Sophie Boukhari, UNESCO Courier journalist
Many reforestation projects are underway in Brazil, but deforestation is still gaining ground. According to Greenpeace, 80 per cent of the felling is illegal.
Women carry seedlings into a wooded area as part of a forest rehabilitation project in Tanzania.
|
DEFORESTATION GATHERS SPEED Over the last 150 years, says the World Resources
Institute (WRI), deforestation and changes in land use have been responsible for
30 per cent of the increase in greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. |
Villagers water seedlings at a tree nursery in India.
Forests
can play a key role in combating the greenhouse effect but current proposals for
using them raise a thicket of thorny issues
Why are
industrialists so keen on trees these days? After the Japanese vehicle-maker Toyota
(see box) and others, the French car
firm Peugeot launched a huge reforestation project in late 1999. The result will
be 10 million trees growing on 12,000 deforested hectares in the heart of the Brazilian
Amazon.
The aim of the $10 million project, says Peugeot chief Jean-Martin Folz, is to “make
the idea of a carbon sink a reality.” In other words, to show that reducing consumption
of fossil fuels—gas, oil and coal—is not the only way to fight global warming. By
using the ability of vegetation to absorb and store carbon dioxide (CO2 ), the main greenhouse gas, the
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can be reduced.
Tropical forests:
a controversial role
Through the
process of photosynthesis a growing tree gives off oxygen and absorbs water, light
and CO2, which is why expanding forests
are what is known as “carbon sinks”. Full-grown forests on the other hand cease to
be carbon sinks and become carbon reservoirs. They store huge amounts of carbon above
and below ground and play a neutral role in the CO2
equation. The carbon dioxide given off when old trees decompose can be offset by
that which is absorbed when young trees grow in their place. And when forests burn,
they give off CO2 and become sources of carbon.
That is the theory. In practice, however, very little is known about the global carbon
cycle and the role of forests in it.
It is also unclear how forests will react to global warming. “There are uncertainties
regarding the implications of increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere
for photosynthesis, forest growth rates and changes in carbon stocks in forests,”
says Indian scientist N.H. Ravindranath, one of the three co-ordinators of a special
report on forests produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Today’s carbon sink can become a source of CO2 tomorrow.
According to currently available data, the world’s main forest carbon sinks are in
the countries of the North (the United States, Canada, Europe and Russia). After
centuries of deforestation, mainly to create farmland, these regions have been gaining
trees again in the past 100 years or so. As a result of the revolution in intensive
agriculture, less land is needed for farming.
On the other hand, large-scale deforestation is still taking place in tropical countries
where land hunger is constantly increasing (see
box). This contributes
to the increased concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The role of
tropical forests in this context is highly controversial. In theory, as mature forests
they should absorb as much CO2 as they give out. But recent
studies suggest they actually absorb more CO2 than
was thought. In fact, says Youba Sokona, deputy director of Enda Tiers Monde, a non-governmental
organization, “we have no clear idea of the state of forest resources or the way
they behave in developing countries.” Forest surveys are very expensive, and not
many have been done in the countries of the South. The estimates of the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) have sometimes been questioned.
Carbon credits
Despite all
these unknown factors, the notion of carbon sinks has become highly topical—for political
rather than scientific reasons. It came of age in 1997, when it was introduced into
articles 3.3 and 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change.
Under the protocol, which was the result of tough negotiations in the wake of the
1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the industrialized countries
promised to reduce their annual net emissions of greenhouse gases by an average 5
per cent a year until 2008-2012, using the 1990 level as a base. To do this, some
countries, notably the United States, insisted on the establishment of three “flexibility
mechanisms”.
The first involves setting up a market where the rich countries will bargain with
each other to buy and sell emission permits. The second is a “joint implementation”
(JI) arrangement under which they will earn carbon credits in exchange for funding
reduction of emissions in formerly communist eastern Europe through, for example,
industrial cleanup projects. The third is a “clean development mechanism” (CDM),
which is like JI but operates between industrialized and developing countries. Many
environmentalists have sharply criticized this “international trading in hot air”
and accuse the countries that are the worst polluters of seeking to shirk their obligation
to thoroughly revamp their own energy consumption practices.
