It’s Getting Hot In Here

Trees: believe it or not, they are still at the center of the environmental debate.

What most people do not know is that aside from industrialized nations’ contribution to global GHG emissions from industrial activities and transportation, deforestation from developing countries also plays a major role. In fact, approximately 20% of the global GHG emissions are a result of deforestation.

It should come as no surprise then that one of the major things on the negotiation table at this year’s COP is the REDD Scheme.

REDD, or Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, aims to provide incentives for developing countries to cut emissions by preserving forests or having better forest management practices—all of this in an effort to bring down emissions from this source and to ensure that there are sufficient forests remaining for the uptake of carbon dioxide (aside from other crucial global ecological services).

I just attended a very interesting talk regarding the need for emerging economies such as Brazil, India and China to reconcile their need for development with reducing emissions. It is not a surprise that Brazil took the center stage as the battle ground for the REDD debate but the Democratic Republic of Congo, with the world’s second largest tropical forest was not forgotten.

A very promising argument was put forth by the Woods Hole Research Center (WHRC), based out of Massachusetts, USA, regarding the opportunity costs of leaving large tracts of forests standing as opposed to the soy bean farming and cattle ranching, that is taking place on forest lands where there are only marginal profits to be made. The argument is that such land uses with low profitability on marginal lands and yet are the driving force behind tropical deforestation, “are important ‘low hanging fruits’ of the emerging REDD scheme.” The findings are based on extensive research regarding soil quality and climate that is considered best for such agro-pastoral activities.

It is important to note that much of the deforestation that will come from agricultural activities in Brazil’s marginally profitable zones that function perfectly well as forest ecosystems will be impacted by the large scale infrastructure projects such as rail networks and highways–built to transport the produce to ports on the coast.

Furthermore, the idea is based on the concept of providing farmers payments for the carbon storage capacity of their lands—providing them with the incentive to preserve forests. WHRC also believes that sustainable forestry would allow for a more stable consumption of forest resources (timber) and not threaten forests from being fragmented over time. Finally, arguments were also made to provide assistance to indigenous people who are living in the world’s most heavily forested areas, because after all, these are the local guardians of the forests from industrial and agricultural interests. By increasing their income to double of what they receive currently (to approximately $1200/year), not only would their livelihoods improve, but they would also see a direct incentive from continuing to manage their forest resources sustainably. If they are provided further assistance by means of education, health, and infrastructure services, perhaps poor communities can be less exploitative of the forest areas that they live near.

Lets take things back to Indonesia—an nation of 17,000 islands with approximately 70 million hectares of tropical forests (a decrease from approximately 90 million hectares in the mid to late 20^th century. Here the government is concerned with the commitment from developed countries on providing assistance to the countries who refrain from cutting forests. Apparently the decision on whether financial incentives of the scheme will be market or fund based are yet to be decided upon. All of this brings into question the right of these countries to utilize their forest resources. In the past, such a scheme has been seen as a ploy by developing countries as yet another way for the developed countries to infringe on their rights to develop. Should nations in the global South be asked to keep their forests standing for the sole purpose of soaking up the carbon released from the global North? Didn’t much of Western Europe and the United States depend on their forests heavily to industrialize? Perhaps at last, the face of the debate may have changed—but only if the North commits to concrete assistance and fewer unjustifiable demands.