Friday, April 8, 2011

TROPICAL FORESTS - Analysis of the difficulty of providing for the future

In June 2010, Daniel Avelino, the Attorney General of the Brazilian state of Para, where the majority of cattle in the Amazon, has probably contributed to saving the rain forest that will never do the many existing environmental groups. He identified 20 major ranches installed illegally deforested land, and acquire their livestock slaughterhouses.

He then established that some of the largest distributors in the world, including Wal-Mart and Carrefour, they bought meat. Finally, he condemned the ranches and slaughterhouses to fines of R $ 2 billion [0.86 billion] and warned retailers that it would condemn them also to fines if they did not order in their supply chains.

The reaction was spectacular. Overnight, dealers have stopped buying meat originating from Pará and slaughterhouses have closed. To get back in the saddle, they have vowed that in future they would do business with ranches who say their name, provide information on their lands and promise not to illegally deforested sites.

More than 20,000 did. The upside of the boom in global demand for food products, wood and tropical biofuels is that it generates a pressure to adopt to Western standards throughout the supply chain. This pressure is generated by the environmental concerns of Western consumers. Alas, three black clouds darken the sky radiant systems certification.

The first is financial: the ecology-conscious consumers may want to sustainably produced goods, but they do not want to pay much more. Moreover, Wal-Mart does not sell its beef more expensive than its ecological actual product. This raises questions about the reality of its environmental qualities.

Establishing traceability of animals from the Amazon requires expensive technology. Uruguay, for example, has a smart system for calves that cost about $ 20 [€ 14] per head. Second black cloud, the reliability of these systems raises some doubts. Some even say that operating a sustainable rainforest is impossible.

If for example, cutting mahogany in the Amazon or Congo Sapele two hundred years old, species may disappear locally. Third and most important factor, the majority of tropical commodities not consumed in markets sensitive to the ecology. Tropical timber is mostly used locally. In Brazil, for example, this proportion reached 80%.

And the main importers of tropical timber, China and India do not care about its provenance. Both countries are also the largest importers of palm oil. As for Brazilian beef, he goes mainly to Russia, Iran, Hong Kong and Egypt - which have nothing fervent environmentalists. All this highlights a major problem for forest conservation.

Most of the changes needed, such as rational planning of land use or application of the law, must be carried out by governments. United States, a 2008 amendment to the Lacey Act [on the protection of nature] punishes the importation of illegally harvested timber. But that federal authorities to prove the illegality of imported products, a task that may prove difficult, especially when the wood comes from a country where things are somewhat disorders, such as Cameroon, and that is then processed in a country like China.

In July, the EU also adopted a law prohibiting the importation of illegally harvested timber. Its strict rules on importing beef, which require the traceability of products in the producing countries, could one day help reform the practices of the Brazilian livestock. But it would be infinitely better if Brazil decides by itself to make the leap.

No comments:

Post a Comment