Including the carbon sink idea in the Kyoto Protocol is another way of making the
Protocol’s application more “flexible”. Article 3.3 says that “direct human-induced
land use change and forestry activities, limited to afforestation, reforestation
and deforestation since 1990” can be used by states parties to meet their commitments.
For example, a company may fund a reforestation project in its own country, or else
a country like The Netherlands, say, could sponsor tree plantations in Poland. In
2008-2012, the amount of CO2 these trees have absorbed or
“sequestrated” will be calculated and counted as part of such countries’ reduction
in their own greenhouse gases.
Article 3.4 adds, without going into specifics, that other human activities relating
to carbon sources and sinks can be taken into account. “These articles are last-minute
compromises,” says Michel Raquet of Greenpeace Europe. “They were drafted without
much idea of their implications or whether everyone agreed on the meaning of the
terms used. In fact, they vary from one institute or country to another.” Future
negotiations will sort this out.
These talks will also try to decide—this will be a far-reaching debate—whether or
not to include carbon sinks in the CDM. If they are included, rich countries will
be able to fund afforestation or anti-deforestation projects in poor countries as
a way of obtaining carbon credits, instead of carrying out often more costly schemes
at home to curb emissions from industry or transport.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the scientific organ of the
1992 Convention, thinks that carbon sinks can play an important role. As the FAO
report notes, “IPCC has estimated, with a medium level of confidence, that globally,
carbon sequestration from reduced deforestation, forest regeneration and increased
development of plantations and agro-forestry between 1995 and 2050 could amount to
12 to 15 per cent of fossil fuel carbon emissions over the same period.”
Arthur Riedacker, a French expert involved in the IPCC’s work, also points out that
such schemes produce biomass and timber, so reducing fossil fuel consumption. Biomass
is a renewable energy source. Wood can replace plastic or concrete, whose manufacture
uses hydrocarbons. But Ashley Mattoon of the Worldwatch Institute says the trade-off
in carbon sinks may be “a major loophole [in the Protocol] which admits vast quantities
of fossil carbon into the skies” and “encourages types of forestry that aren’t very
good for forests.”
Questionable
gains
To head off
these dangers, everyone agrees the carbon sink idea should be very closely examined
and tightly regulated. The IPCC, which will report back in 2000, will have to be
more precise about the meaning of the terms “afforestation”, “reforestation” and
“deforestation” in article 3.3 so as to prevent abusive practices developing. For
example, the text currently says a country can chop down an old forest and replace
it by one of fast-growing trees, notes Greenpeace expert Bill Hare. The felling would
not be counted in the country’s emissions but the reforestation would earn carbon
credits. So the country involved would gain, but not the atmosphere or the environment,
because an old forest and its soil contain more carbon, which would be released by
the felling, than a managed forest ever will. Biodiversity would also suffer.
Another problem would arise if Japan, say, were to fund a forest protection project
in Malaysia. In return, it would ask for carbon credits equal to the emissions which
the felling of the forest would have produced. But how can we be sure that the protection
project is actually responsible for preventing the forest from being destroyed? And
what is the point of protecting, say, a stretch of African savannah if the local
population can simply chop down trees further away?
For the moment, the world is roughly divided into three camps about the issue of
carbon sinks. One consists of several rich countries (including the U.S., New Zealand
and Australia) that want a broad definition and flexible use of carbon credits. In
some countries, like New Zealand, carbon sequestration from tree plantations covers
a very high percentage of their greenhouse gas emissions. If they are unrestrictedly
taken into account in 2008-2015, they will allow such countries to meet their commitments
without taking any steps in areas such as industry, transport and human settlements.
In the U.S., which has pledged to cut its emissions by 7 per cent over the next 10
years, the carbon sink mechanism is being used to persuade Congress to drop its refusal
to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, says Mattoon. The Clinton administration argues that
the sinks “could comprise a significant portion of the country’s total required emissions
reductions.”
A recent article in New Scientist magazine said Washington is even pressing for article
3.4 to be amended to include waste from wood products in the definition of a carbon
sink. It is certainly better to bury paper and wood waste in the ground than to burn
it and release more CO2
into the atmosphere.
