As many Sir David Attenborough fans saw in this week’s episode of ‘Seven Worlds, one planet’, there are numerous challenges when it comes to forest conservation, particularly in economics and politics.
Orang-utan habitats are facing destruction for palm oil expansion. Image: Teodor Kuduschiev - Unsplash
Attenborough described the deforestation that has occurred on the island of Borneo since he first visited in 1956 in search of orang-utans. Ancient forests have been cleared in favour of planting a very different tree – oil palm.
Timelapse of deforestation over Borneo showing a typical fishbone deforestation pattern expanding as roads penetrate the forest, increasing access - Tweet via @BBCEarth
In the present economic climate, cash crops like palm oil seem to be more lucrative than maintaining standing forest. But, could farmers be paid to keep forests standing, instead?
REDD+ in the red
The answer is yes. However, in monetary terms, the land is worth drastically less as forest than as cropland. The reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation plus (REDD+) mechanism pay countries for every tonne of certified emissions reductions from keeping forests standing. However, research by Butler et al. found that converting old-growth forest for palm oil in Sumatra would be worth yielding net values between $3,835–$9,630 per hectare. Under REDD+ credits, the old-growth forest would be worth only $614–$994. These findings are limited by the fact that it is incredibly challenging to estimate tropical forest carbon storage. Therefore, it is difficult to give avoided carbon emissions a representative market value that can compete with the established commodity markets. The representation of the value of forests in global economics is one of many issues to face REDD+ in the last decade.
In a positive step, at New York Climate week, the government of Norway agreed to pay twice the going rate of carbon, increasing payments from $5/tonne of reduced emissions to $10. The addition is a promising move; however, this value still pales in comparison with the potential value for palm oil. Currently, smallholders who depend on farming cannot give up their livelihoods in favour of conservation. They need fair compensation, and as yet, REDD+ has struggled to compete.
Economic challenge
The fact that forests are worth less than crops is a worrying reality of a short-term, global economy. The REDD+ initiative relies on a strong market value for carbon, however until carbon holds a higher value than crops like palm oil, smallholders have little choice but to look to agribusiness for income.
Political palaver
Some governments also fail to see the value of forests as a mitigation solution and a provider of ecosystem services that support local livelihoods. The most recent publicised case is in the Brazilian Amazon. Rather than enforcing the protection of the world’s largest tropical forest, President Bolsonaro favours opening the forest for development. The annual fire season in the Amazon is a practice to clear land for cattle pasture. This year, since the new President’s election, a conservative estimate predicts over 7747km2 of the forest has been lost. Brazil’s Amazon Environmental Research Institute fear this year is the worst for deforestation since 2008.
A significant challenge for conservation, reforestation, or afforestation is accounting for the value of forests in economic and political decision-making. For forest-based NCS to be sustainable, the value of these ecosystems needs to be understood by those in power and protected to transcend fluctuations in politics and markets.
Comments