Mining and timber threaten forests as agricultural expansion

Jan. 20 () –

Agriculture is often considered to be the main cause of forest loss, but a new study published in ‘One Earth’ magazine It shows that she is not the only one to blame.

Of the forest loss associated with the world economy in 2014, more than 60% was related to the final consumption of non-agricultural products, such as minerals, metals and goods related to wood, and the authors argue that international trade markets must be taken into account when designing conservation strategies.

“Regional land use change is no longer simply driven by local demand; it is also indirectly influenced by international markets and the growing consumption of products derived from the land“, say the authors, led by Bin Chen, a postdoctoral fellow at Fudan University in China.

“Countries with forest conservation objectives can import finished land products through global supply chains, shifting pressure on land use and related eco-environmental impacts outside the borders of their own territory,” he adds.

The researchers used geographic information data from multiple sources and economic models to assess the direct and indirect causes of loss of intact forest landscapes. Intact forests support more diverse species, are more resilient to natural disturbances such as fire, and, in Africa and South America, They can store more than three times as much carbon per hectare as disturbed or managed forests.

Previous studies had focused on deforestation — the complete removal of tree cover — but the study of intact forests allowed the authors to highlight the insidious role of degradation and fragmentation.

“Even removing small tracts of forest can affect overall forest structure and composition,” the authors state, “taking into account the exceptional conservation value of intact forest landscapes in terms of stabilizing terrestrial carbon stocks and to host biodiversity, the displacement of the loss of intact forest landscapes also may reflect potential indirect driving forces behind carbon emissions and biodiversity loss.”

They recall that “the idea that beef production drives deforestation in the Amazon is widespread, but it is difficult for consumers to realize that the production of highly processed equipment can involve wood and metals produced at the expense of the forest intact and that the services provided by the tertiary sectors may be supported by electricity generated from oil and gas associated with this loss“.

“The more dispersed nature of the drivers of intact forest loss and their indirect links to individual end consumers call for greater government commitment and supply chain interventions,” they claim.