9 marks – do the economic benefits of deforestation outweigh the costs?
'The economic benefits of deforestation are greater than the environmental costs.'
Using a case study of a tropical rainforest, to what extent do you agree with this statement? [9 marks]
- AO1: show knowledge of named places, environments and processes
- AO2: show understanding of how and why things happen, and how factors interact
- AO3: apply that knowledge to analyse, evaluate and reach a supported judgement
- A named rainforest case study with specific causes of deforestation (e.g. cattle ranching, soya, mining, roads, hydroelectric power)
- Economic benefits explained, including who gains
- Environmental costs explained at local and global scale (biodiversity, soil, water cycle, climate)
- Weighing short-term against long-term and local against global
- A clear judgement on 'greater than'
| Level | Marks | What it looks like |
|---|---|---|
| Level 3 (Detailed) | 7–9 | Accurate, detailed knowledge of named places and processes is used purposefully. Explanation is thorough and linked back to the question. Evaluation weighs both sides and reaches a clear, justified conclusion about 'how far'. |
| Level 2 (Clear) | 4–6 | Relevant knowledge with some specific place detail. Explanation is clear but may be uneven. Some evaluation, but the conclusion may be asserted rather than fully supported. |
| Level 1 (Basic) | 1–3 | Generic or partly accurate knowledge with little place detail. Points are mostly descriptive, with little or no evaluation or judgement. |
- Economic benefits in the Amazon: cattle, soya, mining, HEP, roads – explain who gains
- Environmental costs: biodiversity, soil erosion, water cycle, carbon
- Weigh: who benefits vs who pays; short vs long term; rates rose and fell
- Judgement: disagree overall – benefits are real but short-term and unevenly shared
Show the top-band model answer
In the Amazon rainforest in Brazil, deforestation has brought clear economic benefits. Cattle ranching is the biggest cause of clearance1, and Brazil has become one of the world's largest beef exporters, earning export income and providing jobs on ranches and in meat-processing plants. Large areas have also been cleared for soya, which is exported as animal feed. Mining, such as the huge Carajás iron ore mine, and hydroelectric dams such as Belo Monte on the Xingu River provide raw materials and electricity for Brazil's growing industries and cities. Roads like the Trans-Amazonian Highway, begun in the 1970s, opened up the region for settlers. For an NEE, these activities help pay off debt and raise national income2.
However, the environmental costs are severe. The rainforest is the most biodiverse ecosystem on Earth, so clearing it destroys habitats and threatens species with extinction before some have even been studied. Once the trees are removed, there is no canopy to intercept heavy rainfall and no roots to hold the soil, so the thin, nutrient-poor soil is quickly eroded3 and washed into rivers. Because so much rainfall in the Amazon is recycled through transpiration4, removing trees makes the local climate drier, which increases the risk of drought and forest fires. Globally, burning and clearing forest releases stored carbon as carbon dioxide, adding to climate change, and some studies now suggest parts of the south-eastern Amazon release more carbon than they absorb.
Weighing these up, the benefits are real but they are short-term and unevenly shared5. Much of the profit goes to large landowners and companies, while indigenous communities lose land and resources and some were displaced by Belo Monte. Cattle pasture on eroded soil becomes unproductive within a few years, so the economic gain itself does not last, whereas the loss of biodiversity is permanent. The costs are also felt by the whole world through climate change. On the other hand, Brazil showed that it can reduce clearance while its economy grows: annual deforestation fell from about 27,800 km² in 2004 to about 4,600 km² in 20126 through stronger enforcement and protected areas, suggesting the benefits do not require such large losses.
Overall, I disagree with the statement7. Deforestation brings important income to Brazil, but the environmental costs are long-lasting, global and often irreversible, while the benefits are temporary and go to a minority. A more sustainable approach, using selective logging, ecotourism and enforced protection, could keep much of the economic value without the environmental damage.
- Writing generic 'trees are cut down' points with no named rainforest or specific causes
- Listing environmental impacts without explaining the process (e.g. why soil erodes after clearance)
- One-sided answers that only discuss costs, so there is nothing to weigh
- Ending with 'it depends' without saying on what, or giving no conclusion
- Spending time on management strategies that the question did not ask about, without linking them to the judgement