Reconciling Rubber Expansion with Biodiversity Conservation

Abstract

Over five million hectares of tropical forest were cleared across mainland Southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa for rubber plantations between 2003 and 2017 [1, 2]. Millions of hectares of further clearance are predicted as rubber demand rises, which will have major consequences for biodiversity [3]. A key question is how to reconcile rubber expansion with biodiversity conservation. We assessed the feasibility of simultaneously meeting global future demand for rubber with conservation of extinction-threatened amphibians, birds, mammals, and reptiles. We compared the spatial congruence of rubber bioclimatic suitability with extinction vulnerability [4] in Africa, Asia, and New Guinea, where large-scale rubber cultivation is viable, and simulated rubber expansion under different scenarios. We found no "win-win" areas with highest rubber suitability and lowest extinction vulnerability. Projected rubber demand could be met by allowing expansion primarily in New Guinea and African Guinea. However, New Guinea has high ecosystem intactness and both regions are rich in endemics. Scenarios suggest converting only areas suitable for cultivation would cause the largest biodiversity losses, including endangered species, whereas prioritizing conservation would result in only the conversion of highly unsuitable land. Compromise scenarios that balance production with conservation could cut biodiversity losses by two-thirds, protecting most endangered species while maintaining high rubber suitability. Development of high-yielding hardy clones expands the amount of win-win areas, as well as suitable areas with high extinction risk. These trade-offs reveal that clonal research and development, strategic corporate and government land-use policies, and rigorous impact assessments are needed to prevent severe biodiversity losses from rubber development.

Keywords: land use change; sustainable agricultural production; sustainable agriculture; tree plantations; tropical deforestation.