Globalisation can be defined as the increasing
cross-border interaction and integration of various aspects of human activity.
Based on this view of globalisation, identify one problematic area of the
phenomenon and discuss its influence on contemporary society. What actual or
possible means are there to ameliorate the issue you have highlighted?
Globalization has provided opportunities for the
expansion of global trade through international interconnectedness. The
significant increase in the support for free markets over the last few decades
has led to strong economic growth in many developing countries.
As a result, more diverse and cheaper goods are available to consumers in the
modern world (Kohut & Wike, 2008). Due to the
high demand for international goods, the
importance of industrialization has risen sharply. Therefore, industrial
activities such as extensive agriculture and infrastructure expansion continue
to proliferate. Notably, they drive deforestation, a root cause of other
environmental problems such as global warming and a loss of biodiversity. These
problems are ineradicable especially when deforestation is constantly fueled by
the rise in industrialization (Laurance, 2013). These
severe effects of deforestation have raised global awareness and exigency in
forest protection. A solution that has been implemented to control the problem
of global warming is REDD+. It is an acronym for a
set of policies aimed at reducing emissions from deforestation and forest
degradation in developing countries (REDD) and restoring forests and increasing
carbon storage in existing forests (the “plus”)(Fearnside, 2006). Besides
REDD+, they also practice land sparing and wildlife-friendly farming (Green & Balmford, 2013); two
effective farming methods that have proven to reduce the loss of diversity, one
of the several environmental threats caused by deforestation.
Deforestation is the prime source of global
greenhouse gases (GHG). As a result of its
accumulation, the excessive heat trapped in the atmosphere leads to global
warming. It brings detrimental effects to the global forests and the
governments have been spending huge amounts of money to control this problem. The
tropical forests have been reduced by half in the last centuries, worse, over
the last decade, 10 million hectares of native forest are being cleared yearly;
equivalent to forty football fields per minute (DeFries, Rudel, Uriarte, & Hansen, 2010).
Predominantly in developing nations, the emissions are projected to continue in
the absence of strict regulations (Lubowski & Rose, 2013). To counter
this problem, these countries have implemented REDD+ policies that are aimed at
substantial lowering of GHG emissions by controlling deforestation, executing
reforestation and other activities to enhance forest carbon stocks. The
approach is that countries receive monetary compensation if their GHG emissions
reductions are certified. Brazil, an emergent nation has achieved more than 75
percent reduction since 2004 (Lubowski & Rose, 2013). Reducing
GHG below a reference level makes a country entitled to receiving REDD+
incentives. However, this implementation should be fair in a way that countries
should be penalized if they fail to maintain emissions below that reference
level. The policy has to strategize ways to ensure that countries stay
committed and do not opt out of this program especially when incentives for reductions
get too low. Overall,
it is an attractive political-economic strategy, especially to target
prospective governments in Latin America and Southeast Asia, where emissions
reductions are greatest as deforestation rates are high and the carbon densities
of forests are large(Lubowski & Rose, 2013).
Reducing deforestation also addresses a concern that extends beyond
global warming such as biodiversity conservation in the region. Tropical
forests are homes to numerous living species, hence, controlling deforestation
could prevent the extinction of species. However, as the global population
grows and food consumption rises, people demand
more food. This has caused intensified
industrialization and the need to clear forests. This trade-off between food
production and the loss of biodiversity through deforestation can be reconciled
with land use strategies such as land sparing and wildlife-friendly farming (Grau, Kuemmerle, & Macchi, 2013). Land-sparing approaches spatially segregate
intensive agriculture and natural areas, which set aside lands for
preservation. Therefore,
the agricultural yields are maximised from a relatively small area of land permitting nearby areas to be spared. Wildlife-friendly farming favours the approaches for
combining agricultural production and enhancement of biodiversity(Rey Benayas & Bullock, 2012). Although, the
agriculture yields are lower per unit area, the lands are more wildlife
friendly which allow permanent conservation and an increase in wild populations
on farmland. The effectiveness of land
sparing strategy in European countries is justified when farmers are
compensated with over $2.7 billion annually by the government when they
minimize the usage of farmland. Furthermore, Costa Rica, nearly half of native
forest species of birds, mammals, butterflies, and moths also occur in
agricultural areas. This proves that wildlife-friendly farming has improved
biodiversity (Green, Cornell, Scharlemann, &
Balmford, 2005). There is no pristine strategic design that can
cater to all ecosystems and there are many environmental heterogeneous factors
to consider when deciding on a strategy to effectively balance the usage of
lands. Heterogeneity is problematic as well as the agricultural yields and
biodiversity complex relationship, which is not well understood in current
farming models (Fischer et al., 2008). Hence, improved
empirical studies in terms of the design of strategies should be carried out to
produce rigorous data quality. Comparative advantages of the strategies in
different environmental and societal settings should also be assessed. This
would contribute to a better management of land use trade-offs.
As globalization intensifies, the
increases in industrial activities due to the high demand in food production
and commodities have negatively impacted the environment by massive clearing of
forests. Reducing deforestation by implementing REDD+ policies and land use
strategies would reduce the effects of the environmental problems of global
warming and loss of biodiversity. These solutions represent the range of
actions that should be combined to best ameliorate the root of all problems,
deforestation.
References:
DeFries, R. S., Rudel, T., Uriarte, M., &
Hansen, M. (2010). Deforestation driven by urban population growth and
agricultural trade in the twenty-first century. Nature Geoscience, 3,
178–181. doi:10.1038/ngeo756
Fearnside, P. M. (2006). Tropical deforestation and
global warming. Science (New York, N.Y.),
312(5777), 1137.
doi:10.1126/science.312.5777.1137c
Fischer, J., Brosi, B., Daily, G. C., Ehrlich, P.
R., Goldman, R., Goldstein, J., … Tallis, H. (2008). Should agricultural
policies encourage land sparing or wildlife-friendly farming? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,
6, 380–385. doi:10.1890/070019
Grau, R., Kuemmerle, T., & Macchi, L. (2013).
Beyond “land sparing versus land sharing”: environmental heterogeneity,
globalization and the balance between agricultural production and nature
conservation. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability, 5(5),
477–483. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2013.06.001
Green, R. E., & Balmford, A. (2013). Farming and
the Fate of Wild Nature, 550(2005).
doi:10.1126/science.1106049
Green, R. E., Cornell, S. J., Scharlemann, J. P. W.,
& Balmford, A. (2005). Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science (New York, N.Y.), 307(5709), 550–5.
doi:10.1126/science.1106049
Kohut, A., & Wike, R. (2008). Assessing
Globalization, 70–75.
Laurance, W. F. (2013). Treetops at Risk. (M.
Lowman, S. Devy, & T. Ganesh, Eds.), 71–79. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-7161-5
Lubowski, R. N., & Rose, S. K. (2013). The
Potential for REDD+: Key Economic Modeling Insights and Issues. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy,
7(1), 67–90. doi:10.1093/reep/res024
Rey Benayas, J. M., & Bullock, J. M. (2012).
Restoration of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on Agricultural Land. Ecosystems, 15(6), 883–899. doi:10.1007/s10021-012-9552-0
