Jumat, 30 September 2011


New strategies for conserving tropical forests
The shift due to reasons of deforestation to poverty to the reasons the company has important implications for conservation.
In a period of just 1-2 decades, the nature of the destruction of tropical forests has changed. No longer dominated by rural farmers, deforestation now is substantially driven by major industries and economic globalization, through the collection timber, oil mining, oil and gas development, the scale of bear farming, and plantations of exotic trees that became the most frequent causes of forest loss . Although instigating serious challenges, such changes are also creating new opportunities that are important for forest conservation. In our opinion, with increasingly target public campaigns on corporations and trade groups with a strategic, conservation interests could have a stronger influence on the fate of tropical forests.
Tropical forests are biologically, is the richest ecosystem on earth and plays an important role in regional hydrology, carbon storage, and global climate [1,2]. But the destruction of tropical forests continues apace, with some 13 million hectares of forest razed each year [3]. Although this figure has not changed markedly in recent decades, the basis of the driving deforestation is shifting - from the most deforestation is driven by the necessities of life in the 1960s to 1980s, to more deforestation is driven by the industry in recent years [4-6]. This trend, we assert, has key implications for forest conservation.
From the 1960s to 1980s, tropical deforestation was largely promoted by government policies for rural development, including agricultural loans, tax incentives, and road construction, together with rapid population growth in many developing countries [4-6]. These initiatives, especially noticeable in countries like Brazil and Indonesia, encouraging the emergence of a dramatic influx of population into the border area and often lead to rapid deforestation. The notion that small-scale farmers and cultivators who move are responsible for most forest loss [7] leads to conservation approaches such as Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDP), which attempted to link nature conservation with sustainable rural development [8]. However, today many who believed that ICDPs have often failed due to weaknesses in planning and implementation, and because the local people used to use ICDP funds to increase their income, not to replace the profits they have earned from exploiting nature [9-23].

Small-holder deforestation in Suriname (top) and Borneo (bottom)
More recently, the direct impact of rural communities in tropical forests appear to have stabilized and even decreased in some areas. Although many tropical countries still have high population growth, a strong trend of urbanization in developing countries (except in Sub-Saharan Africa) showed that rural populations are growing more slowly, and in some countries began to decline (Figure 1) [14, 15 ]. Popularity of the program to the border population movements on a large scale has also waned in some countries [5, 16, 17]. If such trends continue, they may relieve pressure on forests from small-scale agricultural activities, hunting, and gathering firewood [18].
At the same time, globalized financial markets and a worldwide commodity creates a very attractive environment for private sector [5, 6]. As a result, industrial logging, mining, oil and gas development, and especially large-scale agriculture increasingly emerging as the dominant cause of rainforest destruction [6, 19-22]. In Brazilian Amazonia, for example, large-scale farming has exploded, with the number of cattle increased by more than 3-fold (from 22 to 74 million head) since 1990 [23], while industrial logging and soy farming has grown dramatically [ 24, 25]. Surging demand for grains and edible oils, driven by world demand for biofuels and rising standards of living in developing countries, helping to spur this trend [19, 26, 27].
Although we and others concerned with the rise of industrial-scale deforestation (figure 2), we argue that it also signals the emergence of opportunities for protection and forest management. Rather than trying to affect hundreds of millions of forest in the tropics - a daunting challenge, at best - supporting conservation can now focus their attention on the number of corporations exploiting a much smaller source. Many of them are multinationals or domestic companies seeking access to international markets [6, 19-22], which encourages them to show some sensitivity to the environmental problems that grow to its global customers and shareholders. When they err, such corporations can be vulnerable to attacks on their public image.
Against Corporations
Currently, some corporations can easily ignore the environment. Conservation groups also learn to target companies that violate, mobilizing support through consumer boycotts and public awareness campaigns. For example, following an intense public, Greenpeace has recently hit the largest soybean crushers in Amazonia to implement a moratorium on soybean processing process, delaying the development of a tracking mechanism to ensure their crop comes from producers who are responsible on the environment [28]. Previous boycott by the Rainforest Action Network (RAN) prompted several major U.S. retail chains, including Home Depot and Lowe's, to change their buying policies to support the wood products that are more supportive [29]. Under the threat of negative publicity, RAN has even convinced some financial firms in the world's largest, including Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Bank of America, to modify the practices of lending and financing for forestry projects [30] .

