At the end of January, a study coordinated by researcher David Lapola, from Cepagri/Cocen (Center for Meteorological and Climate Research Applied to Agriculture/Coordination of Interdisciplinary Research Centers and Nuclei), was on the cover of the prestigious magazine Science. With the title "Amazon Lost", the publication highlighted the worrying conclusion of the research: around 38% of what remains of the Amazon forest is degraded. The problem is caused mainly by four types of disturbances: fire, extreme droughts, edge effects and selective logging.
Degradation and deforestation are related phenomena that share causes and effects, but they are distinct phenomena that need to be combated with different strategies. Degraded forests continue to be forests – but of very low quality. Unlike deforestation, which has been studied for decades, degradation still receives little attention, both from the media and science, from economic agents and public authorities, which makes it even more urgent to formulate initiatives to respond to the problem and understand it. better, according to the researcher.
"Currently, advancing in the fight against deforestation is more of a political issue, because the scientific part is already well advanced. As for degradation, we are beginning to understand this now. We are in our infancy in terms of mapping the financing chains and impacts [of the phenomenon]", says Lapola.
Entitled The drivers and impacts of Amazon forest degradation, the article is signed by 35 authors from national and international institutions. The conclusions are the result of an analytical review of scientific data based on satellite images and other previously published information about changes in the Amazon region between 2001 and 2018. As the available data does not account for the years of the Jair Bolsonaro government, the researchers assume that the degradation numbers are even higher. "But regardless, the message is the same: it is already worrying, even without including this most recent period."
After the wide prominence that the article received in the media in the days following publication, in an interview with Unicamp website, David Lapola hopes the impact of the study will last. "I am very happy that [the article] generated a tsunami of press coverage. And I hope that now a second wave of impact resulting from the article will occur among decision makers. It is urgent to start thinking about solutions. And that a third wave, this slower one, referring to other studies, occurs in a way that complements or even contests our [study], but in order to advance this field of understanding about degradation."
Unicamp Portal - Socio-environmental issues related to deforestation are very present in the public debate. However, little is said about degradation specifically. Does this happen because the topic is not studied as much in the scientific field?
David Lapola - That's right. This concept has not entered the public sphere in a significant way because in science itself it is little studied. In the 1990s, there was a tree of studies on deforestation. We already know the process very well, the financing chains, the main agents involved, we have developed monitoring systems and we understand the impacts on biodiversity, soil quality and so on. Currently, advancing in the fight against deforestation is more of a political issue, because the scientific part is already well advanced. As for degradation, we are starting to understand that now. We are in our infancy in terms of mapping financing chains and impacts. Even in relation to future projections, our article represents a first attempt in this direction. In the study, we established a very clear framework on how to identify areas that are under degradation, especially in relation to the four main causes: fire, edge effects, selective logging and extreme droughts. The idea is that the study encourages other scientists and public agents to think about actions to attack this problem.
PU - Are there currently no significant initiatives specifically aimed at combating degradation?
David Lapola - Practically none. There are no government or private programs to curb degradation. The only international initiative that exists is the REDD+ mechanism: which stands for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation [in the acronym in English]. So, the second “D” in the acronym refers to degradation. It is an official mechanism of the Climate Convention, which Brazil signed. But almost all REDD+ projects are focused on deforestation, not degradation. It's basically the following: you have land in the Amazon where there is a forest that stores a certain amount of carbon, mainly in the tree trunks. So, for example, an international partner, through the REDD+ mechanism, pays you to keep that forest standing and not generate more deforestation. The projects are almost all focused on this.
PU - Among the four main degradation factors studied, does one predominate in the context of the Amazon?
David Lapola: There are different highlights for each of them. All four are very important focuses of attention. Fire, when compared to drought, has a much more restricted spatial dimension, but is very intense where it occurs, with a strong impact. Drought is the opposite: if you analyze a specific area, the impact is slight. You have a 2% or 3% carbon loss after a severe drought, but the spatial dimension is very large. Drought occurs in gigantic areas. When you count 2% or 3% in all these areas, it's a lot, after all.
The edge effect is a consequence of deforestation. It's like this: when part of a forest is cut down and becomes pasture, the edge where there is contact between the remaining forest and the pasture, in its first 100 or 200 meters, begins to degrade due to the entry of more light, more wind. Humidity becomes lower... Anyway, there is a change in the microclimate of that area. Species of plants that are not used to this environment die, animals begin to move and other species more adapted to this slightly drier environment arrive. And you may be thinking: but it's only 100 or 200 meters. The point is that, if you take all the polygons where deforestation occurs and add these 100 or 200 meters of edge effects, this results in a huge area in the Amazon.
And, finally, the issue of selective logging, which is illegal in most [cases], occurs when a person enters the forest and cuts only the noble wood. For example, mahogany. In the process of felling this tree, two or three others nearby fall, only the noble wood is removed and the rest remains there. These hardwoods are generally the ones that store the most carbon. This process is not directly linked to deforestation and we have extreme difficulty mapping its extent. For the article, we only had one data source available, based on censuses from IBGE [Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics], which should basically report only legalized activities. So, in terms of selective logging, this could have occurred in at least twice the amount we indicated.
