Globalization Essay Draft 2

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