蓄养牲畜 而非种植大豆 才是导致亚马逊毁林主因 报告
|
    
|
1#
发表于 2009-6-2 19:08
| 只看该作者
蓄养牲畜 而非种植大豆 才是导致亚马逊毁林主因 报告
吸烟不过破坏自己的肺,
吃肉却把地球的绿肺亚马逊雨林也毁了!
蓄养牲畜 而非种植大豆 才是导致亚马逊
毁林主因 报告
新闻来源: 路透社 日期: 20090414 作者 eter Cooney
巴西(路透社) -正值巴西出口商的环境纪录日益受到国际仔细检验时,周二一份报告显示,砍伐亚马逊森林,养牛牧场主人的罪行远大于大豆农民。这项由环保团体和大豆产业共同制作的研究指出,自2006年7月起抽查的630个伐林区域样本里只有12个,0.88%或157896公顷(三十九万英亩)是种植大豆。相较之下,却有将近200个伐林区被转换成牧牛场,其余区域则尚未使用。
此研究报告的赞助团体之一--绿色和平组织亚马逊计划协调员保罗 ·阿达离欧说:「摧毁亚马逊的首恶是畜牧业!」。虽然毁林率数年前已急遽下降,且数据显示最近10个月已下降更多,这个世界上最大的热带雨林每年仍有国家大小般的土地被摧毁。
除了伐木者、牧场主人和小自耕农外,大型农场经营者常被指责是促成毁林的始作甬者,由于近几年国外对食品强劲的需求,巴西农场的疆域已不断扩大。巴西是世界上最大的牛肉出口国和第二大大豆出口国,大部分商品由中国收购。阿达离欧说砍伐的规模近几年持续在下降。这表示需要广大面积提高产值的大豆农民,不再参与清除森林。
大豆协定
去年出口额一百八十亿美元的巴西大豆产业,在2006年7月同意不再从砍伐的林地从事大豆贸易。该报告的作者们说,此协议有助于防止农民再去清除新的大面积森林。大豆产业协会会长卡罗洛瓦泰利评论道,「大豆对亚马逊已不再是个巨大威胁」。美国和欧洲外国农产品的竞争对手经常批评巴西的出口品,如糖和牛肉,促成毁林。
洛瓦泰利承认该协议尚未涵盖巴西大豆产量的10%,而其执行的管控机制也不足。当被问及在非法砍伐土地上种植大豆的小自耕农会怎么做,洛瓦泰利说:「他们会直接跟中国贸易商进行交易。」
一些环境经济学家说,种植大豆扩张农地,已取代牧牛场深入亚马逊,为了寻找更便宜的土地而进行毁林。
尽管如此,环境部长卡洛斯 ·明茨认为此协议是个好的开始。
「这是一个其他部门可追随的模式,」明茨补充说他是期望牛肉行业能有类似的协定。
巴西政府在去年放弃了反对多年伐林目标的立场,设定到七月的一年内将森林砍伐从年前的11,900平方公里降到约9500平方公里(3667平方英里)。
(彼得 ·库尼所编辑)
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN14290980
Cattle, not soy, drives Amazon deforestation: report
BRASILIA (Reuters) - Cattle ranchers are far bigger culprits in Amazon deforestation than soy farmers, a study showed on Tuesday, as the environmental record of Brazil's commodity exporters comes under increasing international scrutiny.
The study, produced jointly by environmental groups and the soy industry, showed that only 12 of 630 sample areas deforested since July 2006 -- or 0.88 percent of 157,896 hectares (390,000 acres) -- were planted with soy.
By comparison, nearly 200 were converted into pasture land for cattle. The rest of the deforested areas had not yet been put to use.
"The big villain of Amazon destruction is cattle ranching," said Paulo Adario, Amazon campaign coordinator with Greenpeace, one of the groups that sponsored the report.
Each year country-sized chunks of the world's largest rain forest are devastated, although the rate has fallen sharply from a few years ago and preliminary data shows it fell further in the past 10 months.
In addition to loggers, ranchers and peasants, large-scale farmers are often blamed for contributing to the devastation as Brazil's agricultural frontier has expanded due to strong foreign demand for the country's commodities in recent years.
Brazil is the world's biggest beef exporter and the second-largest exporter of soy, much of which is bought by China.
Adario said the size of deforested plots had been falling consistently in recent years. That suggests that soy farmers, who require large areas to be efficient, were no longer involved directly in clearing forest.
SOY ACCORD
Brazil's soy industry, with exports of $18 billion last year, agreed in July 2006 not to trade soy from deforested areas.
That accord helped prevent farmers from clearing large, new areas, the authors of the report said.
"Soy is no longer a big threat to the Amazon," said Carlo Lovatelli, head of the soy industry association Abiove.
Foreign farm competitors in the United States and Europe often criticize Brazilian exports, such as sugar and beef, for contributing to deforestation.
Lovatelli acknowledged the accord did not cover about 10 percent of Brazil's soy output and that mechanisms to control its implementation were still inadequate.
Asked what would happen to a farmer who planted soy illegally on deforested land, Lovatelli said, "He'll sell to a Chinese trader on the spot market."
Some environmental economists say the expansion of soy has been to blame for deforestation by displacing cattle ranchers deeper into the Amazon in search of cheaper land.
Still, Environment Minister Carlos Minc said the accord was a good first step.
"It's a model for other sectors to follow," said Minc, adding he was eyeing a similar accord with the beef industry.
Brazil's government, which last year abandoned years of opposition to deforestation targets, aims to reduce deforestation in the 12 months through July to about 9,500 square km (3,667 square miles) from 11,900 square km (4,595 square miles) the year before.
(Editing by Peter Cooney) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|