Once fire-proof Amazon rainforests have become flammable, thanks to climate change

A forest fire in the Amazon. Image: Getty.

The Amazon rainforest is described as the planet’s lungs for good reason. So much carbon is locked up in its trees that protecting the forest is a must if we want to do something about global warming. However, reducing the CO₂ that is emitted when a tropical forest is destroyed depends not only on stopping the actual deforestation, but also on fighting wildfires within the forest.

In a new study published in Nature Communications we show that forest fires are responsible for a huge portion of the carbon emitted from the Brazilian Amazon. During drought years, these fires can emit around a billion tonnes of CO₂. That alone is double the amount of carbon effectively emitted through deforestation in the Amazon.

Humans are throwing vast amounts of CO₂ into the planet’s atmosphere. While in developed countries such as the US and UK most of the emissions come from industrial activities, in developing tropical countries such as Brazil, most come from forests being chopped down and burnt.

Yet while deforestation is already recognised as an important driver of carbon emissions, wildfires under the forest canopy present a less visible but still pernicious threat. To figure out just how bad the problem is, we combined satellite data on the current climate, atmospheric carbon content and the health of forest ecosystems. Our work revealed that emissions from tropical forest fires are growing, even though they are still not normally accounted for in estimates of national emissions.

Wildfires – but not natural fires

Wildfires in the Amazon are not natural events, but are instead caused by a combination of droughts and human activities. Both anthropogenic climate change and regional deforestation are linked to increases in the intensity and frequency of droughts over Amazonia.

Fires spreads into the forest during the 2015 drought. Image: Erika Berenguer/author provided.

This kicks off a nasty cycle: as trees have less water during such droughts, their growth slows and they’re less able to remove CO₂ from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. Trees then shed extra leaves or even die, which means more wood and leaves are ready to burn on the forest floor and, without a dense canopy to retain moisture, the forest loses some of the humidity which acted as natural fire prevention.

These changes are exacerbated by “selective logging” of specific tree species, which opens up the canopy and further dries out the understory and forest edges, which are drier than the interiors. The result: normally fire-proof rainforests become flammable.

A fiery future?

The resulting wildfires have reached a worrying level, burning millions of hectares during the recent El Niño. But the worst could still be to come, as the unusually warm conditions in the Atlantic or Pacific oceans that have caused previous droughts are expected to intensify.

So far this century the Amazon has already experienced three “droughts of the century”, in 2005, 2010, 2015-2016. If the climate science is accurate, and if no action is taken to efficiently predict and avoid fires occurring, we expect that carbon emissions from forest fires would be sustained even if deforestation ended overnight.

Smouldering tree trunk after a forest fire during the 2015 drought in eastern Amazonia. Image: Erika Berenguer/author provided.

As one of the signatories to the Paris agreement on climate change, Brazil is committed to reducing its emissions to 37 per cent below 2005 levels by 2025. A major reduction in deforestation rates over the past decade is a great start. However, deforestation policy doesn’t help reduce forest fires and consequently isn’t fully efficient in mitigating carbon emissions from the Amazon.

Brazil has made substantive advances in reporting emissions from deforestation. It now needs urgently to focus on incorporating CO₂ losses from wildfires into its estimates. After all, those fire emissions are expected to increase in future, thanks to more extreme droughts, an expansion of selective logging, and the ongoing use of fire to manage pasture or to remove regrowing vegetation on farmlands.

Kilometres of burned forests (magenta) spread across old-growth forests (green) in eastern Amazonia. White patches are clouds. Image: Celso Silva-Junior/USGS/author provided.

Given that fire is an essential part of many smallholders’ livelihoods, it is critically important to implement sustainable and socially-just policy responses. Brazil should start by reversing the budget cut to the organisation that oversees its only existing fire-prevention programme. It should also avoid selective logging in regions that are prone to fires, and ensure forest management always factors in long-term fire-prevention.

The ConversationIn summary, these findings are not only critical for policymakers in Brazil to strengthen the efforts of effectively quantifying and limiting carbon emissions from forest fires in the years ahead, but also to other tropical nations to tackle the potential impacts of drought-induced fires on their carbon budget. These new findings bring critical information for nations to help prepare for urgent actions aiming to mitigate the potential increase of fire emissions in response to the intensification of droughts in tropical ecosystems.

Luiz Aragão, Senior Lecturer in Earth Systems Sciences, University of Exeter; Jos Barlow, Professor of Conservation Science, Lancaster University, and Liana Anderson, Research Associate in Land Cover Dynamics and Carbon Emissions, University of Oxford.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.


 

 
 
 
 

As EU funding is lost, “levelling up” needs investment, not just rhetoric

Oh, well. Image: Getty.

Regional inequality was the foundation of Boris Johnson’s election victory and has since become one of the main focuses of his government. However, the enthusiasm of ministers championing the “levelling up” agenda rings hollow when compared with their inertia in preparing a UK replacement for European structural funding. 

Local government, already bearing the brunt of severe funding cuts, relies on European funding to support projects that boost growth in struggling local economies and help people build skills and find secure work. Now that the UK has withdrawn its EU membership, councils’ concerns over how EU funds will be replaced from 2021 are becoming more pronounced.

Johnson’s government has committed to create a domestic structural funding programme, the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF), to replace the European Structural and Investment Fund (ESIF). However, other than pledging that UKSPF will “reduce inequalities between communities”, it has offered few details on how funds will be allocated. A public consultation on UKSPF promised by May’s government in 2018 has yet to materialise.

The government’s continued silence on UKSPF is generating a growing sense of unease among councils, especially after the failure of successive governments to prioritise investment in regional development. Indeed, inequalities within the UK have been allowed to grow so much that the UK’s poorest region by EU standards (West Wales & the Valleys) has a GDP of 68 per cent of the average EU GDP, while the UK’s richest region (Inner London) has a GDP of 614 per cent of the EU average – an intra-national disparity that is unique in Europe. If the UK had remained a member of the EU, its number of ‘less developed’ regions in need of most structural funding support would have increased from two to five in 2021-27: South Yorkshire, Tees Valley & Durham and Lincolnshire joining Cornwall & Isles of Scilly and West Wales & the Valley. Ministers have not given guarantees that any region, whether ‘less developed’ or otherwise, will obtain the same amount of funding under UKSPF to which they would have been entitled under ESIF.


The government is reportedly contemplating changing the Treasury’s fiscal rules so public spending favours programmes that reduce regional inequalities as well as provide value for money, but this alone will not rebalance the economy. A shared prosperity fund like UKSPF has the potential to be the master key that unlocks inclusive growth throughout the country, particularly if it involves less bureaucracy than ESIF and aligns funding more effectively with the priorities of local people. 

In NLGN’s Community Commissioning report, we recommended that this funding should be devolved to communities directly to decide local priorities for the investment. By enabling community ownership of design and administration, the UK government would create an innovative domestic structural funding scheme that promotes inclusion in its process as well as its outcomes.

NLGN’s latest report, Cultivating Local Inclusive Growth: In Practice, highlights the range of policy levers and resources that councils can use to promote inclusive growth in their area. It demonstrates that, through collaboration with communities and cross-sector partners, councils are already doing sterling work to enhance economic and social inclusion. Their efforts could be further enhanced with a fund that learns lessons from ESIF’s successes and flaws: a UKSPF that is easier to access, designed and delivered by local communities, properly funded, and specifically targeted at promoting social and economic inclusion in regions that need it most. “Getting Brexit done” was meant to free up the government’s time to focus once more on pressing domestic priorities. “Getting inclusive growth done” should be at the top of any new to-do list.

Charlotte Morgan is senior researcher at the New Local Government Network.