Global scientists are concerned that decision markers are now placing far too much emphasis on green finance and forests’ role as carbon sinks, and not enough on complex ecosystems or improving social welfare.
That is according to a 165-page report published by the International Union of Forest Research Organisations (IUFRO), representing more than 15,000 forest scientists worldwide – who are calling on policymakers to shift their focus away from carbon sequestration.
Authored by the IUFRO’s Science Policy Programme, the group is concerned with the growing “climatisation” of forests and urges global governments to deprioritise market-based solutions and instead focus on forests’ social value.
Looking into the administration of Payments for Ecosystem Services (or PES), it has raised concerns with the UN-backed REDD+ approach to emissions reductions, which it said: “allows and supports changes in forest ownership, and allows it to be sold to hose bidding highest, which may contribute to injustice.”
The study also criticised international forest governance, which it said has been too slow to slow global deforestation—more than ten football pitches of forests are still lost every minute.
While acknowledging progress in reducing the global rates of tropical deforestation, the report warns that there is still a rising sense of crisis over climate change, biodiversity loss, and increasing unrest over social and economic inequalities.
The result is a rise of new markets for carbon and biodiversity that often focus on short-term economic gains over long-term sustainability and justice. The current international forestry governance system (IFG) has led to an “Olympics” of different targets.
“Both the New York (COP 21) and Glasgow (COP 27) pledges have been critiqued as lacking speciality in their definitions and means of achievement,” the report said, “representing a ‘Target Olympics’ that risks impeding, rather than supporting, more transformational change.”
“According to the FAO, “zero-deforestation has spread globally” to encompass many international NGOs and industry organisations that have pledged to remove deforestation from their supply chains.”
However, these “zero-deforestation commitments”,” including pledges made by the governments, corporates and ENGOs including WWF, Wildlife Conservation Society, and BirdLife International, the report “found frequent failures in their adequacy to their targets and follow-through.”
“While the creation of highly ambitious targets may be politically appealing, the pressure it puts on governments and other actors to demonstrate progress can incentivise the manipulation or inflation of implementation results.” Adding that “establishing quantitative targets can result in actors focusing on singular proxies to represent complex phenomena, and thereby disconnecting what is measured from the actual desired outcome.”
The report also said that using deforestation rates as the leading indicator for IFG effectiveness shows a “limited awareness of the diversity of needs and demands” connected to forests worldwide.
According to the report’s main author, Professor Daniela Kleinschmit, there is nothing wrong with considering forests as carbon storage; however, many other factors need to be considered.
Instead, Professor Kleinschmit said, “There is no one-size-fits-all approach,” stressing the need for greater focus on forests as ecosystems, biodiversity, and how they impact the people who depend on them.
“We should be looking into who is benefitting from issues around forest governance and who might be losing from them, as well,” told Forbes overnight, adding that “the needs and the priorities of people in different regions will differ, including what they want from a forest and what they need for it to happen.”
She also rejected the “win-win” marketing narrative, where consumers are pushed into thinking they are negating environmental impact if they don’t support tree planting when purchasing consumer products.
“In some countries, there are also spiritual and cultural impacts if you take away trees or plant another tree there,” she added. “We have to consider these spiritual and cultural needs.”
Another of the report’s lead authors, Professor Constance McDermott from the University of Oxford, said in a statement that “market-based approaches” to forest governance, such as carbon trading and zero-deforestation supply chains, are becoming increasingly popular.”
But she added they also risk “perpetuating inequalities and producing perverse effects” on sustainable forest management.”
“Non-market-based mechanisms such as state regulation and community-led initiatives offer important alternative pathways for just forest governance.”
- To learn more about the report, download it from the IUFRO website.
