Hi, I'm Ruth, and I'm (unintentionally) wrecking the rainforest.

Unintentionally wrecking the rainforest, that's what I'm doing (don't get me wrong, the fact it's an unintentional act doesn't give me any kind of excuse). Basically, all this posting about wrecking the rainforest got me thinking, what am I doing that is potentially harmful and threatening to biodiversity. 

When researching my post on African Rainforests I came across a very telling report published earlier this year produced by the Mighty Earth Organisation exposing the illegal cocoa trade in West Africa. Reading through the report I was truly astounded that large companies declaring their worthy corporate social responsibility standards had no response nor denial when hit with claims of using illegally produced cocoa for their products. Every time I've wandered down to the local shop to indulge in a sweet treat, there is the potential that I, unknowingly, have been consuming chocolate that has been produced using illegally farmed and highly destructive products. The reason why this thought is so alarming to me, is the effect that consuming these products has on tropical rainforests and their biodiversity. I thought it would be interesting (and an education) to try and follow this path from the consumer (me), through the supply chain, all the way to the source as an attempt at revealing the influence unsustainable cocoa is having on biodiversity. 

Schematic of Cocoa Supply Chain

1. Take any average weekday evening, I've had dinner, still a bit peckish. Fancying something sweet.

2. Malteasers are just fab, but Merryteaser Reindeers are even fab-er. Decision made.

3. I walk to my local supermarket, it just happens to be a Sainsbury's - they stock many chocolate brands, one of which are Maltesers (phew).

4. The Maltesers brand is owned by a larger umbrella company Mars, they own loads of chocolate brands and they were one of the companies to come under fire in the Mighty Earth Chocolate's Dark Secret report for using cocoa grown after illegal deforestation has taken place. 

5. Cargill is one of the agri-businesses that supplies chocolate bars to brands like Mars, and through that, Maltesers potentially being one of them. Cargill buy the chocolate from farmers in the Ivory Coast and then sell it on. On Cargill's 'about' page, one of the key messages being disseminated is their commitment to sustainability. Even as an ethical consumer who makes an effort to research the products they buy, at this point, you could be forgiven for thinking that the Merryteaser reindeers supply chain is squeaky clean.

"We work alongside farmers, producers, manufacturers, retailers, governments, and other organizations to fulfil our purpose to nourish the world in a safe, responsible and sustainable away" - About Cargill 

However, Mighty Earth reports - 

"Through the investigation, we found three of the world's largest cocoa traders - Olam, Cargill, and Barry Callebaut - buying cocoa grown illegally in protected areas." P.8

6. The Ivory Coast is the largest producer of cocoa in the world, and according to Protected Planet it is home to 254 protected area (PA) designations of different kinds. The 'protected' status would flag to those doing some retail research that monitoring is taking place and thus no illegal clearing is happening (another moment where the conscious consumer needs to do further digging to reveal what is actually going on).

Map taken from Mighty Earth Report

7. The Ivory Coasts rainforests are on the decline and deforestation for hunting and full-sun cocoa farming are on the up. Bitty et al., (2015) carried out research into forest degradation in the Ivory Coast, 23 PAs were surveyed. They found that the culprit for the majority of the degradation observed in these sites was cocoa farming, they reported a staggering figure:

"When the 23 PAs are considered collectively, cocoa comprises 93% of illegally grown agricultural products." P.100

8. The illegal cocoa growth that is on the rise in the Ivory Coast is not only affecting rainforest biodiversity through the direct effects on trees caused by deforestation - but there are also huge indirect effects on the wildlife. Deforestation causes habitat displacement and degradation, huge problems for many species, and of importance for this case, for Pan troglodytes - Chimpanzees. Chimps are under the 'endangered' category according to the IUCN red list - essentially they are:

 "considered to be facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild" (IUCN, P.14).

Not only are chimpanzees at great risk, the biodiversity picture continues to look worse and worse. Bitty et al., mentioned above, found that of the protected areas they studied in the Ivory Coast, 13 had lost their entire primate populations - illegal cocoa farming being cited as one of the main drivers of this astonishingly high figure. Facts like those just mentioned are especially saddening when you consider the fact that the Ivory Coast was a country holding claim to (almost) the highest biodiversity in Africa (Mighty Earth). 

-- And there we have it - from craving chocolate to the demise of the chimpanzee. However, this whole exercise has left me with and a whole load more questions:

• How can you really be a conscious consumer without spending hours researching where your products are coming from? Is it ever possible to reveal the whole truth?
• Are all the stamps of approval and awards for sustainability that many corporations boast merely greenwash?
• Why is full-sun cocoa growth so widespread when it appears that shade-grown cocoa production is better for productivity AND the environment?
• How can countries like the Ivory Coast, who are trying to support a growing population, protect their environmental integrity whilst simultaneously empowering people encourage good business?

I don't know the answers to these questions - but they've certainly given me some food (not chocolate) for thought!

A market-based approach to biodiversity - conservation or commodification?

