�鶹��ý�����

Rubber is regularly linked to deforestation according to a systematic review of case studies and analysis of recent trends in rubber area and yield published in .

As demand grows and yields stagnate, continued deforestation for rubber is to be expected, says lead author Dr Eleanor Warren-Thomas of �鶹��ý�����, who led the research.

She warns:

“Our analysis shows substantial expansion of rubber plantations has occurred in many producer countries since 2010, with particularly rapid increases in new locations such as Cote d’Ivoire. Some 2.7 million to 5.3 million hectares of additional harvested area could be needed to meet industry estimates of demand by 2030. It is critical that existing rubber producers are supported to improve their yields and maintain production, to avoid ongoing expansion of plantation area.”

This paper was one of two ground-breaking studies by an international team, recently published in the renowned journals and Conservation Letters. Together, they demonstrate that the impact of the global rubber trade on forests has been serially and substantially underestimated.

Led by the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh (RBGE), Eleanor Warren-Thomas also contributed to a ground-breaking remote sensing analysis published in Nature, which measured rubber-related deforestation in Southeast Asia since 1993, and found over four million hectares of forest loss - an area as large as Switzerland.

Using the latest satellite technology and cloud computing, this fresh evidence reveals that rubber-driven forest loss is up to three times larger than previously reported estimates, which have been widely used to inform policy. Now, scientists behind the research say equitable and sustainable solutions are needed without delay.

Dr Yunxia Wang, first author of the study, explained: “Rubber was already known to lead to forest loss, but quantifying the damage has been challenging. Because it is difficult to distinguish from natural forest on satellite imagery, it has received reduced attention when looking at the losses caused by commercial plantations. However, thanks to expanding earth observation and computing technology, there are increasing opportunities to map ‘difficult’ commodities. The results have been sobering.” 

Senior author Dr Antje Ahrends noted: “While deforestation linked to rubber is widespread, some countries are of particular concern. In Cambodia, for example, over 40 per cent of rubber plantations are associated with deforestation. Our maps show that rubber plantations have encroached into areas of global importance for the protection of biodiversity, with over one million hectares planted in these areas. With 70 per cent of the world’s natural rubber yields destined for tyre manufacture, demand is not likely to diminish and the threat this poses to biodiversity should not be underestimated. In addition, while predominantly grown by smallholders with the potential to support livelihoods, rubber is also associated with land grabbing and human rights infringement in some countries.”

Both studies emphasise that while it is critical to halt deforestation associated with rubber, it is vital that smallholders, who account for 85 per cent of natural rubber production, are not marginalised by regulations.

Professor Peter Hollingsworth, Deputy Keeper and Director of Science at RBGE, concluded: “While it is encouraging to see an increasing number of initiatives and policy changes that aim to halt commodity-driven forest loss, there is a risk of inflexible regulation marginalising the poor as only wealthy rubber producers and traders can afford to pay remote-sensing companies to verify that goods are deforestation-free.

“We are, therefore, working with smallholder initiatives and other key players in the sector, including the Forest Stewardship Council ®, ZSL, and the Global Platform for Sustainable Natural Rubber, to ensure that our rubber and deforestation maps are widely and easily accessible to all stakeholders, in particular to smaller economic players.”

Research partners with the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh and �鶹��ý����� on the Nature paper were Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, China; Stockholm Environment Institute, University of York; Kunming Institute of Botany, China; University of Bern, Switzerland; East-West Center, Honolulu, US; Yunnan Academy of Social Sciences, China; International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Austria; University of Sheffield.

Primary funder of the Conservation Letters research was a UKRI Natural Environment Research Council IIASA Collaborative Fellowship. Primary funder of the Nature research was the UK Research and Innovation’s Trade, Development and Environment Hub.