But how far is this going to go? “The spirit of Kyoto demands that we should focus
on things that produce fewer greenhouse gases, which means encouraging energy-saving,
transport reform and improved industrial processes and housing, with improvements
in forestry practices as an extra,” says Riedacker.
Conflicting interests
A second group
includes European countries which take a cautious stand and are waiting for the IPCC
report before making up their minds. The third group is mostly made up of poor countries,
which are divided on the issue, says Ravindranath. “They’re interested in development,
not so much in carbon,” says ENDA’s Sokona, who is a member of the IPCC working party.
Everyone has different wishes and constraints as far as development goes. India,
China and the countries of southeast Asia, which have competitive industries, seem
opposed to introducing forestry projects into the CDM. They would prefer the rich
countries to invest in them via industrial projects, which would include more technology
transfers. But some Latin American countries, such as Costa Rica, are basing their
development on eco-tourism, so they have an interest in improving their forests.
Africa, where half of all greenhouse gas emissions are caused by deforestation, is
hesitating because in a continent where food security is still the top priority,
people fear farmland will be lost if trees are planted. But Africa’s weak industrial
base means it will probably not benefit much from the CDM if forestry projects are
not included in it. So some experts are in favour of it under certain conditions.
“Protected parks don’t interest us,” says Sokona. “They mean moving people off land
without giving them anything in return. It’s too easy for rich countries to come
and plant trees in our countries, put a fence round them and earn carbon credits.
However, I’m in favour of agroforestry, which meets our needs.”
Few countries have taken a clear stand so far. Others are still making their calculations
and trying to work out their position. The real battle over the world’s forests will
come after May 2000, when the IPCC will make its report.
| Toyota makes trees
Yoshinori Takahashi, Tokyo-based journalist
The Japanese vehicle-maker Toyota has understood this since the end of the 1980s. It launched its “Toyota Forest” programme in 1992, the year of the Rio Earth Summit, with the goal of using biotechnology to turn trees into anti-pollution agents. Today Toyota is proud of its experimental forests, including Foresta Hills, half an hour by car from the company’s headquarters. The firm is trying to revive satoyama, which are ancient protected hills on the edge of populated areas. They are a source of wood and prized items like matsutake mushrooms and urushi, Japanese lacquer. “In this forest, we’re developing the same activities our ancestors did in the 19th century,” says Yasuhiko Komatsu, the project’s chief. “We want to create satoyama for the 21st century.” The giant company’s engineers say they are trying to reduce vehicle emissions but cannot get rid of them completely. So other solutions have to be found—by using trees. At Foresta Hills, the effect of different kinds of trees on the level of carbon dioxide in the air can be measured. In some places it is 10 to 20 times lower than in others. The most “effective” trees are those which grow quickly, stand up to difficult surroundings and resist diseases and insects, so these are the ones biologists want to learn how to cultivate. Increasing the number of chromosomes of some trees has boosted their ability to absorb toxic gases by a third. Toyota is also researching into how to speed up the growth of trees in very acidic soil with a view to the reforestation of southeast Asia, which has been devastated by deforestation. Recently, the company began organizing reforestation activities outside Japan, and in August 1998 joined with paper manufacturers to set up the firm of Australian Afforestation Pty. Over the next decade, 5,000 fast-growing, drought-resistant eucalyptus trees will be planted in Australia, later to be chopped down and made into paper. Toyota’s work has drawn criticism however. Environmentalists are worried about the effects on the environment of genetically-modified species. Others argue that the main priority in fighting the greenhouse effect is to reduce emissions of pollutants and cut back on motor traffic. “The car-makers are planting trees to give themselves a nice green image while hoping their vehicle sales don’t drop,” says Michel Raquet of Greenpeace Europe. “What will they get in return? Carbon credits, even though there is no scientific guarantee that their forestry projects will have any effect on the atmosphere.” “One of these days,” says Ashley Mattoon of Worldwatch Institute, “we will have to ask ourselves how much more time, energy and money should be spent on tinkering with nature and satisfying our dependence on fossil fuels.” |