First of all, what am I on about 'a market approach to biodiversity'? - hopefully this explanation taken from a report by The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity (TEEB) initiative will clear up the confusion (a little bit):

“Market-based instruments, such as taxes, charges or tradable permits can, if carefully designed and implemented, complement regulations by changing economic incentives, and therefore the behaviour of private actors, when deciding upon resource use. When set at accurate levels, they ensure that the beneficiaries of biodiversity and ecosystem services pay the full cost of service provision. Experience shows that environmental goals may be reached more efficiently by market-based instruments than by regulation alone. Some market-based instruments have the added advantage of generating public revenues” (TEEB, 2009., P.32).

Essentially, what the above quote is arguing, is that there are several methods that have been developed, that could be used in modern market-based societies, that attend to both the needs of progressive and accelerating economies, as well as ecosystems that need protecting and sustaining in order to ensure their longevity (and services) in this advancing world. Biodiversity is in the driving seat when it comes to sustaining ecosystem services, as is very clearly illustrated by this schematic that I keep referring to in my posts...

There are several mechanisms that have been widely discussed in terms of market-based biodiversity conservation - one of the most well-established methods is 'biodiversity off-setting'. The essential 'mantra' behind the approach is that any development (and of course, we want to keep developing, don't we?) should cause no net-loss to biodiversity. Reid (2012, P.219) perfectly summarises biodiversity offsetting:

"those whose activities cause a loss of biodiversity can offset this by undertaking activities elsewhere that enhance biodiversity in some way". 

Offsetting can come in many forms, investing in renewable energy, reforestation or rebuilding habitat elsewhere. The diagram below provides a simple graphic example carbon offsetting in action:

Carbon Offset Diagram

It is clear to see how biodiversity offsetting has the potential to have considerable consequences for tropical rainforests (be those positive or negative, the jury's still out). There are many contentious issues when it comes to marketising biodiversity - how effective it is as a governance/management approach, how do you assign an 'environmental currency' to the environment, how much are people willing to pay to conserve The Amazon, for example? In a bid not to disregard any of these concerns, but to bring to attention another of the controversial matters surrounding this topic - does a market based approach to biodiversity actually conserve, or are we just commodifying nature? And is this a bad thing? It's actually more of a moral question that anything else - one that you could argue the likes of certain large companies or even governments are more than happy to skip over if it means providing a loophole for 'meeting' conservation targets. This very interesting article in Nature discusses the misuse of biodiversity offsets for 'meeting' targets. Maron et al. (2015), highlight the growing concern with governments using offsetting for damage caused to biodiversity and habitats in the name of development. They note that in most cases offsetting isn't being used as a last resort after all other mitigation methods have been exhausted, but as a go-to quick-fix solution that keeps them on track to achieving international conservation targets to which they have previously committed to. 

The confounding nature of morality in the instance of biodiversity offsetting is revealed when considering both sides of the argument. Reid (P.232) uses the example of water to epitomise the point: 

'On the one hand it is said that:

[Water] is not a commercial product like any other but, rather, a heritage which must be protected, defended and treated as such.

On the other hand, it is said:

Past failure to recognize the economic value of water has led to wasteful and environmentally damaging uses of the resource. Managing water as an economic good is an important way of achieving efficient and equitable use, and of encouraging conservation and protection of water resources.' 

It is possible to see how this point applies to the case of tropical rainforests. As with water, a lack of complete understanding of the resource that is the rainforest: a medicinal resource, a habitat, a source of the highest biodiversity, has led to the haphazard destruction and deforestation of trees hundreds of years old. However, proponents of the approach, for example Tom Tew of the UK Environment Bank, have argued otherwise:

“It is a great opportunity to fund landscape-scale restoration projects. There is little money in biodiversity. [Offsetting ] can deliver local schemes or regional or landscape-scale ones.” 

Others like Tew argue of the conservation benefits biodiversity offsetting can have. By marketising biodiversity, it becomes something with value, something that business-economisty-types can start to understand and see the benefits in protecting, closing the gap between economy and environment.

In my view, biodiversity offsetting and other market-based approaches to biodiversity are walking a very fine line, I feel it is almost too tantalisingly tempting for governments, especially governments in advancing nations, to continue with development full steam ahead with no care for the environment as they have 'it' 'covered' by offsetting schemes. As with other contentious 'solutions' such as bioengineering, offsetting is risky in that it has the potential to be used as a scape-goat for a laissez-faire attitude to our environment. When I think of a market-based approach to biodiversity I feel just about as concerned as the animals do in the cartoon below...

Biodiversity Offsetting Cartoon

A poignant picture.

'Palm-oil Survivors' - Aaron Gekoski

This picture, for me, is one of the most poignant and hard-hitting photographs featured in this years wildlife photographer of the year exhibition. Bornean elephants searching for their home that no longer exists due to rainforest clearance for palm oil plantations. This photo resonates - even to someone who doesn't have a blog on tropical rainforests. The success? Just by looking at this photo, anybody can see and start to understand the devastating effects that humans are having on nature - it's tragic (in the real sense of the word).