The pendulum swings to the other direction

Published by: The Jakarta Post, 17 October 2008

According to a new study published in the Sept. 11 2008 edition of London-based science journal Nature, old growth, or primary forests, continue to absorb carbon from the atmosphere. This contrasts with decades of thought that these forests are "carbon neutral", releasing as much carbon as they capture.

The finding will have big consequences.

Firstly, more urgency will be placed on the conservation of old-growth forests because leaving the forests standing now makes greater economical sense, not only ecological value. Scientists consistently argue that the value of captured carbon is thought to outweigh the value of harvested timber.

Up till now, calls for conservation of such forests are often opposed on economic grounds in regard to logging operations. Since economic gains from environmental services and values are still not clear, forest conservation of old forests could be logically deemed an "economic loss".

With a greater understanding of forests' important role in mitigating climate change, more countries, particularly industrialized nations mandated with emission reduction, will be interested in preserving the forests. Countries can now expect obvious economic gains, saving on climate change mitigation through conservation investments.

Secondly, the finding is likely to change the landscape of global climate change regimes. According to the Kyoto Protocol, preservation of the forests are not acknowledged as a mitigation scheme since the protocol only recognizes changes to the carbon stock by afforestation, reforestation and deforestation.

With the finding that carbon sequestration by old-growth forests is scientifically proven, countries like Russia, Canada, Australia and the United States will get some "fresh air" in their congested emissions. Those countries possess vast old forests.

They will without doubt urge the next frameworks of climate change regimes to provide "more credits" for leaving the forests untouched.

The study unveils that old-growth forests in Russia, Canada and Alaska, the United States, alone have the potential to absorb more than 1 gigatonnes of carbon annually, or about 10 percent of the global net uptake of carbon dioxide. If this new finding is elaborated at the next climate change negotiations, it will ease their mitigation burdens to some extent. Therefore, those countries will be more confident in meeting their emission targets.

Apparently, the pendulum will swing swiftly in favor of those countries, which ironically contributed to the bulk of past emissions. With a "healthier" carbon balance due the contribution of their old-growth forests, they are likely to reassess their investments on climate change mitigation.

Many mitigation schemes, like REDD-related projects, will be evaluated. Under REDD frameworks, Annex I (industrialized) nations can "buy" carbon budget emission reductions to meet their emission targets from developing countries.

The reductions are seen as a "positive" balance because developing countries are not mandated with any reduction targets.

In fact, some "North-South Alliances" on REDD are now emerging. Nonetheless, with the new development on the contribution of old-growth forests in their carbon balance, the developed nations might not need to invest in as much as they do. They could even expect more economic windfalls if their carbon balance proved a net positive.

On the other hand, the latest development might disappoint countries with expectations of tangible benefits. Indonesia itself, for instance, now actively collaborates with some industrialized nations, such as Germany and Australia, for REDD-related projects with such expectations.

Overall, the new scientific findings will provide some industrialized nations with more bullets in climate change negotiations.

If it is the case, the future landscapes of the climate change regime is likely to see more pressure on developing countries, like Indonesia, that are main emitters. Instead of economic payments, the countries could be burdened more with mitigation-associated costs. This would be a sour consequence.

The politics of deforestation

By Ahmad Maryudi
Published in The Jakarta Post, 6 October 2008

In the Guinness Book of Records (GWR) 2009 Edition released this month, Indonesia is once again referred to as the country with the world's highest rate of deforestation. Citing the FAO's State of the World's Forests 2007 (SOFO), the country has "destroyed" its forests at a rate of 1.8 million hectares annually during the period 2000 to 2005. Indonesia was also listed with the record in the previous edition.

Last July, Indonesia also placed poorly at 102 of 149 countries in the 2008 Environmental Performance Index published by Yale and Columbia Universities. The poor position is mainly due to the minimum score for forest management as deforestation in the country was seen as very massive.

Jakarta has been angered by such notorious images and subsequently questioned the validity of data and methodology used. It hit back that neither were based on scientific merit, and were only a "piece of sensationalism" for political agitation.

The Forestry Ministry officially released the country's annual deforestation in its 2006 Forestry Statistics of only 1.08 million hectares over the same period. Interestingly, the data was developed based on FAO's definition of forests -- the same data used in the GWR and SOFO 2007.

Judging whose arguments are scientifically sound should be based on precise use of some key terms, such as "forests", "deforestation" and "degradation". However, various attempts to define those terms result in unclear definitions. It is not uncommon for different agencies to selectively adopt, use and interpret different definitions and information depending on their tastes and values, even for tendentious purposes.

Let us start by recalling the definitions of important terms by some agencies. First, it is worth to compare the extent to which a particular canopy cover is classified as a forest. The FAO in its final definition in the Global Forest Resources Assessment Update 2005 uses "more than 10 percent".

On the other hand, environmental groups usually adopt more stringent criteria. For instance, Greenpeace in its "World Intact Forest Landscape" adopts "20 percent or more". Also in some cases, they do not refer to "plantations" as "forests", but "wood gardens". Clearly, due to the different definitions of "forests", the forest tracts a particular country has will be different.

It is also worth noting that there is a spectrum of values on "deforestation". First, instead of "deforestation" or "forest loss", such emotive terms as "assault" and "destruction", are nonexistent in the FAO and "forestry societies" across the globe, while they are employed by many environmental groups, to psychologically touch and raise concerns amongst contemporary society.

In addition, the FAO considers a particular forest tract deforested only if there have been permanent changes on the tree canopy cover below the minimum threshold, or if the tract is permanently changed into other uses.

Unless they permanently change the use, silvicultural activities -- including logging operations -- are not considered deforestation. Clearly the FAO adopts inputs from professional foresters, who generally believe that forest areas are expected to regenerate naturally or with the aid of silvicultural measures, depending on the system used.

This applies widely, no exceptions for particular regions. Thus, one should wonder if such changes are viewed differently, accordingly to different parts of the world.

So, which definitions, and consequently data and information, should we adopt? You can choose ones that suit your taste and values as well as purposes. But, if you had no ideas and asked me for recommendations, I would say that for certain reasons, the definitions, data and information of the FAO are not bad to start with.

First, referring to its website, the FAO has been monitoring the world's forests regularly at five to 10 year intervals since 1946. The Global Forest Resources Assessment is also based on data provided by its members in response to a common questionnaire. This means the data will be compatible and comparable across countries and time. Last but not least, FAO's data are regularly referred to even by those which in other occasions question their validity.