The trend lately to make the conservation groups are easier to master the industries exploiting natural resources. Thanks to economies of scale, multinational corporations often find it more efficient to concentrate their activities in some large countries, thereby reducing the number of geographic areas are actively monitored by conservation groups. Moreover, many industries, motivated by fear of negative publicity, establishing coalitions that claim to promote environmental sustainability among their members. Examples of such industry groups including · A Aliança da Terra for the farmers in Amazonia [31], the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil in Southeast Asia, and the Forest Stewardship Council for the global timber industry. Hence, rather than targeting hundreds of different corporations, conservationists can have a big impact with just a few or many industrial pressure points.
Corporations also dominated by carrots and sticks. Companies that buy into sustainability enjoy growing consumer preferences and premium prices for their environmentally friendly products. According to industry sources [32], for example, wood products 'green' - which are produced with environmentally friendly way - recorded sales of $ 7.4 billion in the United States in 2005, and is expected to grow to $ 38 billion in 2010. Such rewards may have a greater impact on multinational corporations, which must attempt to keep consumers and their international shareholders happy, than with a local company operating solely in developing countries [33].
New challenges
The increasing impact of forest penggundul company also has a weak side. Industrialization can accelerate the destruction of forests, the forests that once were directly by small-scale farmers now being quickly overrun by the bulldozers. Moreover, industrial activities such as logging, mining, oil and gas development support deforestation, not only directly but also indirectly, by creating an economic impetus for road building very strong-woods. Once awakened, these streets can release a variety of uncontrolled forest invasion by the residents, hunters, and brokering land [20, 21, 24].
Another major problem is that not all markets respond to environmental priorities. In many developing countries, environmental concerns were buried by the growing demand from the growing middle class. For example, Asian consumers have so far shown little interest in wood products that are certified environment [34], unlike consumers in North America and especially Europe. Moreover, as prices for raw materials soar, a scramble for natural resources can occur, making environmental sustainability a mere afterthought compared to the increased demand.
Finally, even an abundance of eco-conscious consumers can not guarantee good behavior from a company (see Box 1). Many corporations have been accused of 'greenwashing' - pretending to produce green products that actually have a small advantage for the environment. In the tropical timber industry, for example, several dubious groups, sponsored by the industry, have tried to compete with the certification bodies legal environment such as the Forest Stewardship Council [35]. Keep track of products from forest to final consumers - through a chain of middlemen, manufacturers and retailers - can be very difficult. For example, Greenpeace [36] recently revealed that food giants such as Nestle, Procter and Gamble, and Unilever uses palm oil grown on land that had just bald, though conversely there is no guarantee of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil. The complexity of such a reward to those who cheat and eliminate benefits for corporations that make good efforts to support the sustainability of these.

Thomaz W. Mendoza-Harrell
Although there is such complexity, conservationists must learn to deal with companies with drivers of tropical deforestation is more effective and powerful. Mover-movers like this in the future will certainly increase because of global industrial activity is forecast to grow up to 300-600% in 2050, with many developing countries [37]. For them, an increasing number of corporations are realizing that environmental sustainability is simply good business. Of such trends, we see much need for dialogue and debate among industry, scientific and conservation in the tropics. Apart from the influence of environmental groups, the strong influence of industry will also be mediated by government policies and international agreements, such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity. For example, government subsidies on a large scale for corn ethanol currently creating market distortions that promote deforestation in the Amazon [23], which is actually an international carbon exchanges could ultimately slow the destruction of forests in certain countries [38, 39]. Because such policies can change rapidly and have a broad impact, conservationists ignore them at their peril.
Change is upon us. On the one hand, globalization and rapid agricultural industry, logging, mining and manufacture of biofuels emerged as the dominant drivers of tropical deforestation. On the other hand, growing public concerns about environmental sustainability are creating new opportunities that are important for forest protection. By targeting strategic industries with educational campaigns for consumers, conservation interests can gain a powerful new weapon in the battle to slow the destruction of forests.
We give thanks to Thomas Rudel, Robert Ewers, Susan Laurance, Katja Bargum and three anonymous referee for his comments very helpful.
Challenges for ecological certification
In the tropics, just as in other regions, eco-certification scheme faces some high hurdles. Even when customers choose environmentally friendly products, eco-certification can be hampered by corruption and weak governance, ineffective measures to ensure environmental sustainability and the leaking of non-certified products to market.
For example, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), often viewed as the gold standard for the certification of wood products, get massive criticism from some environmental groups [40]. Critics said that the FSC certification of products from 'mixed sources', such as furniture are just some of the ingredients come from certified wood, damaging his credibility. Certification of some dubious timber schemes, such as monoculture plantations on former forest lands, also damaging the label [40]. Last year, an investigation of the Wall Street Journal forced the FSC to effectively revoke certification of Asia Pulp and Paper Company based in Singapore for doing activities that damage the environment on the island of Sumatra, Indonesia [41].
Corruption and fraud are also concerns. In collaboration with corrupt officials, could make some companies to falsely certify their products, where a company can claim to have certification when they do not have it. A recent report on illegal logging in Southeast Asia, for instance, revealed that at least two major furniture companies market their products eco-certified when they do not have the label [42].
Another challenge is to evaluate properly the various activities of the international timber companies. Eco has been accused of focusing too narrowly on logging operations in the central conservation area and ignore the destruction operations in other areas [40]. In addition, timber companies often buy wood from various sources and sub-contract to another company, and it can be very difficult to determine whether the branches and their associates are linked to destructive logging [36].
In the end, some critics argue that the eco-certified timber operations rarely have a sustained impact on the long term. Repeated logging in old-growth forests can reduce carbon stocks and reduce habitat for specialized forest, thereby threatening biodiversity [1]. Furthermore, logged forests is much easier to dry, burning, and bare compared to areas not cleared [24, 43].

Tidak ada komentar:

Poskan Komentar