You've probably come accross this debate: should we intensify agriculture in certain places to spare land somewhere else, like valuable forests, or should we aim for an integral agriculture which includes trees and birds and other ecosystem services, which might however mean less productivity and could promote more deforestation? The debate is not so clear cut (and we've realized that's usually the case in forestry) and holds much more nuances and variations.
Anyway, here is good take on it and some background on the debate, which has foundations in resource use efficiency:
The succint article has some good links, like the ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins website, which itself presents some pretty useful publications. One of them (the Matthews and De Pinto -2012- article) is titled: "Should REDD+ fund ‘sustainable intensification’ as a means of reducing tropical deforestation?", which heads with a quote reading: “34% more GHGs (CO2-e) would have been emitted into the atmosphere since 1961 if forest land had not been saved by the intensification brought about by the Green Revolution”(Burney et al 2010)...this definitely made me go hmmm...
No comments:
Post a Comment