作者NPLNT (Bruzi Geist)
看板IA
标题[新闻] Sharing the Blessings, While Protecting Biodiversity
时间Sat May 24 15:20:45 2008
What Would It Cost to Save Nature?(Part 3)
标题:Sharing the Blessings, While Protecting Biodiversity
新闻来源:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,554982-3,00.html
(需有正确连结)
By Philip Bethge, Rafaela von Bredow and Christian Schwagerl
Part 3: Sharing the Blessings, While Protecting Biodiversity
Nevertheless, Tamayo insists that the research facility, which now works
primarily with universities, is still "a model of success." The institute,
says Tamayo, helps to demonstrate how developing countries can share in the
blessings of biotechnology while simultaneously protecting their own
biodiversity. A share of the licensing fees INBio receives goes into
protecting Costa Rican forests.
Costa Rica is already considered a model country within the international
conservation movement. In the country's booming ecotourism industry, about
1.5 million tourists spend close to $1.5 billion (€970 million) a year to
visit the natural wonders of Costa Rica's rainforests and montane forests.
And protecting those forests has been elevated to a national doctrine in
Costa Rica. In the 1970s and 1980s, loggers cleared almost 80 percent of the
Costa Rican rainforest. Today more than half of the country is forested once
again.
In the southern part of the country, the densely forested Osa Peninsula juts
out into the Pacific. Deep in the jungle, in the mountains above the tiny
village of Golfito, Jorge Marin Picado keeps watch over 46 hectares (114
acres) of primeval forest. A flock of pale red Aras flies over the site,
where the smell of rotting vegetation fills the air. Lianas snake their way
up giant trees. Picado, wearing the standard machete in his belt, is the
manager of the finca, or farm, perched along the edge of the coastal range.
Under an agreement the farm's owner has signed with the Costa Rican forestry
agency, the government pays him $350 (€225) per hectare each year to keep
the forest undisturbed and prevent anyone from stealing plants or illegally
cutting down trees.
Rewarding Farmers for Keeping Trees Untouched
The government calls the system its "Environmental Services" program, and
conservationists consider it exemplary.
Under the program, the government
rewards landowners for planting new trees or leaving existing forest
untouched. "We want to enlarge the forest area and offer farmers an
alternative," says Katia Alegria of the forestry agency. As a result,
pastureland where cattle have grazed until now is becoming forest once again.
Instead of oil palms and banana trees, species like teak and the local
ron-ron tree are growing in the new and preserved forests.
The program is funded with taxes on the sale of gasoline and funds from the
World Bank and the Global Environment Facility, into which the CBD member
states pay. But Costa Rica also hopes to turn a profit in the future from the
carbon dioxide captured by trees.
Indeed, the ability to capture enormous amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere
and store it could ultimately be forests' lifeline in this era when man is
desperately searching for ways to halt global warming. Bogs can also bind
substantial amounts of CO2. Restoring and preserving them "offers a
cost-effective way of curbing climate change and protecting diversity," says
UNEP Executive Director Steiner. This is also an opportunity for Germany.
Researchers at Greifswald University have calculated that restoring one
hectare of lowland bog in Germany and allowing the native alder forest to
grow results in the capture of 30 tons of CO2 a year.
The governments of countries with large tropical rainforests, like Guyana,
Indonesia, Brazil and Papua-New Guinea, have become especially enthusiastic
1;31madvocates of the revolutionary idea of selling their forests as greenhouse
gas sinks. If the plan works, they could rake in billions in profits, which
in turn could be spent on protecting forests.
A New Currency for Environmentalism
The currency in the new environmental age is called a "forest certificate,"
and a potential market for the green money already exists. In the EU
emissions trading system, for example, industrial corporations and energy
utilities are allocated carbon dioxide pollution rights known as CO2
certificates. They define how much carbon dioxide a given company's factories
are permitted to emit into the atmosphere. If a company's CO2 emissions
exceed its allocated limit, it must buy additional certificates to offset the
difference. Unused pollution rights can be sold. In other words, the
certificates have a real monetary value, which is currently at €25 ($39) per
ton of CO2, but could increase to €60 ($93) in the future.
The tropical rainforest countries are keenly interested in entering this
growing market.
