The myth of
GHG emissions reductions from “Sustainable Forest Management”
A recent report by Greenpeace
(“Why logging will not save the climate: the fallacy of
GHG emissions reductions from so-called
‘Sustainable Forest Management’ (SFM) or Reduced Impact
Logging (RIL) of natural forests”) evaluates greenhouse gases
(GHG) emissions from the various forms of industrial logging.
The report highlights the value
of primary (ancient or old growth) intact forest not only for
its high biodiversity but also because they are the most resilient
to climate change and contain the biggest carbon stock. However,
consideration of options for the inclusion of Reduced Emissions
from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) often gives reference
to the potential of ‘sustainable management of forests’ as
a way of achieving emissions reductions. The forest industry
and some governments with vested interests in the logging sector,
as well as several international organisations, are pushing a
narrow interpretation and reframing of this under the broader
term of ‘Sustainable Forest Management’
(SFM).
Selective logging affects 28%
of tropical forests worldwide. In Papua New Guinea (PNG), between
2.9 and 4.1 million hectares of primary forest had already been
selectively logged by 2002, and around half of PNG’s forest
(16.3 million hectares) is in concessions and under threat of
becoming degraded as a result of logging. In Indonesia, 42 million
hectares of forest are in concessions. Across Central Africa,
nearly 40 million hectares of primary forest are allocated to
industrial logging concessions.
Typical stand damages in conventional
logging in many developing countries range from 10% to 70% of
the residual trees, depending on logging intensity along with
logging technique. Site damage, such as soil disturbance and
compaction, or erosion will also release greenhouse gases from
other carbon pools. Several studies in Southeast Asia looking
at harvested timber, unutilised tree parts (roots, branches,
etc) and trees, lianas and other vegetation damaged or destroyed,
found that the direct impact of selective logging results in
an approximate 50% reduction in biomass carbon. Taking into account
road-building and infrastructure, as well as fragmentation and
edge effects, carbon stock losses are even greater. Roads in
particular are viewed as ‘the seeds of tropical forest
destruction’. Furthermore, if the indirect impacts of logging
are considered, such as edge effects increasing drought sensitivity
and the likelihood of being burnt, or improved access increasing
the risk of degradation or conversion, then the climate impacts
of selective logging would be considerably greater. In the Amazon,
remote sensing found that selective logging doubled the area
of forest degraded by human activities.
Degradation of primary forest
through logging, whether it be conventional or SFM, limits the
ability of these forests to absorb anthropogenic CO2, whilst
increasing their vulnerability to climate change. SFM is a forest
degradation activity and -in particular in comparison with forest
conservation, restoration or protection- it cannot claim that
it results in emission reductions.
It doesn’t seem efficient
or effective to give considerable financial or carbon incentives
to logging companies who are production and profit driven to
attempt managing forests ‘sustainably’, and whether
these companies can be trusted to deliver real emission reductions.
Many of these companies are embroiled in scandals related to
illegalities, corruption and destructive practices.
REDD-incentivised SFM may in
fact end up being a subsidy for the expansion of logging into
primary forests and intact forest landscapes.
In addition, net rather than
gross accounting rules for deforestation rates that allow for
SFM (emissions from logging less removals by regrowth) may increase
incentives to expansion of logging into primary forests. Given
that under the current UN definition, a forest is only required
to have a 10% canopy, many models of so-called SFM would likely
allow considerable degradation of the forest without impacting
on forest cover and deforestation rates.
Thus, one of the conclusions
of the report is that “No REDD funds should be used to
support or subsidise industrial logging of forests, whether it
is claimed to be so called SFM or not.”
(1) Extracted from Greenpeace
report: “Why logging will not save the climate: the fallacy
of GHG emissions reductions from so-called ‘Sustainable
Forest Management’
(SFM) or Reduced Impact Logging (RIL) of natural forests”,
Rosoman, G., Cotter, J., & Marahrens, M, September 2009, http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content
/international/press/reports/why-logging-will-not-save-the.pdf
