Closer examination of the paper, however, reveals that some of its claims are not quite as dramatic or eye-catching as the media would make out. The 57% figure comes from Business as Usual (BAU) scenario which estimates that by 2050 40% of the original Amazon forest will be destroyed. BAU is commonly considered "worst-case-scenario" in environmental models, so we cannot take this as what will happen. An improved governance scenario (IGS), which estimates forest loss by 2050 at 21%, suggests that only 36% of species will be threatened. This is perhaps a more realistic (hopefully) estimation, as we know that governments and international bodies are working towards improving management and conservation of tropical ecosystems.
 |
| Results of the new study, showing the severity of a BAU scenario; Source. |
Importantly, the paper highlights the urgency with which we need to address these projected losses in order for them to be prevented. It shows that protected areas in the Amazon are likely to be a successful way to protect populations if these areas to do not suffer further degradation. Clearly, improved governance has the potential to reduce species loss dramatically within the next 35 years, and this paper and the message it carries has come just in time to help highlight this at the COP21 later this week.
Even though 21% is much less than 40%, I still believe it is not merely as good as we would hope for. 21% will still have large impacts on species, however, the only thing we can do at the moment is be optimistic about COP21 finding a good solution on reducing climate change impacts to the 2oC threshold. I look forward to your next blog Ben!
ReplyDeleteOf course! In no way am I saying that 21% isn't a terrible loss and won't have important impacts. Optimism for COP21 would be nice but I'm not sure how optimistic I feel haha.
DeleteI agree, my optimism at the moment is relatively low, however lets hope for the best. :p
DeleteInteresting post Ben, I will be waiting with bated breath to see the global consensus on what can be done about rapid deforestation. However, I agree that BAU is definitely the worst case scenario and there is evidence that afforestation schemes have really started to take off (although the sensationalist headlines do help to bring attention to the matter!)
ReplyDeleteCompletely! Afforestation schemes can be really important and great for diversity, but they need to be implemented from the start - not just as an after thought which is often the case.
DeleteAn interesting review Ben - but did the paper mention measures other than governance? Surely the role of private businesses, NGOs, conservation groups and individuals could be just as critical in stemming this rate of extinction... I wonder if the predicted figures for forest loss would be altered if the paper took a more holistic view of the two BAU and IGS scenarios. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteThe paper was relatively short and didn't delve into the roles of the private sector and NGOs etc., but I think that you are definitely right that they have an important role to play. Perhaps it was difficult to model their impacts, but we should at least talk about it. I would imagine out of the players you listed, the private sector probably has the biggest role to play and that it would likely be a negative one. Although, that said, ecotourism may help relieve forest loss.
Delete