Natural capital: can Brazil stay on top?

By Jennifer Mitchell, Director of Strategic Initiatives, Global Footprint Network and Mathis Wackernagel, Ph.d., President, Global Footprint Network A few weeks ago, WWF, Global Footprint Network and the Zoological Society of London issued a comprehensive report on the health of the planet. The 2010 edition of the Living Planet Report (available here in Portuguese) shows human demand on resources outstripping sustainable levels at an alarming rate. The report shows Brazil leads the world in ecological wealth. But can it protect its greatest asset? According to Global Footprint Network's latest figures, Brazil is the country with the most total biocapacity, a measure of the amount of resources its ecosystems produce. Some 14 percent of the world's total biocapacity can be found within the Brazil's borders, and the biocapacity available per person (9 global hectares) is more than four times the world average (1.8 gha). Brazil is also one of the countries with the greatest positive balances between its biocapacity and its Ecological Footprint, which measures the resources a population demands to produce what it consumes and absorb its CO2 emissions. The value of Brazil's natural capital becomes especially clear given the global context. In 2007, the most recent year for which data are available, humanity's total Ecological Footprint exceeded by 50 percent what nature can sustain, according to the Living Planet Report. Put another way, it now takes 18 months for nature to regenerate the resources consumed and absorb the CO2 emissions generated by a year of human activities. To understand how such ecological overspending is possible, it is helpful to use a financial analogy. When humanity's Ecological Footprint is lower than biocapacity, it is as though we are living off of the interest from nature. Once we go beyond that, we begin depleting our stocks of ecological resources and accumulating waste -- essentially drawing down our principal. Just as with financial assets, this can go on for a period of time. But the urgent problems we face today, from climate change to the plummeting biodiversity detailed in the Living Planet Report, are signs we have reached the limits of our overspending. In a world facing a growing resource crunch, Brazil's biocapacity offers it a significant advantage -- both its in ability to be a supplier to other countries and to provide well for its own citizens. But there is a catch. Brazil can only realize these benefits if doesn't deplete the source of its wealth -- if it manages, in essence, to live off its interest. Trends show the country is currently headed in the opposite direction. At 2.9 global hectares, the Ecological Footprint of the average Brazilian is already larger than the global average, and considerably greater than the 1.8 available per person on the planet. (Click here to explore how Brazil's Footprint compares to that of other countries.) "The reduction of inequality with increased purchasing power of the Brazilian population is a positive achievement," Secretary General of WWF-Brazil Denise Hamú said in response to the report. "However, we also have to face a major challenge: to grow without depleting our natural resources." Brazil’s growing population presents another challenge. The country’s population has more than doubled since 1961, from 75 million to 190 million, while total biocapacity has not changed significantly. The result is that the amount of biocapacity available per person, while large, is now less than half of what it was four decades ago. The good news is that, as the quality of life in Brazil has improved, the per capita Ecological Footprint has not risen at the exponential rate that it has in other countries - - in particular those of Europe, North America and the Middle East. The country has a relatively low Footprint for its level of human development as measured by the UN Human Development Index, which rates countries based on attainment of factors such as longevity, educational attainment and income. This suggests that it is developing with a lower level of resource-demand than some other countries. Brazil's challenge is to create new growth opportunities for the country while protecting the ecosystem services that are the foundation for its economic development. If it can keep a balance between what is consumed and what nature can provide, it will be the rising star of the 21st century. If not -- well, it's important to remember that, unless one takes care to protect one's assets, even the richest among us can end up broke.

