森林为什么至关紧要

——不仅仅出于木材的考虑

（原载2006年4月21日《先驱者论坛报》，由唐. 梅尔尼克和玛丽. 珀尔撰稿。前者为纽约哥伦比亚大学生态保护教授，后者为野生动植物信托基金总裁）

关键词：排泄二氧化碳信用贷款交易（或碳信用贷款交易）

森林是我们环境的支持系统。自从1970年4月22日世界第一个地球日以来已有36年过去了，我们已经失去了一百万多公顷一眼无际的森林。

对于森林消失，最容易受到指责的是穷人。十二亿被限定为极端贫困的人当中，四分之三住在农村地区，在那里他们最直接地依靠森林得到食物，燃料，纤维和建筑材料。但我们这些住在发展国家的人却几乎不受此影响。森林变小了，就意味着食肉类动物也减少了，是它们将美国东北部的昆虫和噛齿类动物保持在控制范围。巴西病毒和西尼罗病毒在其他地方流传与该现象也有联系。

森林的任何地方都能防止土壤的侵蚀，渗漏并使净水有规律地流动，保护珊瑚礁，鱼类以及传花粉的聚集动物，控制害虫以及使疾病得到缓解。这就是为什么保护森林是我们能采取的唯一重要手段，使我们能在全世界范围内保护生命和生计。最好的方法之一是改变我们对它们的经济利益的看法。

首先，我们必须保护地方非正规的森林，他们收获木材和其他森林产品，只是为了赚取它们的一小部分价值，为了扩大市场。巴比亚新几内亚就是一个很好的例子，该社区从每平方米标准木材那里平均赚了大约13美元。同样一立方米木材，经过一系列的中间转手，到了纽约港就上升到700美元。将它最小程度地处理成为薄胶合板，就可以卖到2300美元。同样一立方米，到最终处理完毕，价格上升到三千多美元。小森林拥有者所拥有的宝贵的自然资源只能卖到一美元中的几分钱，所以不能期望他们支撑住整个森林业。以公平的价值，开放性地进入到地区和全球的市场上去，将对支撑性的森林业产生强烈的刺激。

第二，我们必须承认森林在维持水土平衡方面的重要性，要鼓励沿河保护森林。市场在这方面也可以有所帮助。考斯塔. 里卡的水力发电厂付给住在高地上的农夫钱，让他们在土地上造林，以防止工厂的大坝注满淤泥，而该费用由发电厂和顾客平摊。从逻辑上来说，当森林停止被侵蚀时，那些收益人应该将他们的收益中的一部分回报给那些保护森林的人。

第三，我们必须寻求一个全球性的行业协定，以促进合法的，起支撑作用的木材生产。我们不应该容忍由大多数国家唆使的森林破坏，它既不能监督本国的滥伐林材，也不能规范进口木材。我们在20多年前访问苏门答腊和婆罗洲岛时，那里有树干粗壮的森林。但最近的估计表明，在上述两个岛上以及世界范围内的最大的六片森林将在2012年被采伐一空。随着这些森林的失去，同样失去的还有人民的生计，社区，文化价值以及健康，还有森林不可探测的生态的多样性。

最后，我们必须保护森林在缓和全球性温室效应中所担任的角色，它吸收了二氧化碳。交易排泄二氧化碳信用贷款（简称碳信用贷款）的市场必须扩大到所有源头，所有国家。它们在发展国家中已经存在，来自高效率工厂的操作以及再植树计划的碳信用贷款本周已经进行了交易，大致每吨（碳）30欧元。

假如一家在比利时的工厂可以拥有碳信用贷款是因为他己经减少了工厂碳排泄的话，那么在中美洲国家的一个森林主不用伐倒树林，就应该能够交易他所赢得的碳信用贷款。

对大气层来说，一吨碳就是一吨木材。凭借对所有国家开放碳信用贷款交易的方式，我们就为发展中的国家提供了经济发展的机会，对于保存森林资源创造了一个非常有力的刺激。

结合以上所述，这些措施将有潜力逆转森林的损失率。起支撑性作用的森林业，反过来可以对我们中最贫穷的人口形成健康和经济保证的基础，同时也使每一个人受益。对2006年的地球日来说，有什么比这更令人满意的展望呢？

Why forests matters* By Don Melnick and Mary Pearl

Not Out of the Woods Just Yet

By DON MELNICK and MARY PEARL

Our forests are the heart of our environmental support system. And yet, in the 36 years that have passed since the first Earth Day, on April 22, 1970, we have lost more than one billion acres of forest, with no end in sight.

The people most vulnerable to the disappearance of forests are the poor: nearly three-quarters of the 1.2 billion people defined as extremely poor live in rural areas, where they rely most directly on forests for food, fuel, fiber and building materials. But those of us in the developed world are hardly immune. Smaller forests mean fewer predators keeping insects and rodents in check in the Northeastern United States, a phenomenon linked to the spread of Lyme disease and West Nile virus, among others.

Everywhere, forests prevent erosion, filter and regulate the flow of fresh water, protect coral reefs and fisheries and harbor animals that pollinate, control pests and buffer disease. That is why the single most important action we can take to protect lives and livelihoods worldwide is to protect forests. And one of the best ways to do that is to change how we think about their economics.

First, we must connect local, informal foresters, who harvest timber and other forest products for a small fraction of their value, to better markets. A good example is in Papua New Guinea. A community there receives about $13 for a cubic meter of tropical hardwood. That same cubic meter of wood, transferred through a series of intermediaries, shows up in New York Harbor with a new price tag, $700. Minimally processed into thin veneer, it sells for $2,300. That same cubic meter, fully finished, goes for over $3,000. Small forest holders who receive just pennies on the dollar for a valuable natural resource can hardly be expected to practice sustainable forestry. Opening access to regional and global markets at fair value will create strong incentives for sustainable forest management.

Second, we must recognize the importance of forests in maintaining water and soil by encouraging their preservation along rivers. Markets can help here, as well. Costa Rica's hydroelectric power companies pay upland farmers to keep land forested to prevent the companies' dams from filling with silt. The cost is shared between a power company and its customers. Logic dictates that those who benefit when forests stop erosion should return some of those benefits to those who protect forests.

Third, we must seek a global trade agreement that promotes legally, sustainably harvested timber. We should not tolerate the forest destruction abetted by most countries, which will neither monitor what is extracted at home, nor place conditions on imports. When we first visited Sumatra and Borneo fewer than 20 years ago, there were vast tracts of forest. Recent estimates indicate that these two islands, among the six largest in the world, could be largely clear-cut by 2012. With those trees will go people's livelihoods, communities, cultural values and health, as well as the forests' unexplored biological diversity.

Finally, we must protect the role that forests play in mitigating global warming by absorbing carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. Markets for trading carbon dioxide emissions credits must expand to all sources and all nations. They already exist in the developed world, where yesterday morning carbon credits from efficient factory operations and tree re-planting projects were traded at roughly 30 Euros per ton.

If a company in Belgium can own carbon credits because it has reduced its factories' carbon emissions, then a forest owner in the Central African Republic should be able to trade the carbon credits he earns by not cutting down its trees. To the atmosphere, a ton of carbon is a ton of carbon. By opening trade in carbon credits to all countries, we provide economic opportunity to developing nations and create a very powerful incentive to conserve forests.

Together, these measures have the potential to reverse rates of forest loss. Sustainable forests, in turn, can form the basis for the health and economic well-being of the poorest among us, while benefiting everyone else as well. What could be a more satisfying vision for Earth Day 2006?

Don Melnick is a professor of conservation biology at Columbia University. Mary Pearl is president of Wildlife Trust.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company