Forests and the benefits they provide are multidimensional. The relative value given to forests has also varied in different stages of human history. My home country was named after the Brazilwood tree, which was one of the dominant features of the economy of the colony’s first two centuries of Portuguese rule. Pau Brasil as we know it there, was used as a dye in European high priced textiles. Mature stands of Caesalpinia echinata are virtually extinct throughout its original distribution range, and the species is now classified as Endangered by IUCN.
Long gone are the natural dyes - but hello, carbon. The REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) agenda has become one of the dominant policy debates of the last couple of years, ever since it became widely know that deforestation accounts for some 20% of the global carbon emissions problem. REDD will continue to pick up momentum leading to the UNFCCC COP in Copenhagen at the end of the year. Despite many repeated alerts and pointed commentaries that tropical forests represent much more than tomorrow’s atmospheric CO2, and that trade-offs exist when it comes to addressing the other (largely non-market) values of the forest, donors and policy-makers have kept their attention laser-sharp on this one dimension. It’s the carbon, stupid – what else can’t you get?
Which is fine. Because of carbon, we are entering another economic cycle in which forests are bound to rise in value, after being neglected for over century. The most optimistic commentators estimate that more money might be pumped into forest protection and management, from both voluntary funds and a future market, than any time in history. Therefore, in the process, other values – biodiversity, ecosystem services and livelihoods – might be protected. Which is also fine.
The direction where the policy discussion is heading seems to point to money flowing to places where deforestation has been particularly high in recent times, or where forests are under imminent threat. The corollary is that the so-called High Forests / Low Deforestation countries (e.g., Suriname, Gabon and others) could be left out of the overall payments and market frameworks. The underlying rationale for prioritizing High Deforestation countries is the achievement of net carbon emission reductions globally. If your forest is not bound to become smoke in the near future, it will be as valuable inside the REDD scheme as the hundreds of thousands of species of unnamed bugs that live in it. Which might not be fine.
It might not fine for a number of reasons. First, one might conclude that REDD resources will be rewarding the poor stewards of forests throughout the world, leaving little left for those who have been doing a good job maintaining their forests healthy and shielded for destructive forces. From a technocratic perspective, this might sound more like a moral argument than one destined to help move rapidly to reverse the perverse impacts of climate change. But there is more to it. Most of the carbon-relevant tropical forest stocks are located in poor developing countries. The costs of maintaining these stocks are being met primarily by these countries, which also face tremendous development challenges. Furthermore, if you have worked long enough in tropical forests, you will come to appreciate that no tract of unprotected or unregulated forest is safe forever - the odds are they will eventually be converted to other uses. Finally, the countries left out might be compelled to speed up the process of conversion of their forests so as to become relevant in the global scheme.
Enough rambling for now. In its February 19 issue, Nature has published a groundbreaking paper signed by 33 co-authors (Lewis, S. L. et al. Increasing carbon storage in intact African tropical forests. Nature 457:1003-1067, 2009) strongly suggesting that carbon continues to be stored in intact forests of Africa. These results match similar findings for the Amazon dating back over a decade. While forests will not grow forever, the estimated rates of carbon accumulation over a period of 39 years covered by the Lewis et al. study amount to about 1% of the average standing stocks. The paper speculates why these largely intact forests have not reached an equilibrium, and continue to store carbon, but the take home conclusion is quite significant for the policy discussions.
If these results could start to sophisticate further the policy debate, perhaps progress could be made in the “no forest left behind” agenda. Intact forests are not carbon stocks sitting idly, but at least for now are playing an active role in reducing the rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere. These carbon pumps deserve due financial attention, perhaps through the creation of financing schemes in the form of “preventive credits” directed at the standing stocks, and also helping keep the carbon pumps functioning well into the future.