Even considering the trend towards improvement in the naturalness performance,particularly, for the period 2001-2016, the Northern Region of Rio Grande do Sul continues under the influence of pressure factors related to the continuity of agricultural and non-agricultural anthropic land uses. This trend is supported by the predominance of areas with medium/low and low naturalness ,categorized by UI values between > 0.5 to 1.0. The predominance of agricultural anthropic areas reverting to landscapes with low naturalness is also reported in other studies. A cluster analysis between the land use area values, together with a naturalness levels, and the time period , identified two scenery of ecological sustainability for the Northern Region of Rio Grande doSul, over a 30-year period. One with a impaired ecological sustainability related to agricultural anthropic area values, related to higher naturalness UI values, hydroponic nft channel particularly, for 1986 and 1991; and another with anon-impaired ecological sustainability reveled by the increase of natural and aquatic areas, associated to lower naturalness UI values ,for 2001, 2011 and 2016.
The grouping related to the first scenario is due to the reduction of the agricultural anthropic areas in relation to the other years, while the second scenario is related to the increase of natural vegetation and aquatic areas compared to previous periods.Compromising conditions represented by UI values were related to the anthropic areas, while non-compromising conditions to ecological sustainability represented by UI values were related to aquatic and natural areas , mainly due to the largest patches of native vegetation in the region. That scenery supports the relevance of wetlands, water bodies and native vegetation to maintain the naturalness and ecological sustainability of the study area. The transition from agricultural anthropic to natural land use resulted in a gain in the stock of natural capital and an increase in naturalness, promoting the improvement of the ecological sustainability of the Northern Region of Rio Grande do Sul, over a 30-year period. Credit risk is a major risk faced by financial institutions as it takes up to 60.0% of risks that banks normally face. CRM has long been the focus of governments, regulatory authorities and financial institutions as most major banking problems have been either explicitly or indirectly caused by weaknesses in CRM.
However, Chinese financial institutions have been facing huge credit risk exposure reflected in the high level of bad loan.In China, rural commercial banks were originally derived from rural credit co-operatives that specifically work for rural population with low income.China’s RCBs were developed under the authorities’ initiatives to provide financial services support to rural areas and Sannong related business.Sannong refers to agriculture, rural areas and peasants. China’s RCBs are different from the majority of rural credit cooperatives in other countries whose business operation focused only on agriculture,nft grow system rural areas and farmers. In the Chinese case, RCBs also serve SMEs as their key customers and provide them with lending service. There has been a significant increase in the number of RCBs in China since the beginning of this century and the number had reached85 up to the end of 2010. At the end of 2010, the total assets of Chinese RCBs registered RMB2.8 trillion, the total liabilities RMB2.6 trillion and the after-tax profit RMB27.99 billion. Chinese RCBs took a rising proportion in banking financial institutions from 1.15% in 2006 to 2.90% in 2010. At the end of 2010, the non-performing loan ratio of Chinese RCBs turned out to be 2.34% and the balance of bad loans amounted to RMB28.82 billion, an increase of RMB1.71 billion from the beginning of 2010.
RCBs became the sole category that featured the rising bad loan balance among various banks in China. RCBs are exposed to risks inherent to specific rural commercial banking business and in particular, Sannong-related loans and services, in addition to usual risks faced by financial institutions. For many RCBs, their business focus is to provide high-quality financial services to SMEs in rural and county areas and serve the needs of Sannong. Consequently, RCBs had generally presented relatively higher risks than large city commercial banks,partially because their primary source of income is interest income and their ability to generate fee and commission income is limited.At the moment, many RCBs adopt the traditional CRM approaches used by large commercial banks. It is questionable if these approaches would be effective in managing credit risks of RCBs that operate in a different business environment.