make more jobs for people that don’t damage the forest.For example, being stewards and protectors of the Amazon rainforest to stop certain activities such as illegal logging.It would cost the Brazilian government money to make more jobs (for example- forest stewardship scheme)The FSC who labels wood so that it can show it comes from a safe environment where the wood was not illegally logged or cut down in large masses (FSC website)(Environmental)A certain label could be put on the Amazon beef which would tell everyone that this type of cow was treated well and did not contribute greatly to deforestation. This would raise demand for that beef and would encourage all cattle farms to get FSC’dThe Brazilian government may have to spend money on cattle ranching everything in the Amazon will increase price of beef so demand falls.Increased Taxes on foreign companies with logging, mining, ranching activities(Economic)This would mean more money for Brazil and then they wouldn’t have to keep allowing more and more companies inside.Pay may decrease for workers to allow this change in taxes and they would be unhappy with lower pay and cannot afford things and the country would remain poorIBAMA for national police to stop illegal logging(Social)Brazilian government because if there’s less illegal logging then that means more profit would go to the government. Also it would protect indigenous people whose land can be protected from illegal loggers who will just intrude purposefully.More money would be spent on the policing of the Amazon then the people of Brazil which would mean less funding for those things and some people may think there is no point to it.Increased action and campaigning of environmental groups e.g: Greenpeace (website)(Social and Environmental)They can raise awareness in the western world and allow for people and companies to see what is happening. This is good for indigenous people since others would be aware of their situation(boycott companies)Many companies may not take the advice because of not enough support from the public.Empowerment to the ind igenous people(Social)They can have control over their land and disallow people to intrude onto it and try to take it away from them. This means they can build on it and prosper with their land.They may decide to sell of their land and would then have to migrate to the cities. Also, this way the government has no control over them.Social: More ingenious people would start dying of and they may come in contact with western diseases. Also, if they are pushed out of their homes they would overpopulate the cities and make unemployment rise.Economic: The Brazilian government would benefit since they would be able to continue to cattle ranch and log on the ground and get money from the ground.The rainforest is deteriorating at a fast rate and if solutions are not produced for the welfare of the rainforest, it would disappear.Environmental: Animals would die since they would be displaced from their habitats and they would not be adapted to live elsewhere.Solutions should be sustainable and benefit the country and rainforest with a solution that not only offers short term but also long term relief that all stakeholders can benefit from.The best solution is to use the FSC label that can be put on not only wood, but also cattle so that it can be sold in the international market and would be trusted since then you know the trees weren’t cut illegally by loggers. This would mean that loggers would start to lose business and won’t be able to log for much longer. However, it could also backfire since the loggers may increase export from the Amazon and offer it at lower prices so that they could sell more.However, if IBAMA police were to monitor the rainforest, loggers are less likely to be able to get the wider areas and to cut illegally. Also, the efforts of campaigners of Greenpeace continued campaigning they could raise more awareness of the rainforest and indigenous people who occupy it and people would then demand the FCS cows or timber more. Also, if MNC ’s take on the FSC label then the Brazilian governments would be forced to control cattle ranching so that these companies can continue buying from them and FCS would be able to approve their cattle. However, this may mean more expensive food for people living abroad.The FSC label would be a good idea to protect the rainforests timber, but it can also be used for the cattle ranching. If demand could be changed outside Brazil for these products so that only timber which has the FSC label can be sold it would mean Brazil will then accustom to the demand and enforce this law.This would also put illegal loggers out of business as they wouldn’t be able to export their products and cannot sell so they would look for more legal solutions and businesses and may therefore decide to work together with the government which would benefit both sides and this would then increase prosperity and the Brazilian government would benefit from and use it wisely. If the same law was applied to cattle then people would demand cattle they know has been looked after well which would generate a peace around the Amazon as the wood is not absued and indigenous peoples homes are not destroyed and Brazil could continue to benefit from the Amazon without the cost of exploiting the forest.