There is an imbalance in the Amazon, both at animal and plant levels. Animals are being pushed out of their native habitats as a result of agriculture and the increased human presence. Indeed, they are incapable of adapting to the “new way of life” and therefore gradually vanish. This is all the more concerning given that fewer than 10% of the Amazon’s animal species have not been recorded: what a waste of knowledge! On the other side, plant species are vanishing as a result of deforestation. The loss of these many medicinal plants is very sad. Additionally, it is critical to understand that when plants die, the animal species that eat them perish. The most dramatic example is the Chinese panda, which is threatened with extinction owing to deforestation.

The industrial exploitation of wood has a very heavy impact on the forest. Indeed, the amount of woodcut is constantly because the exploitation of the forest is not yet economically profitable. The wood from the Amazon is used for various things such as furniture, plywood… 

There are 2 types of tree cutting: clear-cutting (when the operators cut all the trees in the plot of land they are interested in, even if they are not of interest even if some of them are not saleable) and selective felling, which consists of cutting down a cutting the desired tree (mahogany, for example) without cutting the other adjacent trees. The cutting of a single tree can lead to the destruction of many neighboring trees. The parts of the forest affected by selective felling cover an area as large as that of clear-cuts. The roads built to evacuate the cut timber open the door to other activities such as agriculture and hunting, which increase the rate of deforestation.

Additionally, deforestation is believed to have an effect on the climate. Indeed, local climatic variations (drought, excessive rainfall), as well as worldwide climatic changes, have influenced the ecosystem’s alteration in recent years. Although these climatic changes cannot be proved scientifically, there is every reason to think that deforestation in the Amazon is a significant contributor to global climate change, as shown by melting glaciers, flooding, and record heat.

The foliage of trees protects the soil from wind and water erosion. This is because it has the capability of having wind speed. Additionally, the forest shields the soil from adverse weather. Water is eroding the soil and making it less productive as a result of the water from and the power of the wind (the humus disappears). As a result, the forest acts as a protective barrier against soil erosion, which inhibits plants from developing.

On the economic side, it is clear that this is beneficial for Brazil. Indeed, the nation has grown to become the world’s biggest supplier of paper “as a result” of Amazon forest cutting activities. The deforestation of the forest is accepted by the Brazilian government because in the short term it represents an economic growth factor. However, in the long run, it is catastrophic, since deforested lands soon become uncultivable. Also, many jobs have been created for the sustainable development of the forest and this would lead to a large wave of unemployment if the forest is completely cleared.

Deforestation not only causes environmental problems, but it also threatens the indigenous population living in the forest. They live off the resources of the forest and the reduction of their land prevents them from fishing or hunting freely. They are often very unhappy about the “colonization” of their land and some are victims of their land and some are victims of diseases introduced by foreigners. 

Following the boycott of tropical forest wood, environmental NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) have suggested a new solution: timber may be sold provided it is certified as safe by businesses. An accrediting body gives a certification organization the authority to certify a forest. This organization establishes certification standards for the forestry activity in question. This forestry operation compiles a list of requirements (details of the tasks to be carried out ordered by a contract signed beforehand). The certification authority verifies that the specifications adhere to all applicable requirements and certifies or disapproves of the sale of wood from this forest. The certification authority verifies that the specifications adhere to all of the established criteria and certifies or disapproves of the sale of wood harvested from this forest. Nowadays, the majority of certified forests are concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere, owing to the high cost of certification (This is a problem for forests in countries with limited resources such as Brazil). This solution is not very effective and personally, we think that environmental NGOs and forestry companies use this as a competitive business argument as a commercial argument for competition: the NGOs in order to be more recognized than their “rivals” and the forestry companies to have a better turnover and better publicity than their competitors. They also do this to maintain a “good conscience,” in our opinion. While eco-certification is not the optimal answer, it is a means of changing attitudes and achieving some modest changes.

Forest conservation is a realistic and, at first sight, simple solution: the government designates a proportion of forest for which agricultural, forestry and mining activities are banned. The government establishes a proportion of forest that is off-limits to agricultural, forestry, and mining operations. This protects these regions and guarantees that the Amazon forest is not threatened, at least not entirely. However, it is not as straightforward as that. This approach is very costly, and not all nations can afford it. The International Forestry Research Centre (CIFOR) therefore had the idea of selecting (according to biodiversity…) numerous forests with the aim of making them part of UNESCO’s heritage. Thus, the reserves ensure the preservation of various woods. However, a new issue emerges. Indeed, a nature reserve requires significant financial investments, which obliges the countries of the North to participate in this solution, and not everyone agrees. It is still one of the finest options, and we may witness more advancements in the next years.

Agroforestry is a new name for an old practice of combining trees with crops, sometimes with the presence of livestock on the plot. The goal is to create a natural cycle in which the trees’ foliage shields the soil from erosion while allowing for plant growth. Because the soil absorbs rainfall, it has a greater amount of organic matter (helping the growth of plant species). The soil is further improved if animals are present on the land that has been depleted and abandoned by farmers. In the Amazon, the aim is to replant trees on land that has been depleted and abandoned by farmers, and to implement the principle of agroforestry explained earlier. As a result, the approach would save the forest against intense agricultural use (the farmers would go to these lands instead of destroying the Amazon). However, indigenous businesses are ill-equipped to manage forests sustainably. They are only profitable when harvesting is intensive, whereas agroforestry requires fewer employees (because of less work) but much more time. There would also be consequences for the local population working in these large enterprises. The forest provides a livelihood for local people to live, but cutting down the large infrastructure would lead to a large wave of unemployment. The sustainable management of a forest is difficult to ensure for a country like Brazil because it requires a large investment. Agroforestry (synonymous with agroforestry) could therefore be a good solution, but like those outlined above, it also contains its own set of constraints.