Por Jennifer Mitchell Mathis Wackernagel
18 de novembro de 2010

Development that respects ecological limits: a call for the new Administration

Ruling Workers’ Party candidate Dilma Rousseff, who is expected to win handily in the first round of Presidential elections, has been bullish about Brazil’s continued prospects for robust economic performance. With policies that focus on smoothing the way for industry and building on the country’s oil-based revenues, she has expressed confidence that the current 7 percent growth rate could be seen not as a high-water mark but as the new normal. For Brazil to enjoy continued prosperity, however, it must protect a key asset that has helped secure its rising position in the world: its vast ecological wealth. Development and prosperity are worthy goals. Bringing people out of poverty, creating opportunity and minimizing the gap between rich and poor are clearly among a government's most important mandates. The key is to take resource constraints and biocapacity into account -- otherwise, prosperity is destined to be short-lived and subject to reversal. Development that follows a sustainable path produces a clear win: for the economy, for the environment, and for the long-term well-being of the population. At Global Footprint Network, we come to leaders with a simple message: maintaining natural wealth is not something they must do for the good of other countries, but for their own. Nowhere is this more true than Brazil. With its booming economy and growing population, the country is at an important crossroads. Will it grow in a direction that maintains one of its most valuable assets? Or will it place that asset at risk? As previous readers of this column will know, Global Footprint Network’s research tracks nature’s supply against human demand the same way a bank account tracks income against expenditures. We compare countries’ Ecological Footprint – the amount of land area it takes to produce the resources their population consumes and absorb their carbon dioxide emissions – with biocapacity, the amount of resources a region (or the world) is able to produce. Brazil has the largest positive balance between the amount of resources its ecosystems produce and the amount its population demands for its own use. Its natural wealth also supports a critical part of its economy: agriculture counts for about 6 percent of the country’s GDP, and 36 percent of its exports. Even so, those reserves are not limitless. The amount of biocapacity available per person has declined steadily over the last four decades, with the gap between Footprint and biocapacity narrowing to less than half what it was in 1961. Brazil is not alone in these trends. Many nations around the world have seen their once-large ecological surpluses shrink almost entirely away. Ecuador is one Amazon-basin nation that has recently taken action to reverse this trend, its National Plan calling for maintaining its Footprint within biocapacity by 2013. Staying in the ecological black requires careful management of ecological assets. That includes taking resources into account in areas where they have not always been considered. Infrastructure is one key example. Rousseff helped launch Brazil's Accelerated Growth Program (PAC) promoting investment in the areas of housing, transport, energy and water resources. Such infrastructure has a long life span, and poor choices can lock a society into a resource- intensive path for decades to come. As Brazil looks to put significant sums toward expanding PAC and building the next generation of infrastructure, its leaders must consider whether they are investing in opportunities that are sustainable in the long term or in resource traps that will make such development difficult. As a champion of economic growth, we would expect Brazil’s new leadership to keep careful track of its fiscal balance sheet. No less attention should be paid to management of the country’s ecological assets. It is fair to assume a downward trajectory in GDP would keep advisors working late into the night on developing strategies to reverse the trend. Similarly, having access to solid resource accounting metrics will help Brazil's leaders navigate some of the tough resource choices they will face in coming years. If the new administration is to be successful in its promise to deliver an improving quality of life for Brazil’s citizens, it must do so in a way that protects the underlying assets that are the basis of its economy – and the well-being of all its people. *Jennifer Mitchell, Director of Strategic Initiatives, Global Footprint Network

Por Jennifer Mitchell
1 de outubro de 2010

UNEP focuses on restoring degraded ecosystems

UNEP has released a report underlining the benefits of restoring natural ecosystems. The report advocates that far from being a tax on growth and development, the rehabilitation of nature-based assets will generate jobs, wealth and restoration of multi-trillion dollar services. The report uses case studies to outline the benefits of forest restoration to biodiversity and conservation and the impacts on human livelihoods and wellbeing. The varied ecosystems of each case study outline the many different benefits which forest restoration could offer.   Instituto Terra, a non-profit organisation that establishes nurseries to replant denuded areas in the Mata Atlantica, is mentioned for its services to biodiversity, water regulation, carbon storage and preventing soil erosion. Protecting already intact ecosystems is of course the most logical and cost effective strategy in climate change mitigation, yet more than 60 per cent of global ecosystems - from marshes and coral reefs to tropical forests and soils - are already degraded. On this basis, the report says that restoration must now gain an equal importance.     ·         Increased and higher quality habitats for animals and plants; ·         A secure and high-quality supply of water; ·         Prevention and reduction of land degradation; ·         A secure source of biomass and biofuel energy; ·         Environmentally sound and socially acceptable carbon sequestration; ·         Adequate and sustainable income and employment opportunities for rural communities; ·         Sustainable source of timber for forest industries and local communities; ·         Sound return on investment for forestry investors; ·         Increased resilience and resistance to climate change; ·         Additional sources of non-timber forest products such as medicinal plants and marketable goods; ·         Recreation and tourism opportunities; ·         Increased property values near restored areas; ·         Enhanced economic and environmental security and mitigation of risk form global economic and environmental   Source: Global Partnership on Forest Landscape Restoration (GPFLR), http://www.ideastransformlandscapes.org   Some of the benefits of Forest Restoration:

