Environmental

A study published in Nature Geoscience questions the old theory that rural communities are to survive more than destroy the forest and raises doubts about the effectiveness of REDD in the manner in which it is proposed.

Fabiano Avila, the CarbonoBrasil

The largest of deforestation are not the people who live near the forests and that theoretically would have to exploit it to survive. Are actually people who live thousands of miles from any forest, urban residents of cities like New York, Tokyo and Sao Paulo. Are these people - we - who are making the wrong choices when buying products and foods and thus become the main drivers of the destruction of forests like the Amazon ..


This theory has gained strong support to the study "Deforestation driven by urban population growth and agricultural trade in the twenty-first century", published in the prestigious journal Nature Geoscience this week and determined that between 2000 to 2005 the increase of the rural population is not associated with the destruction of forests.

What the researchers found is that indeed the international demand for agricultural products is the major force behind deforestation. This contrasts with some of the older theories on the subject, which blamed the invasion of forests by people as the major factor in cutting trees.

"The growth of urbanization far from the forests, once thought of as a factor that could lead to decline in deforestation, today is a major factor of it. Feed urban consumers of industrialized products, which encourages the mass production of agriculture and livestock, "says the study.

Industrial agriculture has become a booming business in developing countries in recent decades. Driven by international demand for commodities, large areas of forest are now being burnt to be converted into pasture or for growing oil palm, soy, sugar cane and other crop varieties. For this reason, even with the decline of the rural population in some countries, deforestation continues to rise.

REDD

According to the authors of the study, measures such as REDD (reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation) have to go beyond schemes for sustainable development in small communities and the protection of forests close to them.

"We believe that policies to reduce deforestation in the communities do not have the desired effect. Greater efforts will be made to reduce the destruction on an industrial scale, including in agricultural and livestock production. Moreover, it is necessary to encourage technologies and initiatives for greater efficiency in land use, "the authors write.

Poverty

Another "truth" that attacks this study is that efforts to avoid deforestation would be condemning rural poverty. According to the researchers, there are data showing that the large landowners and companies are always the most benefit from deforestation. Small communities can hardly win advances in human development index, education and health with the fall of trees.

The study also concludes that with this information now available, governments should change their policies, because it is theoretically easier to exert control over a few dozen large corporations and farmers that millions of people in rural communities. Theoretically ...



Source: Mercado Ético