Agriculture covers 37% of the earth's land surface and is the largest driver of biodiversity loss. Biodiversity is affected by agriculture through conversion of natural ecosystems to farms, increased intensive farming and release of pollutants. A key driver (~70%) of deforestation is agriculture, with tropical forests known as the primary source of new land for agriculture in the 1980s and 1990s. Between 2010 and 2030, it is predicted that over 80% of deforestation globally will occur in just eleven places known as 'deforestation fronts.' In these places, up to 170 million hectares of forest may be lost. This is equivalent to a forest stretching across Germany, France, Spain and Portugal, being wiped out in 20 years. Although everyone has heard about deforestation, the rate at which this is taking place is shocking.
Since 1970, there has been a 60% decline in wildlife populations. The proposed 'safe' planetary boundary for biodiversity intactness, beyond which we reach a point of no return, has been crossed in 65% of the terrestrial surface due to land use and similar pressures according to one study. Another study however, has argued that biodiversity loss has not occurred, but instead greater than expected species turnover, which may indicate homogenisation by invasive species and change in ecosystem composition. Regardless, these changes present a major threat to ecosystem function.
A major concern for biodiversity loss in the coming years is deforestation of remaining tropical forests, for example for agricultural purposes in the Amazon. Tropical forests harbour some of the greatest biodiversity in the world and have key roles in the carbon and water cycles. Whilst agriculture areas have decreased in other forest types in recent years, deforestation has continued in the tropics to clear land for agricultural expansion. The greatest human footprint change in terms of sustainable agriculture since 1993 was found in land that was moderately suitable for agriculture. This suggests that highly suitable lands are already used for intensive farming but moderately suitable lands now face increased human pressure as a result of agricultural expansion. Rates of forest loss are known to be higher in low income countries and these are the areas, where our efforts may make the greatest difference.
The vast majority of clearing in the Amazon has been to create space for cattle rearing. The second largest cause of deforestation is soybeans, for which the EU is the second largest importer, due to their importance for livestock feed (soymeal). Between 1988 and 2008, soybean monocultures in Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia and Paraguay, increased by 2.5 times! 83% of all EU soymeal is used for poultry and pig feed. Interestingly, analysis of EU's increasing sustainability and forest area does not take into account its impact on deforestation outside Europe. Many companies however have committed to zero deforestation by 2020, but a recent report suggested that commodity-driven deforestation has still not fallen. Future opportunities to reduce deforestation in the tropics, may lie in setting up new trading tariffs based on imported products' footprints, financing conservation and restoration of tropical forest areas, and from individuals reducing intake of animal products and reducing demand. Banning of beef or soy products from illegally cleared land is of particular importance, and a push by companies is therefore needed to encourage sustainable sourcing of products.
Spotlight on Guyana
Guyana, a small country in South America, has some of the highest biodiversity in the world with over 70% pristine habitat. Approximately 8000 plant species are known there, half of which are found nowhere else. I am of Guyanese descent and on reading about the dramatic deforestation that is predicted to occur in the Amazon, I felt relief at how undiscovered Guyana remains. However, on further research, it seems that even there, the corruption in the government may now lead to fast deforestation. I was dismayed to read this, as the lack of infrastructure and funding, had largely prevented Guyana reaping any monetary gains from their forests. Now, oil palm investors have been encouraged to begin preliminary work. However, a greater threat may exist still in the 80 million dollars provided by Norway for an energy project to supply the whole of Guyana with renewable energy. This may now have allowed the opportunity for deforestation.
The agreement originally detailed the development of a power plant and a road leading to it, instead the Guyanese government have claimed this is no longer viable and they have now begun deforestation along the road in attempts to monetise the forest. Brazilian investors have recently agreed agricultural developments of soy, corn and rice in Guyana and the ability to easily access most of Guyana's land will now make mass developments possible. I thought this made an interesting point of highlighting that although ultimately the goal of European nations may be to help prevent deforestation and biodiversity loss, these strategies must be carefully thought through. Although Norway will stop providing money to Guyana if deforestation continues, they have now funded the infrastructure that Guyana could not afford and given them the opportunity to begin rapid deforestation.
Agriculture continues to lead to increasing land-use change, and destruction of some of the most beautiful areas in the world. The impact that deforestation may have on such an unknown region of the world has highlighted to me that although these issues may not be occurring locally, it does not mean they're not happening. Each day, we lose pristine forests, the species and nature of which we can never get back.