A dramatic new advertising campaign by US-based NGO Conservation International (CI) depicting the destruction of tropical rainforests as being like diseased human lungs could serve to further deepen confusion about the causes of deforestation.
The advertisement, which is the latest offering in CI’s high-profile ‘Lost There – Felt Here’ campaign, could lead the public to believe that poor farmers in tropical countries are to blame for deforestation.
CI’s new ‘lungs’ advert, the latest in a campaign which has already featured filmstar Harrison Ford in appeals to stop the destruction of rainforests, says that “When rainforests are slashed and burned, it effects every one of us” – thus giving the impression that it is ‘slash-and-burn’ susbistence farmers that are solely responsible for rainforest loss.
In fact figures used by the World Bank show that, at most, only two-fifths of the destruction of forests worldwide is due to ‘small scale agriculture and shifting cultivation’. The Bank’s head of environment, Warren Evans, recently acknowledged that the figure for ’rainforest’ destroyed by slash and burn farming would be considerably less than 40%. The Bank’s figures show that more forest worldwide is destroyed by commercial agriculture, cattle ranching and industrial logging.
CI’s advertising campaign will no doubt serve to increase public awareness of the importance of protecting tropical rainforests in order to prevent climate change, which can only be welcomed. But there is a risk that such careless wording will serve to reinforce wrong impressions about the real culprits, and encourage the wrong policy responses as a result. There is already a strong tendency to ‘blame the poor’ for deforestation, and REDD-Monitor has already reported that weak analysis by organisations such as the Woods Hole Research Centre could result in traditional and sustainable ‘forest-fallow’ or ‘rotational’ farmers being wrongly accused of causing deforestation.
To point out that slash and burn agriculture can be a major cause of deforestation does not necessarily have to be interpreted as attributing blame to the rural poor and forest communities. I am a user of fossil fuels where I have few alternatives available to me, but I do not believe I am to blame for industrialisation. Recognising the diversity of causes of deforestation and the diversity of practical actions required to overcome these is key. For example, better regulation of inductrial logging, more community land rights, reduction in global meat consumption, payments for ecosystem services to diversify community incomes and incentivise forest protection. Complex problems require complex, considered solutions.
Let’s think about just this ad campaign for a second, without blowing things out of proportion: The target audience, no more than Harrison Ford, is not going to be aware of the controversial connotations of the term “slash and burn” that academics and conservation practitioners are so acutely aware of. They won’t know the whole back story of the deforestation blame-game, the degree to which slash n burn/milpa agriculturalists are to blame, etc. What they will see is a striking image that compels them to think about their connection to deforestation in a way they probably haven’t. And that kind of publicity is priceless.
I understand that there is a strong need for oversight of the big NGOs, and clearly, there are lots of things about CI that we could take issue with. It would be great if some other less bureaucratic organization had enough surplus cash to run huge ad campaigns that were still nuanced and took into account all criticisms from all stakeholders. But let’s get real. I do not understand is why some folks spend so much energy on defaming them without recommending alternatives, rather than concentrating on being constructive.
@ Anon: I agree, the problem is complex. That is exactly why we are concerned when an organisation like Conservation International makes public statements about deforestation which limit the analysis of the problem to “slash and burn”.
@ Luke: Conservation International does know the controversial connotations of the term “slash and burn”. Using the term in this way is irresponsible. When the target audience reads the words “slash and burn”, whether or not they know what term connotes, they do know that it refers to something over which they cannot have much influence. Imagine how much more powerful the advert might have been if it described how consumers of paper, timber, beef and agrofuels in the North were having an impact on tropical forests. Or how projects funded by institutions such as the World Bank impact on people and forests in the tropics. Or how Northern-based corporations are involved in forest destruction through their involvement in projects such as roads, mining or dams.
The advert notes that carbon emissions from deforestation are double those of cars, trucks and planes – implying that we in the North can carry on with our carbon intensive lifestyles as long as people in the South stop slashing and burning their forests.
Slash and burn, better referred to as Swidden Agriculture, has been practiced in tropical ecosystems by indigenous cultures for tens of thousands of years. Over that period they maintained ecosystems with incredibly high biodiversity.
By shifting their plots, land left fallow fixed carbon at the rate equal to that being released in land being burned. The system worked well for a very long time. These people are not the cause of global warming. To blame those people now for global warming is not just wrong, it is dangerous.
Monoculture oil palm plantations threaten vast areas of rainforest in Asia and South America. When the ‘bulldoze and blaze’ of monoculture plantations replaces the shifting cultivation it greatly reduces species diversity, releases vast amounts of CO2 into the air, and displaces indigenous peoples. We do need complex thought to help us avoid the violent dystopia that many predict will come from climate change. Part of that complex thought is to realize that governmental agencies tend to represent the rich and powerful in their countries. REDD could help improve the land rights of the rural poor; it could help preserve biodiversity; it could store, and remove from the atmosphere, significant amounts of carbon. Or it could erode the land rights of indigenous peoples and create more environmental refugees; it could cause monoculture plantations to replace the desperately needed biodiversity of the rainforest; it could cause a net release of carbon in the short term and a loss of natural systems that could store more carbon in the future. If it increases corruption by funneling money into systems where bribes and graft are a way of life, then it could destabilize fragile governments. Conservation International has a less than honorable relationship with indigenous cultures. That, unfortunately, is also part of the complex story; http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/161/
What Joe Lamb states in the above commentary is correct.
The International Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) as to be iniatiated with the U.N. will verify this as too will my Initiative. The interpretation of REDD is what is at issue and the absolute need for our global citizenary to part of the solution and not living with their proverbial “head in the sand” attitude due to bad governnment via their poor education authorities and the maldirection of this the most serious of biome issues and the misdeed actions of global media coverage. Ask yourselves this question….how many of your family and friends know of this most excellent website and the responsibility is is attempting to promote for the betterment of at least 1/4 of humanity and the preservation of evolution in the tropical realms?
@ Joe Lamb
Swidden Agriculture, traditionally, was a very sustainable practice. However, to be sustainable it requires low levels of population growth and significant land availability: we dont see that many places today. Many, if not most, instances of swidden agriculture today are not sustainable because of this. It does, in fact, contribute to deforestation. However, I would agree that globally swidden agriculture is a relatively minor contributor to deforestation. To ignore it completely as a contributor, however, is also “dangerous”.
The reality is, deforestation is an incredibly complex issue. Some people on here take issue with blaming shifting agriculture. But the reality is, it does contribute. As does the collection of fuelwood and chracoal by poor people. As does industrial logging. As does industrial agricultural expansion. As does biofuel expansion. If CI were to put an add together targeting all the causes of deforestation….do you honestly think that would be effective?
@Joseph – see my comment above from two years ago – it still applies.
Deforestation is complex. I think that would be a great slogan for Conservation International to use in an advert. Part of the problem with the whole REDD frenzy is that too many people and organisations have told us that it is a cheap and easy way of reducing emissions. In fact, as should be obvious to most observers by now, it is neither.
By the way, since we’re talking so much about forest, shouldn’t we define what we are talking about? So far, despite five years of UN discussions about REDD, there is no agreed definition of forests. Neither is there a definition of “degraded”.
I understand wealthy Americans use coffins to be burried in made of mahogany (mogno). Shouldn´t that make a clear add photo of how short-sighted the (mostly illegal) logging is – as well as the direct link to consumers in the west? (be it buy buying hardwood or fastfood burgers)