Carbon Sinks time to see the forest among the trees
Carbon sequestration or storage in trees is often mooted as a potential, if partial and temporary, solution to the problem of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Although the idea to “Plant a Tree and Save the Climate” is appealing at first glance, it seems that a number of key aspects have yet to be brought into the debate to ensure the decisions to be taken in The Hague on carbon sinks will not pave the way for lose-lose rather than win-win projects:
First, among all the scientific uncertainty about carbon sinks, science is unambiguous about one aspect: Stabilization of the earth’s climate requires emissions reductions of about 70 percent[1]. Thus, using “sinks” to help Northern countries meet their current emissions reduction targets cannot promote a liveable climate. Temporary sequestration therefore diverts attention from the real challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and this may put at risk the very “carbon sink” projects that companies and governments are playing with today to avoid tackling the root of the problem. Any delay in action now will be a cause for regret in a few decades’ time when climate change is likely to have detrimental effects on up to one third of the world’s forests.
Second, to make even a small impact on overall emissions, carbon sequestration must be on a very large scale. Combine this with the fact that large-scale industrial tree plantations[2] are much cheaper and, from a companies’ perspective, much easier to administer than small-scale, community-driven projects, and chances are slim for a substantial number of well-designed conservation- and community-oriented projects.
Third, the scientific debate about carbon sequestration has so far centred on natural science and questions of measurability and technical difficulties, thus ignoring the people who are affected. When we talk about land use and forests, we also have to talk about people and the impact changes to land use practices will have on people, and their livelihoods, which directly affect greenhouse gas emissions.
And last but not least has anybody asked those people most affected? What about the hardship delayed action brings to communities faced with oil exploration, to communities in the vicinity of polluting power plants and to communities who will have to put up with potential “carbon sink” plantation projects? The adverse effects of Climate Change hit Indigenous Peoples particularly hard, yet they have had little chance to participate in the debate, as demonstrated by the following quote from Hector Huertas, Co-ordinator on Climate Change of Indigenous Peoples of Meso America “We consider that it is unjust that discussions proceed without consultation or equal participation on the use of our forests and territories as part of the flexible mechanisms for the reduction of emissions. This is particularly disconcerting as such measures proposed by the CDM directly effect our traditional territories and nationally and internationally recognized rights.”
To be clear, we strongly believe that we need commitment and action to both halt deforestation and to secure a liveable climate. But reducing forests to a single commodity carbon to be traded under the Kyoto Protocol’s Flexible Mechanisms is doomed to fail in achieving either. With regard to climate, it takes away the focus from urgently needed emission reduction programmes, and with regard to forests, how can we assume money from the Kyoto Protocol’s Flexible Mechanisms will curb deforestation when the real issues that drive deforestation have not even been addressed? If the idea of carbon sinks takes root, we will have planted yet another “lost decade” to safeguarding forests and forest peoples’ rights.