|
Solution
II - Stop
exports from the Russian Taiga
Solution II consists of stopping
exports from the Russian Taiga. Thirty percent of Russian far east timber is
consumed domestically while the remaining 70 percent of Russian Taiga timber is
exported. China,
Japan
and South Korea are three
main importers of Russian wood and forest products.1
This not only leads to increased depletion but also a shift in the areas
affected by deforestation. As domestic consumption dwindled deforestation has
shifted southward. With main importers lying south and south west of Russia, exporters have moved closer to the areas of demand. The primary affected areas
are now moving towards the southern regions because of the high costs of
transportation and energy in the northern regions.2 Basically it becomes more economical to be closer to the customers of the forest
product business.
With growing consumption in these countries, the demand for natural
resources is on the rise. Stopping the export of wood and wood products would
enable Russian timber companies to provide for domestic demand and to reduce
stress on the Taiga forests. Weaning dependent countries off of timber
exports might force them to conserve timber products. With a nation having to
rely on its own sources of natural resources it would be more apt to consume
fewer wood products because it would be in the interest of any country to
practice sustainable development.
Foreign timber companies would likely pull out of Russia
since it would not be in their interest to remain in a low demand domestic market.
Additionally, Russian buyers are likely to buy from Russian sellers thus it
would not be beneficial to compete in the Russian market. The remaining lumber
companies would be reduced to state owned and privately owned Russian companies.
Domestic companies would be more likely to abide by rules and regulations as well
as practice sustainable deforestation in a market where foreign competition and
foreign demand were inexistent. Without foreign companies the market becomes
less competitive and more profitable. Fewer firms means higher prices for
producers and fewer firms to monitor for the government.
The government would need to highly regulate timber companies and sea
ports as well as the border between Russian and China. Salaries and personnel would have to increase to discourage
corruption and promote efficiency in the forestry service. Importing nations
would have to seek other sources of wood and would need to practice sustainable
forestry within domestic borders. Other sources of wood products such as
New Zealand
and
South America
would see a higher demand for their wood products but with conservation
practices on the rise in these regions the supply would not meet infinite
demand. Thus, importing nations would be forced to consume less and conserve
their domestic resources due to higher prices and fewer suppliers..
|