Global Warming: A REDD Solution to the Green Problem?

The Earth as an ecosystem is changing, largely due to the effects of industrial and economic activities of man. This has severely disturbed the environment – weather, air and water systems, temperature, rainfall pattern – that has sustained life on this planet for ages. We’ve overloaded the atmosphere with heat-trapping gasses from our cars and factories and power plants, polluted the water masses, and severely eliminated the forest cover to sustain what we call “economic development”. As a result, natural events such as rains, draughts, storms, land slides, etc have become too common and too furious. Many people even attribute increased seismic activities and tsunamis also to this global imbalance.

"Greenhouse emission anywhere is a threat everywhere"

The most alarming signs are observed at the poles where the ice cover is thinning just too fast for comfort. The expected rise in sea level in coming decades can cause massive destruction as well as economic catastrophe to population centers worldwide. Some even fear that disappearance of polar ice may trigger run away global warming and conditions of drastic climate change around the world.

Carbon dioxide concentration increased from about 280 ppm in the pre-industrialization era (say 1750) to 387 ppm (parts per million) in 2009 – an increase of about 109 ppm in 250 years. Half of this increase took over 200 years: up to 1970s; however, the next half took place in just 40 years. So, the rate of increase has intensified significantly in recent decades.

Without major concerted efforts to control greenhouse gas emissions, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are expected to rise from today’s 387 ppm (parts per million) to 490 – 1,260 ppm by the year 2100. Stabilizing concentrations at, for example, 450 ppm would require world-wide emissions to fall below 1990 levels as quickly as possible.

Given the fact that no country will ever compromise on economic development and the world population is growing, the only feasible solutions are (a) efforts to replace fossil fuels as energy source with renewable resources, (b) stop deforestation worldwide (and preferably reverse it), and (c) reduce wasteful consumption habits, particularly in the rich countries. Many people would like to stabilize the GHG concentration around 350 ppm, but given the fragmented world opinion, opposition by the developed world, and the I-will-do-what-I-please attitudes of two biggest polluters, China and US, it seems highly unrealistic.

1. Industrial Emission: Energy related greenhouse gas emissions are closely tied to industrialization. The word “developed” is generally taken as synonymous to “industrialized”. US and European nations fall in this category of polluters who are historically responsible for the current global warming and climate change issues. Their emission has largely come from burning of fossil fuels – coal, oil, and natural gas – to satisfy the ever increasing consumerism. Contribution of developing countries towards GHG emission from industrial activities is a recent phenomenon and is considerably lower.

2. Emission from Change in Land Use: Change in land use can significantly affect net greenhouse gas emission. In general, deforestation increases CO2 emission and afforestation decreases it. Most of the emission from this source comes from certain developing countries. The developed nations along with China and India, have long established agricultural practices and hence relatively stable land-use patterns. In contrast, Brazil and Indonesia have, over the past few decades, been clearing vast forest regions for timber or conversion to agriculture, releasing greenhouse gases (and removing sinks).

Speedy action is desired on both these fronts – reduce pollution from use of fossil fuel as well as replenish the lost forests worldwide – if any meaningful impact on global warming is to be made quickly.

Radical restructuring of energy resources by promoting use of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power and simultaneously discouraging consumption of fossil fuels, particularly coal and oil, AND simultaneously expanding the carbon “sinks”, ie, global forest cover, not only to withdraw CO2 from the atmosphere but also to preserve the ecosystem.

Rich nations can provide leadership by reorganizing their economic policies around these two issues.The more these policies to reduce GHG are integrated with other policies, the more likely they are to succeed and get wider public support. They also need to rationalize their consumption pattern to minimize wasteful use of natural resources. As an individual you can also make a difference, please read Steps to Mitigate Climate Change.

Forests annually provide about 3.3 billion cubic meters of wood (including 1.8 billion meters of fuelwood and charcoal) along with several non-wood products such as resources for food, medicines, clean drinking water, and spiritual benefits to millions of people. They are home to more than half of all species living on land. Forests are an important part of the ecosystem. They help regulate local and regional rainfall.

Forests (and also oceans) can absorb and store carbon over an extended period of time, therefore they are considered “carbon sinks”. But the carbon is released as CO2 when forests are cleared and the wood is burned. Therefore, preserving forests (and growing them) means less carbon in the atmosphere. Besides, deforestation reduces soil cohesion that is responsible for soil erosion, flooding, and landslides. So, their role is crucial in mitigating global warming and climate change issues.

For countries lacking in other resources, forests based products become central to economic activities and livelihood of a lot people depend on them. As a result, deforestation has economic value. In Indonesia, for example, forests are cleared for palm oil plantations at a massive scale.

Of the total land area on the earth, about 30% is covered by forests, of which 95% is natural forest and 5% is planted forest. South America has the highest percent of forest cover (about 50%) and Asia has the lowest percentage (less than 20% of land area). Five countries with the largest forest areas are: the Russian federation, Brazil, Canada, US, and China. Combined together, they account for over half of world forest area. Three major tropical forest regions facing deforestation are the Amazon, Southeast Asia, and the CongoBasin; taken together they cover eleven billion hectares of forests.

The forest cover is increasing in China, Norway, and India; but the rate of deforestation is still high in Nigeria, Brazil, and Indonesia. The African state of Nigeria has been chopping its forests at the rate of 3.7% per year. However, on a positive note, in Brazil the rate of loss of forests is declining and it plans to completely halt deforestation by 2020.