Por Patrick Bodenham
12 de julho de 2010

The Economy, Trade and the Ecological Footprint

In last month’s column, my colleague, Jennifer Mitchell, and I gave an introduction to Global Footprint Network, the Ecological Footprint, our Brazil calculator and the types of issues that we will focus on. You will find that occasionally our column will directly address recurring questions, themes and comments: our ultimate goal is not a one-sided conversation but an ongoing dialogue with you, the reader. That said, in this column I would like to address a comment posted by reader Hugo Penteado following our debut commentary. It is a question that I believe is at the very core of today’s greatest challenges: Can we maintain economic growth without sacrificing the ecological well-being of our planet? Penteado referred to current trends in economic growth as a “path to suicide”. On that point, we are in total agreement. Today’s economic model is no longer ecologically viable. As the recent global economic crisis proved, there are inevitable consequences to ongoing deficit. You can continue to use more resources than is available by drawing down on future assets – i.e., credit. But at some point, you will eventually hit a wall. Still, our economic model is one that values growth, regardless of this fact. So what we saw – and continue to see -- is an incredible contradiction in that we ran into recession because we consumed too much, and yet our response has been to promote more consumption. We ran into recession because there is too much liquidity in the market, and yet our response has been to throw more liquidity into the system. Money has become so powerful that it out-values natural capital – without which, the global economy would not even exist. Our leaders worry more about stabilizing currency than stabilizing agricultural soils. But in the end, which is more important? This dilemma we face -- and the question our leaders must ask themselves – is what I posed to participants of Footprint Forum 2010, held in Italy from June 4-13. The international gathering, hosted by Global Footprint Network in conjunction with the University of Siena, was attended by roughly 200 participants, among which included scientists, economists, and business and government leaders. The focus of the forum was to discuss today's most urgent environmental challenges and develop strategies to meet them. Among the event’s diverse series of sessions included: “Natural Capital and Our Economy” and “Re-Thinking Growth”. We invited a panel of speakers who represented differing perspectives, among which included: Peter Victor, professor in Environmental Studies at York University; and Hannes Kunz, president of the Institute for Integrated Economic Research. Both agreed that we can no longer continue to have economic expansion on a planet with limited resources – unless we can somehow find a way to decouple economic growth from resource use. According to Hannes, we do not need to focus on rethinking economic growth, as a major correction to world gross domestic product (GDP) is inevitable. Instead, he said, we must focus on the transition to a no-growth economy. While ecological economists talk about rethinking economic growth to enable a sustainable world economy, the economist said, "…we don't have to rethink growth. Growth is going to go away". "The financial claims on the world economy -- such as debt obligations, pension expectations, stocks, investments -- can only be paid back by extracting more resources and converting them into financial assets. But we have a finite amount of resources, and those resources are becoming less and less available, so we're trapped," he said, cautioning assembled environmental experts that if this transition to a sustainable economy is not managed adequately "we won't have a chance to build something good afterward." According to Victor, however, it is possible to maintain a robust employment rate, reduce or eliminate poverty, maintain fiscal balance and reduce greenhouse gases without relying on economic growth. The key to achieving this, he said, lies in a major shift in policies, including: new meanings and measures of success; limits on materials, energy, wastes and land use; more meaningful prices; more durable, repairable products; fewer status goods; more informative advertising; better screening of technology; more efficient capital stock; more local, less global; reduced inequality; and less work, more leisure. I believe any change in our economic model must include looking beyond GDP. In his comment, Penteado cited a report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress – which was created by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and chaired by Nobel Prize winning economist Professor Joseph E. Stiglitz of Columbia University. The document, known as the “Stiglitz Report”, recommended a more comprehensive approach toward gauging a country’s success, beyond GDP. Penteado pointed out that in this report, the Ecological Footprint, though cited as a possible indicator, was criticized for being “anti-trade”. To clarify, The Footprint tracks current human demand on nature in terms of the area required to supply the resources used and absorb the waste emitted in providing goods and services. Trade is accounted for by allocating this demand to the country that ultimately consumes these goods and services. This accounting reflects import and export flows, but makes no judgment regarding the benefits, disadvantages or fairness of trade. The Ecological Footprint is therefore neither pro- nor anti-trade. Indeed, Penteado, Hannes, Kunz, the authors of the Stigltiz report, and I can all agree that business-as-usual will eventually lead to no business at all. Opinions vary on what changes are necessary to reverse our trends, but this ultimate conclusion remains. I believe each country must decide what their optimal resource consumption is in order to maintain a level of social, economic and environmental well-being that is in harmony with one another, and that is sustainable. This is why we continue to promote the use of the Ecological Footprint and why we continue to improve the science and methodology behind it. In the end, I believe Penteado and I are more in agreement than he may have realized. Mathis Wackernagel is the president of Global Footprint Network and co-creator of the Ecological Footprint. You can e-mail responses to this column or send suggestions for other topics at [email protected] For more information on Global Footprint Network, go to www.footprintnetwork.org.