At the next UN Climate Change Conference, in Copenhagen in
2009, the course could be set for the development of a market in forest
certificates. Large electric utilities, like Germany's RWE, are already
waiting in the wings. "Forests as a part of a global emissions trading system
would be of interest to us," says Michael Fubi, the company's climate
protection manager. The company would benefit by satisfying climate
protection requirements more quickly and at a lower cost than through the
installation of costly new technologies. In the medium term, however, this
could not serve as a replacement for modernizing power plants, says Fubi.
How much money this forest certificate system would ultimately generate is
still written in the stars. Experts estimate that it would cost $10 billion (
€6.45 billion) a year to truly benefit the world's forests. Otherwise it
would be far more profitable for tropical countries to cut down their forests
for lumber.
"Logging produces from $100 to $500 million (€65 to €322 million) a year in
revenues for Papua-New Guinea," says Kevin Conrad, Papua-New Guinea's special
envoy for climate protection and conservation, highlighting the country's
dilemma. The country has to be offered more than this amount to make
protecting its forests an attractive proposition, "otherwise the forest will
be gone -- and it'll happen very soon."
Turning Canopies into Capital
In Brazil, the chainsaw is still winning out over conservation. Almost 20
percent of the country's 3.65 million square kilometers (1.41 million square
miles) of Amazon rainforest have already been cut down and turned into
pastureland and soybean fields. After taking office in 2003, Brazilian
Environment Minister Marina Silva managed to reduce the rate of deforestation
from 28,000 to 12,000 square kilometers (10,810 to 4,633 square miles) a
year. She introduced new rules that allowed owners of forests to log on no
more than 20 percent of their property, and imposed a credit freeze on
violators. But last week Silva, an icon of the global forest protection
movement, made the surprising announcement that she was resigning, saying
that she was tired of "playing the green fig leaf" for President Lula da
Silva.
As it happens, dead forests are more valuable than living forests on global
markets, and it will take a lot of money to reverse this. There are, however,
a few initial success stories. The World Bank, for example, has introduced
its Forest Carbon Partnership, a program designed to protect both the climate
and the environment simultaneously. One of the partnership's model projects
could soon be that of Germany's Hans Schipulle, who hopes to transform the
Congo basin rainforest into a cash cow.
In anticipation of a growing market for forest certificates, the US
investment bank Merrill Lynch recently agreed to pay Indonesia's Aceh
Province $9 million (€5.8 million) a year for four years to protect the
rainforest in its Ulu Masen preserve. Canopy Capital, a London-based company,
has spent a sum numbering in the millions to secure the value that it
believes Guyana's Iwokrama rainforest could soon have for mankind. Canopy's
managing director, Hylton Murray-Philipson, explains the concept: "No one
would pay anything for the intact forest today, but I believe that it is
extremely likely that markets will soon take a different view of the value of
nature." Experts predict that the trade in the natural assets of forests,
bogs and reefs could translate into $10 billion (€6.5 billion) in revenues
by 2010.
Can such global financial transfers truly bring about change? "Once CO2
trading translates into large amounts of money, the question that inevitably
arises is who actually owns the forest," says Tom Griffiths, who is with the
human rights organization Forest Peoples Programme. "Is it the investors or
the people who live in the forest?"
Future Power Struggles over Carbon Sinks
Griffiths fears that a highly profitable forest protection system could lead
to power struggles over lucrative carbon sinks, which in turn would translate
into more corruption, speculation, land grabs and conflicts. The logging
company Asia Pacific Resources International, for example, clears forests and
drains peat bogs in Indonesia to plant new tree plantations. Suddenly the
company has launched a CO2 pilot project in which it plans to restore a few
bogs. But the project smacks of an eco-scam, too, because Asia Pacific will
only be able to pocket profits from CO2 trading as a result of the fact that
it destroyed large swathes of the ecosystem in the first place.
To secure biological diversity in the long term, the parties to the
Biodiversity Convention are also promoting classic methods of conservation.
There are roughly 100,000 nature reserves around the globe. According to a
recent study by the WWF, the world community spends $6.5 to $10 billion (€
4.2 to €6.5 billion) a year on protected areas. This sounds like a lot of
money, but in fact is well short of what is needed.
