[뉴욕타임스로 논술을 잡아라]Not Out of the Woods…

April 20, 2006/By Don Melnick and MarY Pearl 1

■칼럼

Our forests are the heart of our environmental support system. And yet, in the 36 years that have passed since the first Earth Day 2), 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 3) and West Nile virus 4), 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 5), 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 6) 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?

■돋보기 - 몸살 앓는 지구촌 환경 ‘지속가능한 개발’ 방안은?

필자는 숲의 보전을 위해서는 숲의 경제학을 바꿔야 한다고 주장하면서 4가지 방안을 제시했습니다. 필자가 제시한 네 가지 방안을 요약하고 여러분의 의견을 첨부하는 글을 써 보면 논술 공부에 도움이 될 것입니다.

지구의 허파라고 불리는 아마존도 목장 광산 같은 각종 개발로 몸살을 앓고 있습니다. 고속도로가 뚫려 이주민(移住民)이 증가하고 열대우림의 훼손 면적이 늘어나고 있습니다. 지구온난화가 가속화되면 아마존이 너무 뜨겁고 메마르게 돼 한 세기 안에 열대우림이 사바나로 변화하리라는 불길한 경고도 나옵니다.

숲을 보전하려는 노력은 탄소배출권 같은 제도를 만들어냈습니다. 우리의 그린벨트도 도시 주변의 숲을 보호하는 데 큰 역할을 했습니다. 그러나 도시의 확장과 각종 개발이 그린벨트를 야금야금 파먹고 있습니다.

환경을 논하는 글에서는 ‘지속가능한’(sustainable)이라는 말이 단골로 등장합니다. 이 글에서도 ‘지속가능한 산림 관리’라는 표현이 나옵니다. 우리 정부도 개발과 보전의 조화를 지향하기 위해 대통령 자문기관으로 지속가능위원회를 두고 있습니다.

1972년 ‘로마클럽’의 제1차 보고서 ‘성장의 한계’에서 난개발(亂開發)에 관한 강한 우려를 표명하면서 ‘지속가능한 발전’이란 용어가 처음 쓰였습니다. 지속가능한 개발은 ‘미래세대의 필요를 손상시키지 않는 범위에서 현재 세대의 필요를 충족시키는 개발’을 의미합니다.

환경 보전과 개발은 우리 사회에서도 여러 차례 첨예하게 부딪쳤습니다. 경부고속철도 천성산 터널공사, 부안의 방사성폐기물처리장 설치 무산, 수도권외곽순환고속도로의 사패산 터널공사도 그러한 예입니다. 지속가능한 개발이라는 전제하에서 합리적인 갈등 처리 방안에 관해 생각하고 논술을 써 보기 바랍니다. ☞자세한 주해는 이지논술 사이트를 참고하세요.

황호택 논설위원