The earth’s habitat is rapidly changing owing to human activities that have compromised the stability of ecosystems. In this regard, the degradation of the environment has been attributed to irresponsible use of natural resources and the lack of consideration of vital components essential for a stable ecosystem. One of these human activities is deforestation. As a result of the increase in the human population, incredible strain has been placed on the available resources, in order to accommodate the growing number of individuals. As such, the environment has borne the adverse effects, as currently witnessed in climatic changes such as global warming. In return, the destruction of the earth’s ecosystem has also compromised the survival of various species essential for maintenance of balance on earth (Dornbusch and Poterba 13). This aspect has been attributed to the destruction of natural habitats that has resulted in the extinction of species, further destroying the ecosystem (O’Keeffe and Peroni 46). These compromises have adverse effects as witnessed through changes already exhibited as a result affecting the survival of the earth’s habitat and consequently, the human race.
As a result of this likely scenario, biologists and conservationists have embarked on the quest to save the planet through propagating for environmental conservation. One of these strategies is that of socio-economic certification. According to (Hardt, Borgomeo, Santos, Pinto, Metzger and Sparovek 181), socio-economic certification is a market-based technique adopted on a voluntary basis that aims at achieving sustainability of the environment through implementation of changes in production systems. In this case, this certification aims at creating sustainable socio-economic practices while at the same time promoting conservation efforts. In this case, as opposed to the substitution of human activities in place of the environment, both aspects using this technique are made to work in tandem with each other.
The area under consideration from the implementation of the socio-economic certification technique is in Brazilian coffee farms. Brazil is recognized as one of the countries with the richest biodiversity and critical and sensitive ecosystems (UNESCO). The predominant area as occupied by the tropical rainforest, the Amazon, provides an intricate and complex interaction of ecosystems. However, the region has been threatened by irresponsible human activities driven by increase in population that has led to increased deforestation activities. As such, this undertaking has compromised the stability and sustainability of this ecosystem. The clearing of forests is mostly driven by the need to create space for agricultural activities, coffee farming being one of them. For this reason, the socio-economic technique is implemented in Brazilian coffee farms in order to facilitate or construct landscapes that cater for both agriculture and biodiversity conversation (Firestone and Jeffery 35).
This technique is one of the many conservation schemes that aim at promoting biodiversity conservation. However, the majority of these techniques are focused on forest certification. In this regard, the socio-economic certification is instead based on agricultural certification. In this regard, the Sustainable Agricultural Network (SAN) is one of the agricultural sustainability systems. Since its inception in 1980, it has introduced and diversified the concept of biodiversity in relation to agricultural activities (Hardt, Borgomeo, Santos, Pinto, Metzger and Sparovek 182). In this case, it is based on a set of criteria that are required to be fulfilled prior to a farm receiving its certification. The aspect of certification provides various incentives for farmers. In this regard, upon certification, farmers are able to have access to markets for their produce while at the same time. Their products fetch premium prices. In addition, the management of farming activities is greatly enhanced and also increased levels of efficiency as well as the receipt of a positive reputation. In order to assess the impact of implementation of this system on biodiversity conservation by agricultural farms, the SAN technique was implemented in the coffee farms of Minas Gerais in Brazil. In this case, the conceptual framework was based on habitat conservation and landscape connectivity.
The study was based on a temporal and spatial basis in which case, assessed the time consideration of the implementation of the technique. The control group in this case was comprised of the adjacent landscape and the non-certified farms. In the same way, the treatment group was comprised of the certified farms. In addition, the time consideration was based on the duration of implementation of the technique on the coffee farms.
As a result of the criteria as specified in the SAN system, the aspect of deforestation control and the respective connectivity of natural ecosystems played a central role in assessing the effectiveness of the system. In this regard, these criteria resulted in the manifestation of the changes upon the implementation of the system. Therefore, the SAN system in which case, certified farms differed from the surrounding landscape in terms of deforestation rates. In this instance, certified farms have lower deforestation rates in terms of vegetation cover types as well as overall habitat availability and improvements. The conservation profile of coffee farms that have adopted the SAN system differ in terms of conservation from non-certified farms. However, the study revealed a different trend in terms of conservation of the Atlantic Forest, a crucial area in the SAN system geographical consideration. In this case, notable difference was identified in the control variable or non-certified farms which registered considerably higher positive changes than compared to the treatment group, or the certified farms. This different can be explained in terms of regulatory compliance in which case, the non-certified farms complied with the Forest Protection Law, while on the other hand, this regulation has always been part of the criteria as specified in the SAN system.
The study revealed various considerations in relation to conservation. In this case, certified farms before their certification were involved in a wide range of environmental and social aspects. In addition, the study coincided with the SAN criteria that provided for the prohibition of deforestation as well as encouragement in compliance in various regulations as ascribed in various Brazilian laws. This aspect can explain the trend that accounts for the relatively high percentage of vegetation and forest cover in both Cerrado and Atlantic forest respectively, in certified farms.
In spite of the crucial role played by socio-economic certification systems, there is need to broaden the scope of coverage in order to improve the connectivity of the Atlantic Forest (Galindo and Ibsen 44). In this way, priority areas would be well defined thereby enhancing and improving forest restoration activities. The provision of improved connectivity would aid in facilitating a connected regional landscape. As such the implementation of criteria focused on this aspect would lead to enhanced functional connectivity of farms in the system. However, the coffee farms in the Cerrado project a different image. In this case, these plantations provide a worse illustration of deforestation than compared to surrounding landscapes. Traditionally, pastures were connected to high rates of deforestation for production purposes. However, non-certified farms provide a negative scenario, owing to the exhaustion of coffee land use as a result of high production of coffee per hectare of land use (COSA). As such, such situations have prompted land conversion of native vegetation to agriculture land for increased coffee production.
Works Cited
Community on Sustainability Assessment. The COSA Measuring Sustainability Report: Coffee and Cocoa in 12 Countries. Philadelphia, 2014. Print.
Dornbusch, Rudiger, and James, Poterba. Global Warming: Economic Policy Responses. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2011. Print.
Firestone, Jeremy & Jeffery, Michael. Biodiversity conservation, law and livelihoods. London: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Print.
Galindo, Leal & Ibsen, Câmara. The Atlantic Forest of South America: Biodiversity Status, Threats, and Outlook. Washington: Island Publishers, 2003. Print.
Hardt, Elisa, Borgomeo, Edoardo, Santos, Rozely, Pinto, Luis, Metzger, Jean, & Sparovek, Gerd. Does Certification Improve Biodiversity Conservation in Brazilian Coffee Farms? Forest Ecology and Management, 2015. Print.
O’Keeffe, Elizabeth & Peroni, Nivaldo. Community biodiversity management. New York: Routledge, 2014. Print.
United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. Biodiversity in Brazil. Web. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/brasilia/natural-sciences/environment/biodiversity/