Experts estimate that at least twice as much will be required to protect
nature in the long term. Professional environment police officers must
monitor the reserves.
Education is critical in helping local populations find
new ways to live in harmony with nature. Microloans are needed to help people
implement new business models compatible with the natural environment.
--
「只有在人们能够
自由地利用和
享受知识带来的好处时,新知识的发现才对他们有价值。
新发现对所有的人都有潜在的价值,但
不是牺牲人们所有的现实价值为代价。无限发展的
『进步』不能给任何人带来好处,那麽这『进步』就是一种
恐怖的谬论。」
Ayn Rand<The Virtue of Selfishness>
--
※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 59.113.10.44
※ 编辑: NPLNT 来自: 59.113.10.44 (05/24 15:30)
1F:推 swallow73:不晓得我有没有误解,看来目前保护环境立即可得的经济利 05/24 15:56
2F:→ swallow73:润看来是来自国际机构跟少数有远见的大金主的捐款了 05/24 15:57
3F:→ swallow73:看来要说服拥有丰富树林的国家以保护代替开采,必须靠有 05/24 15:58
4F:→ swallow73:自觉的富裕国家集体捐保护费才行了. 05/24 15:59
5F:→ swallow73:至於碳排放费,这鼓励了各大企业往减碳的方向走,说起来是 05/24 16:02
6F:→ swallow73:不是也能用类似的方式鼓励素食呢?素食生产既减少大量的 05/24 16:02
7F:→ swallow73:碳排放,就粮食利用上也是效率更高的做法.如果能辅导蓄牧 05/24 16:03
8F:→ swallow73:业者转业(看来同样也需要有钱人捐钱补注蓄牧业者),同时 05/24 16:03
9F:→ swallow73:也给素食者省能省碳补注金,相信会有更多人愿意改吃素食 05/24 16:04
10F:→ ncyc:肉类中蕴含的蛋白质是蔬菜比不上的,与其说吃素,不如让人们 05/24 16:06
11F:→ ncyc:减低食肉量。 05/24 16:07
12F:→ ncyc:像国军救灾,劳动一整天的士兵吃素,不翻脸才有问题 05/24 16:10
13F:推 swallow73:做为较容易达成共识的妥协方案先推行减少肉食也可以接受 05/24 16:33
14F:→ swallow73:不过重点还是需要政策配合,只靠个人自觉进程恐怕是有限 05/24 16:33
15F:→ swallow73:不晓得给肉食加税,并把所得拿去做自然生态保护或提供开 05/24 16:35
16F:→ swallow73:发中国家民众粮食是不是可行的做法? 05/24 16:35
17F:推 ncyc:给多数人的日常粮食加税,这是要人民革命吗? 05/24 16:39
18F:推 swallow73:富裕国家消耗肉食的量超过人体日常需要是很常见的事吧 05/24 16:44
19F:→ swallow73:加税了以後,人们花一样的钱摄取的量应该会跟最低限度更 05/24 16:45
20F:→ swallow73:接近,不但与人体无害,还省下了食肉过度会消耗的食粮生产 05/24 16:46
21F:→ swallow73:与健康成本.我想在意义上是跟加徵烟酒税是类似的 05/24 16:47
22F:推 ncyc:「因为环保缘故,所以政府决定要给肉类加税」,这个政策口号 05/24 16:48
23F:推 swallow73:当然如果无法说服人民实施这项政策的重要性,下次选举 05/24 16:48
24F:→ ncyc:在个人观点来看,说服力不比菸酒徵税高啦 05/24 16:48
25F:→ swallow73:就会落选了,也没有革命的必要. 05/24 16:48
26F:推 swallow73:用民主选举来做为价值仲裁的标准,ncyc大应该不会反对 05/24 16:49
27F:推 ncyc:是不反对,因为我认为在选举的考量,根本不会有政治人物动这 05/24 16:52
28F:→ ncyc:种脑筋 05/24 16:52
29F:推 swallow73:有志者也只好出钱出力自己宣传打广告了.能取得社会共识 05/24 16:57
30F:→ swallow73:的话,自然会有政治力量靠过来. 05/24 16:57
※ NPLNT:转录至看板 Ecophilia 05/24 17:40
31F:推 going90:PUSH 05/27 08:43