Por Mathis Wackernagel
24 de junho de 2010

Forest transparency still missing in Peru

London - A key objective of good forest governance is to establish effective forest management on the part of social organisations, as it is these organisations that attempt to align economic activities with the interests of a country’s citizens. As one of a set of five governance principles seen as necessary for governments to design and implement public policies away from a framework of unrest, Transparency stands out as key. Global Witness, the official NGO observer to the UN-REDD process(United Nations programme for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation), recently held a meeting in London to discuss the results of an annual ‘report card’ on forest transparency, with board members from Cameroon, Ghana, Liberia and Peru. Over a four month investigation period, public forestry institutions in each country were probed for their openness in communicating information necessary for the full participation of civil society in forest decision-making. Key themes were transparent decision making, legal access to information and forest tenure and land use. Of all four countries involved, Peru is the only to have an established legal framework that guarantees access to information. As a right recognised in article 2 numeral 5 of the Political Constitution of Peru, transparency is regulated by the Transparency and Access to Public Information Law approved by Law No.27806. Yet research carried out by the sustainable development organisation  Derecho, Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (DAR) uncovered a worrying lack of compliance with this law. Laura Furones, Head of Latin American Development at Global Witness said “There is a clear gap between the theory and the practice. Yes, the instruments exist, but the real question is do they work?” Investigation The investigation, which comprised two main approaches - monitoring transparency in relevant websites and submitting letter requests for information - found the average compliance with legal requirements for websites dedicated to transparency in the forest sector by the institutions in charge of management and conservation of forests to be only 49.5%, while in other non-forest-related institutions it reached 82.6%. Only 25% of requests for further information were responded to. According to Furones, it is difficult to know whether the opacity around forest information is due to a lack of resources or a lack of will. Following the implementation of the US-Peru Free Trade Agreement in February last year, there has certainly been a focus on establishing a legal framework that places a more equal emphasis in the needs of the public sector. In the shadow of violent confrontation and the death of more than 33 people in Bagua last year, a new law on forests and wildlife is currently being negotiated in the Peruvian Congress. It will separate forest resources into zones in the hopes of preventing disputes related to different economic activities. Within four working groups set up by the government, one looked at forest law and indigenous participation. The obvious ramifications of the bill on forest transparency have made it the focal point of meetings up until now. Suggestions from NGOs and experts closed on April 9th and the bill has been presented to Congress for a vote. Yet interests are polarised, and whether or not suggestions on forest transparency will be successfully incorporated into public policy, or even listened to, is currently point of tension. Following the dissemination of the project’s actions, the General Directorate of Forestal y de Fauna Silvestre (FFS) under the national Ministerio de Agricultura announced a commitment to implement a webpage specifically dedicated to information sharing for the benefit of forest stakeholders and local actors. The next forest transparency report card will be carried out again in the final months of 2010, and will continue yearly under the programme ends in three years time. The programme hopes to incorporate a new country into its research each year and is currently undergoing discussions with Ecuador and Guyana. For more information on the forest transparency programme, visit www.foresttransparency.info.

Por Patrick Bodenham
12 de maio de 2010

Farewell Red Colobus?

