FREE ESSAY ON RAIN FOREST DEPLETION

RAIN FOREST DEPLETION

Rainforest Deforestation: Do We Care Enough? 
The villagers walk the charred ruins of their village, looking for any personal
possessions that can be salvaged after the fire. Looking out from the remains, they see
the trucks already winding their way up the newly made dirt road. Soon, the landscape
around their village will be irrevocably changed as well. The loggers will strip the
forest of all trees, and then move on. They leave the landscape barren, and allow erosion
to destroy it utterly. Sadly, this scene is common in many Latin and South American
countries containing rainforests. In these regions, the rainforests are being cut down at
an alarming rate, with no thought being given to the rights of the indigenous peoples
whose way of life is inseparably connected with the rainforest itself. There are several
viable solutions to this problem, the governments of these rainforested countries making
wiser decisions and create new laws and programs to deal with the problem among these
solutions. While the most advantageous solution would be for the foreign countries to
recognizing that the blame lies as much with them as with those of the locales containing
the rainforests Many countries containing rainforests feel the need to become as
industrialized as possible in a short period of time. To accomplish this, they commonly
build massive dams, flooding thousands of acres of rainforest, as well as displacing the
many jobless poor attempting to live off of the land (Weisman 1). These poor, along with
others simply needing to get away from overcrowded lands, move onto the indigenous
people's land and clearcut portions of forest and farm these new fields. These poor often
come into direct conflict with the indigenous tribes already living there, who oftentimes
had no contact with outside civilization prior to their land being invaded and cut away.
These conflicts are often violent, even fatal for both sides involved (Weisman 1). The
first solution to this invasion of the tribes' land would be for the governments in which
clearcutting is happening to make wiser decisions. Often, farmland would be readily
available were it not for unwise decisions on the part of the government. The flooded
land is usually quite fertile and easily farmed. Also, land is often used for purposes
that in no way benefit the people of the country. In Columbia, the savanna surrounding
Bogota, some of the most fertile land in South America, is not used to produce food for
the locals. It is used for growing flowers such as chrysanthemums, roses, and carnations
that are sold cheaply in the United States (Weisman 2). If these lands could be
designated to be used for farming, many of the people who are responsible for the
deforestation would have no need to move to the forest in the first place. Another
example of unwise governmental decisions took place in Mexico. The government here
actually encouraged farmers to move to the forested Los Tuxtlas region. They were
encouraged to deforest the land in order to plant crops. Their goal was to alleviate
overcrowding and boost the agricultural economy. These farmers, used to farming in a
different climate, often clearcut more land than was necessary and exhausted the
nutritive value of the soil as well (Tangley 1). The advantage to the governments making
wiser decisions is that it can be accomplished within the countries themselves and done
cheaply. The disadvantage is that the legislators would have to admit their errors and
they may be unwilling to do this because they may look foolish to their voters. Another
disadvantage would be that the poor people that have moved onto the tribal lands would
have to move once again still jobless. The next solution, would be for the countries in
which deforestation is a problem to make practical programs towards clearcutting. These
countries do not currently have these programs because of their precarious fiscal
situations. International banks have loaned large amounts of money to these countries due
to their abundant natural resources and high potential for economic growth. However, in
the early 1970's and 1980's, interest rates rose and the market values of these
countries' cash crops, such as coffee and tea, fell (Friede 1). Thus, the countries found
themselves deeply in debt. To pay off these debts, they cut government programs such as
environmental protection agencies and sold off large amounts of forested land to foreign
logging companies (Friede 1). Some of the forested countries have started to pass
legislation to give back land to its original owners, the indigenous tribes. Many of
these countries have begun to accept the positive relationship that exists between the
tribes and the rainforest. The Colombian government acknowledged that the indigenous
people were the best protectors of the rainforest. In 1990, this government gave back
half of its rainforest to the indigenous tribes, stating that they would take the best
care of the forest (Friede 4). Like the Colombian's, the Panamanian government may also
give back some land to its native peoples. The government leaders are debating whether to
give the Kuna Indians the watershed to one of the nation's dams (Weisman 3). If the
nations would reinstate the environmental protection agencies, it would help the natives
immensely. First, it would help with the deforestation of the indigenes' lands. It also
would help with the relations between the tribes and the foreign logging companies. This
agency along with others could be instituted rapidly once the legislators are convinced.
It is a disadvantage that the legislators may be unwilling to cut off the supply of
foreign logging money. Enforcing the new laws and starting new programs would be an
expensive process, which also is a deterrent to implementing change. The last solution is
not only effective but would alleviate some of the disadvantages, such as expenses of the
other solutions. It is that of foreign, industrialized countries, such as the United
States, recognizing that the blame lies as much within our own border as with the
rainforested countries themselves. Nearly every instance of deforestation has an indirect
cause lying with an industrialized country that in theory condemns deforestation. For
instance, if the fertile fields in Columbia, which are used to grow flowers, were to be
used for farming, much deforestation could be prevented. The United States could simply
refuse flower shipments from Columbia and they would have no choice but to use the fields
for something else. Another option these industrialized countries have would be to
alleviate the debts that the forested countries owe them in several different ways.
First, the industrialized countries could offer tax breaks to the companies that lent the
forested countries the money. Also, they could directly pay part of these countries'
debts. In ten years, the rainforested countries have paid a net average of $25 billion
(Friede 1). Meanwhile, Mexico's national park system has a total budget of $1.5 million.
Of this amount about eighty percent goes to administration (Tangley 6). Also, with the
elimination of these debts, many of the forested countries would no longer need the
logging companies' money. The countries could, therefore, refrain from selling any more
land, which would slow deforestation of the indigenous people's land greatly. There are
many advantages to this option, including the fact that it strikes at the very
financially driven root of the problem This would eliminate all the causes of the problem
at once. Next, it also equally spreads the burden, making the richer countries that can
afford to pay do so, and the poorer countries deal with the administrative and judicial
parts of the plan. This is not to say that these nations should be absolved of all
responsibility for regulating the deforestation, but with proper financial aid and expert
advice, these countries can overcome both their debts and their internal problems. The
main disadvantage to this solution is that many people in the industrialized countries do
not see the rainforests as being their responsibility in any way. This results in an
unwillingness to take any sort of financial burden to pay for the restoration of the
rainforests. With proper education, however, many people would realize that they share
responsibility for the destruction of these forests because it is their fax paper,
newspaper, and magazines that come from these forests. In Alan Wiesman's article "Out Of
Time," he tells a story of a shaman and a tribe sitting around a campfire as their homes
smolder around them. Their homes were burnt to make way for the logging companies, which
believe that they own the land the tribe has lived on for centuries. The shaman believes
that the white man is a curse because they do not follow the ways of their God, and that
only the indigenous people know how God meant the world to truly be. He is then asked by
someone not of his tribe why the white man has triumphed over his tribe, and they must
suffer. He replies in a quiet voice that, "The white man hasn't triumphed, when the
Indians vanish, the rest will follow." If the nations do not do something about the
rainforest being clearcut, the world may soon know whether his statement was true. In
conclusion, the violation of indigenous peoples' rights as a result of deforestation can
be prevented if the leaders of the nations containing the rainforests make wiser
environmental decisions. They must also pass new laws restricting logging companies'
access to the rainforest, and most importantly the governments of the industrialized
nations who are the creditors of the forested nations need to accept part of the
responsibility for the problem and alleviate part of the debt of the involved nations.