PU - When it is said that, with degradation, forests do not stop being forests, for laymen it may seem that it is not such an aggressive process. How does degradation affect forests?
David Lapola: One thing is the classification of land cover, whether it is forest or not. Another issue is the quality of the forest. There was a very fierce discussion during the Bolsonaro government, including involving high commissioners from Embrapa [Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation], about 60% or 65% of the Brazilian territory still being supposedly preserved forests. The number itself is debatable, but the question is the quality of these forests. The problem of degradation is actually very common for us here. Most of the forests we have around the rivers here in São Paulo, in the Southeast, which are Permanent Protection Areas (APP), are degraded forests. In the naked classification, they are forests. But they are very poor forests. For anyone who has been to well-preserved forest environments, like me, it is a shame to see.
PU - What is the relationship between forest degradation and global climate change?
David Lapola: The relationship is total. For example, the droughts we study in the article have increased in frequency due to anthropogenic climate change. There we already have a direct causal relationship: climate change caused by man leading to forest degradation. And you don't need to have a person on-site visit. Someone in China could emit greenhouse gases and this could cause atmospheric changes that lead to more periodic droughts, degrading forests in the western Amazon. I gave the example of a person in China, but it is a widespread problem throughout the world. And this is new for issues involving the Amazon, because it introduces an international responsibility to solve this problem. Of course, other issues, such as the edge effect and illegal selective logging, we need to resolve here. Brazil and other Amazon countries must increase inspection. Now, more frequent droughts caused by global climate change, we cannot resolve this on our own. Either the world stops emitting greenhouse gases or the Amazon will be further degraded by this factor. There is also feedback. More frequent droughts make the forest more flammable, increasing the likelihood of fire, which is another factor in degradation. Gas emissions caused by degradation are, at least, equivalent to those from deforestation in the period analyzed, or perhaps even greater, so that they also contribute to the anthropogenic greenhouse effect, which in turn causes climate change, which causes more droughts and so on.
PU - Why does the data analyzed only go up to 2018? Do you estimate that the degradation numbers are much higher, considering the last four years?
David Lapola: This was not a political issue. It has to do with the availability of data. A very important source of data for our study was the Mapbiomes, a long-term project that maps vegetation and soil changes in Brazil. We used this data, which only went up to 2018. It is an independent project, not related to the government. All this data about fire, drought, none of it was government data. Now, having said that, if we consider that degradation, at least in part, accompanies deforestation – and we know that there has been a worsening in deforestation rates in the last four years –, it is very likely that there has been a worsening in terms of degradation as well. . So, the numbers we arrived at, that 38% of the remaining forests would be degraded, this is possibly an optimistic picture. But I also don't believe that, if data from 2018 had been included in the analysis, the numbers would be astronomically higher, because it is a relatively short period in relation to the total analyzed. And, regardless of this, the message remains the same: it is already worrying, even not including this most recent period.
PU - At the end of the article, you bring up the concept of smart forests. What are the possible contributions of this type of approach?
David Lapola: The degradation process shares some characteristics, in terms of causes, with deforestation. But other causes are very different and have no direct relationship. Therefore, using the same techniques, strategies and actions used to curb deforestation will not work. We need new, more innovative strategies. So, this concept of smart forests entered the article more as an example. We cite the Green Forest Initiative [Green Forest Initiative]. In Pará, they install second-hand cell phones in strategic locations. If the cell phone captures, for example, the sound of a chainsaw or a tree being cut, something like that, it issues an alert and competent people go to the scene. This illustrates the concept of smart forests, which derives from the Smart cities, a city with the Internet of Things, lots of connectivity, sensors, etc., to improve the functioning of this ecosystem. In the case of Smart cities, an urban ecosystem. And, in the case of smart forests, a forest ecosystem. Of course, there are different challenges related to energy provision, equipment maintenance, networks and everything else, especially for the more remote forest areas. This concept is already widespread among people who do forestry, especially outside Brazil. So, we suggest this more in the sense of providing fodder for future discussion.
PU - What was the experience of coordinating this study, involving dozens of researchers?
David Lapola: It is a review study. Many tend to think that review work is easier, but in fact it is the opposite, because it is not just about reporting what has already been written. Conclusions need to be drawn from this body of literature. In our case, [the study] involved the analysis of pre-existing data. I obviously didn't understand everything, nor was I capable of doing all these analyses. So, I think the article required a more organizational effort from me, to identify who the correct people were, who were the experts on this subject or that, because the topic is broad. And it took a little perseverance, because you receive a review of the magazine, they ask for changes, adjustments, you need to call the whole group again. It is work that can be exhausting, but it was a very rewarding experience. Far beyond the personal ego of any of the authors, our effort to insert the study into Science – and on its cover, something that was the subject of my insistence before the editors [of the magazine] – was due to the attention that the subject deserved. I'm very happy that this generated a tsunami of press coverage. And I hope that now a second wave of impact resulting from the article will occur among decision makers. It is urgent to start thinking about solutions. And that a third wave, this slower one, referring to other studies, occurs in order to complement or even contest our [study], but in order to advance this field of understanding about degradation.