The Zanzibar Archipelago, to many, is the idyllic holiday destination, a place to relax, soak in the sun, and revive the senses; the quintessential island paradise. However, as a photographer and a conservationist, I was keen on discovering the ‘real’ treasures Zanzibar had to offer and set about on a journey to uncover Zanzibar’s remaining natural habitats. The Zanzibar Islands are included in the listing of global biodiversity hotspots, and form a part of the Coastal Forests of Eastern Africa Hotspot. Hotspots are areas that display remarkably high biodiversity and endemism and have become one of the accepted global templates for directing conservation funding. Cut off from mainland Africa for many thousands of years, the Zanzibar Islands have evolved a unique collection of plants and animals. At least seven species of wildlife are found nowhere else in the world. Home to these and other animals, the forests of Zanzibar have supplied local communities with food, fuelwood, medicine and building material. The once plentiful forests that covered the islands provided wood for the famous carved doorways of Zanzibar and for the traditional dhows that ply the Indian Ocean. Today, the Jozani Chwaka Bay National Park and surrounding conservation area that include community forests, cultivated lands and several villages, form the Jozani-Chwaka Bay Conservation Area (est. 1995) and represents the last of the natural habitats left on Zanzibar. The story of Zanzibar’s disappearing forests is similar to many other small island states. These forests have been historically exploited for their precious hardwood, and today only exist in small isolated patches. At just over 50 square kilometers, Jozani National Park is small and is also the island’s only terrestrial reserve. The National Park is approximately an hours journey from Stone Town, and is easily accessible by public transport or by privately hired vehicles. Its wonderful and unique inhabitants include the endangered Kirk’s Red Colobus Monkey, Ader’s Duiker, Zanj Elephant Shew, and the nearly extinct Zanzibar Leopard. Much of the National Park’s conservation efforts are centered around the Red Colobus, which acts as the flagship species, and helps attract a handful of visitors every day. This species is endemic to the island and can only be seen on Zanzibar, making it one of the rarest monkeys in the world. Endemism has resulted in the evolution of unique coat patterns, calls, and diet, and unlike other species of Colobus monkeys, the Kirk’s Red Colobus inhabits a wide range of habitats that include mangrove swamp forests. One troop of Red Colobus monkeys have been especially habituated to the presence of humans,and spend the day foraging close to the visitor’s reception. For serious wildlife enthusiasts (like myself) and island hopping tourists alike, the experience of watching these wonderful and unique animals at close quarters is without doubt an extremely rewarding and unforgettable experience. The park’s mangrove swamp forest is an equally impressive sight and the lucky few might even be able to catch a glimpse of the Red Colobus in this unique habitat. The National Park offers guided walks and this is highly recommended, as the guides hold a wealth of local knowledge and are extremely competent at tracking and spotting wildlife hidden in the foliage. All individual contributions go towards furthering conservation efforts and visitors are encouraged to make donations, a small yet essential step in helping preserve one of the rarest habitats left on the earth.