However, not all forests are equal when it comes to their environmental value. The conifers of Sweeden and Norway do little to absorb CO2. Somewhat better are the fast-growing softwoods that China is planting around its new coal power plants. But it's the natural rainforests of Indonesia, Brazil, Peru, and Colombia that are the real "lungs of the planet". Any erosion here will be grossly painful in the future.

Perhaps the best indicator of progress on reducing deforestation is the size of global trade related to forest products. Developed nations should take actions to reduce their demand for timber and other products originating from the forests of the developing nations, if they are really serious about stopping deforestation and reducing GHG emission.

Global initiatives to preserve forest cover, particularly in the developing countries is popularly termed, REDD – short for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation. It describes programs initiated by major international organizations such as the UN and the World Bank to prevent deforestation in poor countries. The appeal for REDD comes from the argument that REDD “generates” GHG emission reductions at much lower cost than other mitigation options.

The basic concept is simple: reward developing countries to keep their forests instead of cutting them down. The United Nations describes REDD as follows:

“REDD is a mechanism to create an incentive for developing countries to protect, better manage and wisely use their forest resources, contributing to the global fight against climate change. REDD strategies aim to make forests more valuable standing than they would be cut down, by creating a financial value for the carbon stored in trees.”

Forests are cut not out of malice, but because cutting trees brings financial benefits. Deforestation brings rewards in the form of timber, or the land can be used for growing crops or as pasture. Similarly, forest degradation generates benefits from; say selective logging, fuel-wood collection, or grazing of animals. Therefore, implementing REDD policy implies forgoing these benefits. So, the rewards must exceed the financial benefits from these drivers of removing the forest cover, if the REDD initiative has to succeed.

The concept of reducing emissions from deforestation (RED) originated from a proposal in 2005 by a group of countries (calling themselves the Coalition for Rainforest Nations) led by Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica during the 11^th Conference of Parties (COP) in Montreal. It found a wide support and an advisory group to explore various options.

REDD+

Two years later, the proposal was taken up at the Conference of the Parties (COP-13) to the UNFCCC in Bali and RED was expanded to REDD to include forest degradation also in the proposal. Following negotiations the paragraph 1b iii) of the Bali Action Plan came to be known as REDD+. It recognizes the role of “conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries” going beyond deforestation and forest degradation and expanding carbon stock.

Thus, REDD+ includes activities to safeguard the interests of indigenous people, local communities as well as the forests.

As far as funding is concerned, while there is no explicit agreement at UN climate talks on funding, but the various UN, World Bank, and other initiatives suggest that carbon offsets will eventually deliver funding for REDD. It implies that the forest carbon will be traded like a commodity.

The REDD programs being implemented are donor driven. The REDD concept is yet to be formally adopted in a treaty by parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The original idea behind REDD was that if developing economies with significant forested areas reduced conversion of forest land to other uses, they would generate carbon credits that could be traded into a global emissions trading scheme set up under a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. Revenue lost by curbing productive activity on converted land would be substituted by revenue from ‘farming carbon”.

While the whole idea of helping poor countries with forests to preserve them sounds good and benevolent. But people well familiar with global warming issues and importance of forests for economy and local people are not convinced that REDD can offer any meaningful solution to the address the basic issues responsible for climate change problems.

1. REDD, when used as a carbon offset strategy, does not actually help reduce GHG emission.

Scientist point out that the total amount of CO₂emissions is crucial in terms of how much the earth warms up. Every tonne of CO2 counts, whether it is emitted today or in fifty years. Preventing GHG emission through REDD in developing countries and emitting an equivalent amount in a rich country simply confuses the issue. It only allows rich nations to by time by paying a significantly small sum for carbon credit.

2. Dangers of trading carbon as commodity

Many people are not comfortable with the idea of carbon trading as the way of funding REDD. The vast majority of carbon trading on the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme is in futures, not in spot trading of carbon credits. The available derivatives are too complicated to be regulated. Therefore, as it happens with other commodities, the price often gets dictated by speculators and not the normal law of demand and supply.

3. Problematic definition of “forest”

The definition of forests as adopted by the parties to the Kyoto Protocol in 2001 is another troublesome area. This definition includes not only a forest as we commonly know it, but also any kind of tree monoculture, and even areas that are clear-cut but waiting to be planted again at an unspecified future moment. Adopting this flawed definition mean that companies could replace forests with monoculture tree plantations and still qualify for subsidies under REDD. Many experts feel that without a definition of forests that differentiates between forests and industrial tree plantations, REDD will spell disaster.

Likewise, while the term “deforestation” has been defined as the direct human-induced conversion of forested land to non-forested land, there is no universally agreed-upon definition of “forest degradation”. This will cause complications when REDD projects are implemented.

4. REDD projects could displace indigenous people

Whoever pays for the REDD project is actually only interested in the carbon, biodiversity and forest dwellers who survive on the forest are unlikely to be his concern. Given the level of corruption and lack of clear land rights, the native people in developing countries who have lived and sustained on the forest products may suddenly find themselves landless and without means to survive.

Many human rights and environmental groups feel that REDD will inevitably take away control of forests from the Indigenous People and will go in the hands of state forest departments, loggers, miners, plantation companies, traders, lawyers, and speculators; resulting in violations of rights, loss of livelihood – and, ultimately, more forest loss.

The whole idea of rich donors being philanthropic and helping developing countries preserve forests must be seen through the dynamics of world politics. Besides, the equitable treatment of forest dwellers, countries where forest based economic activities provide revenues as well as significant number of jobs must carefully decide the worth of a low carbon economy driven by western powers for the development of their people in the long run.