Exports and biodiversity

THE developed world’s insatiable appetite for products like coffee and timber is threatening the biodiversity of developing countries, unearthing new challenges for sustainability in the local market.

Academics at the University of Sydney spent five years tracking the world economy, evaluating over five billion supply chains connecting consumers to over 15,000 commodities produced in 187 countries.
An AFP article published last week said that the study particularly focused on the global trade of goods implicated in biodiversity loss such as coffee, cocoa and lumber, with the data cross-referenced with a global register of 25,000 vulnerable species.
 The study, which was published in the scientific journal Nature, concluded that international trade chains can accelerate degradation in locations far removed from where the product is bought.
 The authors found that years of data and number crunching showed that global supply chains are responsible for environmental havoc taking place millions of miles away. Most often they affect developing countries including Sri Lanka. Poor understanding of these connections result in environmental degradation that consumers are often unaware of and unknowingly perpetrate.  
The study showed that in countries like Madagascar, Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka and Honduras, 50 to 60 per cent of biodiversity loss was linked to exports, mostly to meet demand from richer countries.
It cited the example of spider monkeys threatened by habitat loss because of strong demand for coffee and an increase in cocoa plantations in Mexico and Central America.
In Papua New Guinea, it said 171 species, including the black-spotted cuscus and eastern long-beaked echidna, were threatened by export industries including mining and timber to a few large trading partners, including Australia.
 Sixty of these species alone in PNG were under threat from logging to satisfy Japanese residential construction, the authors said, adding that agricultural exports from Indonesia affected 294 species, including tigers.
This shows that developed countries’ consumption of imported products can cause a biodiversity footprint that is larger abroad than at home. The study shows how this is the case for many countries, including the US, Japan, and numerous European states.
Rather than promoting a “blame game” the researchers hope that the study will help both developed and developing countries to understand the long term impact of their exports and work harder to minimise damage. Even relatively simple actions like labelling of products on supermarket shelves should change with sustainability ratings the norm, rather than the exception.
The study argues that making sustainability labels a premium product lessens its effectiveness as only people with money can afford to buy it, which keeps the demand for unsustainably produced goods high. They believe the all exporters should be encouraged to ensure that their products are made responsibly. On the production side, the study recommends companies be required to make foreign suppliers accountable to the same production standards they hold at home.
For Sri Lanka, exports have come at a high price, whether it is tea grown since colonial times or newly found gem mines that destroy forest land. The study is an eye opener on how global business affects local biodiversity and why developing economies need to guard themselves against these unseen threats.