Por Aditya Swami
13 de janeiro de 2010

A Billion Dollar Jungle*

Stopping tropical deforestation is part of the struggle against climate change. Developing countries expect rich nations to help pay for it. But will human rights be respected when megabucks are on offer?  credit: FAS/divulgation You reach the Juma reserve, a 589-hectare piece of land covered with thick rainforest in the Brazilian state of Amazonas, only after a long journey along dusty roads. But even after many bone-shaking hours in a 4X4, you cannot fail to be impressed when you do finally arrive. This is a community in the middle of the jungle which preserves the forest. And perhaps more striking, every single family in the reserve owns a credit card. In fact, there's a direct link between the inviolate forest and the pieces of plastic. Paying to preserve trees In Juma 339 families live in 35 communities. The state government credits roughly US$50 every month to each cardholder's account to compensate them for their work in keeping the forest intact. The scheme works very simply. Each family head signs a contract undertaking not to chop or burn the trees. If there is any deforestation, the government will withhold the allowance. It sounds like old Brazilian-style populism, but the scheme, the Programa Bolsa Floresta, is now considered by many specialists around the world a model way to halt tropical deforestation. For years governments and NGOS have been discussing how nations can act together to stop the destruction of the planet's remaining forests. The debate moved up several notches after forests were recognised as a key factor in the struggle against man-made climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has now said that deforestation is responsible for 18 per cent of total global emissions of carbon dioxide. Funding from hotel giant The Juma scheme is expected to become the model for a global strategy to protect native forests. This strategy is called REDD - Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation. Countries which have ratified the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, meeting in the Polish city of Poznan in December 2008, agreed the broad rules governing how REDD will work. They are now negotiating how to include these rules in the new climate agreement due to be concluded at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen in late 2009. credit: FAS/divulgation The presidente of Marriot Group and Virgílio Viana handle a credit card to one of the Juma villagers The project in Juma has been running for only six months and its financial support comes from big private groups interested in offsetting their carbon footprints. The international hotel chain Marriott, for example, besides donating US$2m to the Juma reserve, also argues that reducing carbon emissions justifies it in collecting a dollar a night from its guests to increase funding for the forest dwellers. Using complex future projections, the state government says the money donated to the Juma project by all donors, including large banking companies and food retailers, will by 2050 have prevented the deforestation of 62 per cent of the reserve, saving 210,000 tons of carbon. Carbon offsetting Virgilio Viana is the man who thought up the Juma programme. He is the former Amazonas Environment Secretary and today runs a foundation dedicated to raising funds for other REDD initiatives in the region. He believes Juma's example shows it is possible to undertake an international carbon offsetting scheme and at the same time to enhance forest people's quality of life. “We have been pragmatic by involving big corporations in this project and we are accountable in a very transparent way," he says. But environment and human rights groups are now asking what will be the real impact of a worldwide trade in carbon offsets based on forest resources. Is REDD going to change the life of small communities? And how will local governments share out the benefits? Beyond that, how do you monitor REDD to guarantee that the forest really is protected? Opportunity - or curse? A recent report by a group of UK experts, led by businessman Johan Eliash, says that if REDD becomes a reality it may create an annual flow of US$20-30bn from developed countries to tropical developing countries. The Eliash Report insists this is actually the amount of money needed to stop emissions from deforestation. Patrick Alley, the founder of the environmental campaigning group Global Witness, thinks REDD may be the opportunity conservationists have been awaiting for years. But first, he says, it is crucial to guarantee that once the forest acquires value on the climate market, REDD money is not going to become a curse. "Some of the countries who are negotiating REDD are some of the poorest and most corrupted in the world. Like everything that involves a lot of money, REDD is a big challenge," Alley points out. Risk of aiding corruption Global Witness has been documenting cases of misuse of forest resources in developing countries for 15 years. Alley remembers cases of 'sustainable' forest management that were enthusiastically sold as eco-friendly solutions for communities in central Africa and south-east Asia. In fact, he says, they were examples of policies that can easily aid and abet corruption. "In Cameroon or Cambodia, what we have seen is massive industrial logging being allowed by governments without any benefit for local communities." Listen to the interview with Patrick Alley from Global Witness The risk of these hidden threats from REDD was the main message which organised indigenous groups tried to get across during the Poznan climate conference. Several developing country groups actually travelled to Poland to ask for the inclusion of specific regulations to protect forest communities and their way of life. "Most of the tropical countries need to improve governance within the forests. There are a lot of illegal activities happening. Although there are good laws and policies, there is no enforcement," Kenn Mondiai, from Papua New Guinea's Ecoforest Forum, told me during the conference. Listen to the interview with Kenn Mondiai, from Papua New Guinea's Ecoforest Forum Rights not on the table But instead of solving their domestic problems first, most tropical countries seem to be rushing to grab the benefits which REDD offers. In January 2009 FERN, an independent trade watchdog based in Brussels, presented a report about 25 REDD national programmes already developed in countries including Paraguay, Ghana, Panama and Cameroon. The report was presented at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in the UK. It reveals that only a few countries have mentioned local communities' rights in their plans. Land tenure, for example, a critical issue in most tropical countries, was not even seen as a problem. “People's rights are simply not on the table", said Iola Leal from FERN.   Land use changes are major sources of emissions (see  video showing forest fires caught by the satellite images) * This story was also published at the Panos Magazine - www. panos.org.uk

Por Redação ((o))eco
4 de agosto de 2009

Sugarcane and the invisible ecosystem

The expansion of ethanol sector in Brazil should overall have a beneficial impact, according to WWF. But more needs to be done to safeguard the "invisible" ecosystem, the Cerrado.

Por Tim Hirsch
3 de junho de 2008