Commodifying Forests is Dangerous Greenwashing

Estimated reading time: 8 minutes

Commodifying forests and seeing them as merely an “investment” or carbon credit to be bought and sold is fraught with risks. Carbon markets without adequate regulation and monitoring facilitate dangerous greenwashing. For example a neoliberal economic approach to forests denies indigenous sovereignty, social and economic outcomes of communities and poses grave extinction risks to wild animals and plants.

Written by Constance McDermott, Senior Fellow in Forest Governance and Leader of Ecosystems Governance Group, University of Oxford. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Forests are great carbon sinks. They absorb more carbon from the atmosphere than they release. Globally, forests remove nearly all of the two billion tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere every year.

These days, companies can buy “carbon credits” for the carbon that is stored in living forests. Furthermore they can offset this against their own greenhouse gas emissions. By 2050, Africa could be selling US$1.5 trillion in carbon credits per year, mainly from its forests.

Environmental social scientists in a report on global forest governance found that buying and selling forest carbon as a commodity is dangerous. Particularly if it is prioritised over the other environmental and social uses of forests. Such an approach causes environmental damage and the displacement of forest-dependent people.

What is a carbon sink?

All living things contain carbon. Living organisms are considered carbon sinks when they absorb more carbon from the atmosphere than they release. Many ecosystems serve as carbon sinks, but forests have a large biomass (wood and twigs and leaves on the forest floor). This makes them a very important sink from a climate perspective.

When forests are destroyed, their stored carbon is released into the atmosphere and becomes a source of carbon emissions rather than a sink.

What’s the problem with commodifying forests as a carbon sink?

Forests support and regulate soil, water and nutrient flows. Moreover, forests provide habitat for the majority of the world’s species that live on land. In addition, they provide people with food, fuel, fibre, medicine and other products.

They are important to the cultural survival and well-being of many communities. In Africa alone, an estimated 245 million people live within five kilometres of a forest, and many of these people rely directly on forests for their livelihoods.

Our research found that forests are increasingly being managed as carbon sinks. Therefore the carbon they store treated as a commodity that can be internationally traded. Commodifying forests with carbon markets allow businesses and governments to earn credits by paying for forests that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This technicality makes it cheaper for businesses to reduce their own emissions.

Green grabs and indigenous land-grabbing

Governing forests only as carbon sinks can promote “green grabs” and dangerous greenwashing. For instance, where non-forested land, such as grasslands, used by communities for farming and other activities, is forcefully taken and used by corporates to plant monocultures to store carbon.

Sub-Saharan Africa, in particular, is being targeted as a readily available and inexpensive location for one million hectares of forest restoration and tree plantations.

The danger of marginalising people in carbon markets

Commodifying forests is threatening for people who do not have secure rights to the forests and land they depend on. These communities can even be restricted or banned from entering the forest. Research has found that forest-dependent communities are rarely given power to address their own priorities in forest carbon sink schemes. This can cause conflict locally and weaken local democracy.

For example in Mai-Ndombe forest in the Democratic Republic of Congo, 100,000 people live in 23 villages. Activities in the Mai-Ndombe under the global Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) focused on changing the practices of forest-dependent communities. These people were told to stop traditional methods of clearing forests for subsistence farming.

However most of the land was already allocated to companies for timber, mining and carbon credit sequestration. Thus large companies continue to extract major economic benefits from forests. At the same time excluding local communities from their land.

These efforts to share benefits locally are very important. However, asking farmers to plant or conserve trees does not address the fact that farmers are not earning a living income from selling cocoa.

Inequities and economic imbalance in carbon markets is obvious

Ghana’s cocoa farmers receive less than 7.5% of the value of a chocolate bar sold in international markets, and they suffer from food insecurity and increasing crop failures due to climate change. They do not have legal rights to the native trees that regenerate naturally on their cocoa farms.

The focus of REDD+ on channelling large amounts of money into forests as carbon could mean that many farmers lose access to land for growing food. Also they cannot meet livelihood needs. Therefore a balanced approach is urgently needed to address the core challenges the farmers are facing.

A people-centred approach to forests is needed

Forests can absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide and still support communities. A people-centred approach to forests is needed. This means giving local communities secure rights to their land and forest resources, and governing forests according to what best suits the local context, rather than making forest use fit the international market.

An indigenous-centred approach to conflict resolution works

The important role of traditional authorities and local customs in managing land and resolving conflicts must be recognised. Many traditional practices have managed forests sustainably for thousands of years. The challenge is to value and support these alternative approaches.

Written by Constance McDermott, Senior Fellow in Forest Governance and Leader of Ecosystems Governance Group, University of Oxford. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

ENDS

---

Read more about deforestation and ecocide in the palm oil industry