Tree Plantations: Impacts and Struggles
World Rainforest Movement

back to index

Tree plantations and climate change

Message from Bratislava to Kyoto on tree plantations

The fourth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity took place in Bratislava from 4-15 May. Among its many decisions, we wish to highlight one related to forest biological diversity which "Notes the potential impact of afforestation, reforestation, forest degradation and deforestation on forest biological diversity and on other ecosystems, and, accordingly, requests the Executive Secretary to liaise and cooperate with the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to achieve the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity."

What is the coded message behind such apparently obscure phrasing? The Climate Change Convention process is actively promoting tree plantations as one of the major mechanisms to act as carbon sinks to counteract fossil fuel emissions. Article 2 of the Kyoto Protocol states that:

"1. Each Party included in Annex I [those responsible for major fossil fuel emissions], in achieving its quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments under Article 3, in order to promote sustainable development, shall:

(a) Implement and/or further elaborate policies and measures in accordance with its national circumstances, such as:

(ii) Protection and enhancement of sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol, taking into account its commitments under relevant international environmental agreements; promotion of sustainable forest management practices, afforestation and reforestation;"

The terms "afforestation and reforestation" in fact mean millions of hectares of monoculture tree plantations of fast growing species, particularly eucalyptus. Under this light, the Bratislava meeting's message becomes clear: if such plans are implemented, this will certainly affect biodiversity in forests and in other ecosystems. Forests will be substituted by efficient "carbon sinks" composed of few fast growing species and there is therefore an antagonism between the aims of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the mechanism put forward by the Climate Change Convention. We share, welcome and support such concern.

WRM statement to the Fourth Conference of the Parties of the Climate Change Convention, Buenos Aires, November 1998

The WRM is deeply concerned about the direction in which the climate change negotiations seem to be leading, particularly after the Kyoto Protocol. A great number of Northern governments appear to be currently more concerned about seeking to buy their way out of their responsibilities to the global environment --particularly through the Clean Development Mechanism-- instead of implementing actions to effectively counter the greenhouse effect. On the other hand, many Southern governments seem to be equally interested in such approach, and eager to sell their environmental services at the best price possible.

The climate change problem which the world is confronting is however well-known and so are the remedies. The buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is the result of unsustainable production and consumption practices. One of the main greenhouse gases is carbon dioxide. The majority of the emissions of this gas stem from two main sources: the use of fossil fuels and deforestation processes (which release carbon stored in biomass). The remedy is therefore to eliminate the use of fossil fuels and to put a stop to deforestation.

The question is not whether these solutions are possible to achieve now (the knowledge and technology certainly exist), but if governments are creating conditions to reach that objective and if solutions will be implemented before the world's ecosystems and societies reach a total colapse. Unfortunately, this does not seen to be the case.

Tropical forest peoples from all over the world are witnessing a major push in oil and gas exploration --in many cases promoted by multilateral development banks- and are struggling to put a stop to it. Southern governments, hand in hand with Northern oil and gas companies, repress those peoples, while Northern governments turn a blind eye on what their companies do. Those local peoples, while defending their own rights, are simultaneously defending the global environment, given that if their struggles are successful it will mean that less fossil fuel emissions will be released to the atmosphere and fewer tropical forests destroyed.

Deforestation processes continue unabated and the destruction will continue until major changes are introduced to the current unsustainable global economy. Here again, local peoples are standing up to defend their forests and forest lands and are also repressed by their governments to the benefit of local elites and transnational corporations in the logging, mining, oil, plantation, agriculture, aquaculture and other production areas.

Tree plantations, promoted as one of the main solutions to climate change, are themselves resulting in further deforestation processes in many Southern countries, where forests are being substituted by monoculture tree plantations. At the same time, this solution is creating further problems to local peoples and local environments, as the displacement of local populations (resulting in further deforestation), the depletion of soil and water resources, the elimination of habitats of local wildlife and flora, etc.

We therefore demand governments present at the COP4:

1) To undertake real commitment to forest conservation by supporting --instead of repressing-- local communities willing to preserve their forests

2) To create conditions to allow local communities to manage their community forests, including the legal recognition of the territorial rights of indigenous and other traditional forest and forest-dependent peoples

3) To address the land-tenure issue and promote a genuinlly participatory agrarian reform in order to avoid planned and unplanned peasant migrations to the forests

4) To avoid the promotion of large-scale monoculture tree plantations (particularly exotics) and to promote the re-establishment of forests through the plantation of species native to each area in those cases where local communities are willing to bring their forests back

5) To avoid the implementation of infrastructure and other projects which could directly or indirectly result in deforestation processes

6) To address the international underlying causes of deforestation and forest degradation

7) To coordinate with other international processes dealing with equally important environmental issues, such as the Convention of Biological Diversity and the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests, to make sure that initiatives within the different processes are not antagonistic to each other, such as in the case of the promotion of large-scale carbon sink tree plantations, which contribute to further deforestation and biodiversity loss.

Are tree monocultures a solution to global warming?

The Kyoto Protocol, agreed in December 1997, has been criticised for its market-oriented approach, since it tends to establish a trading system to buy and sell carbon emissions. Tree plantations have gained a major role in relation to this issue because of their supposed condition of carbon sinks. The Protocol established that afforestation is one of the activities that Annex I countries can undertake to achieve their "quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments" for greenhouse effect gases (Art. 2). It also stated that "removals by sinks resulting from direct human-induced land-use change and forestry activities, limited to afforestation, reforestation and deforestation, since 1990, measured as verifiable changes in carbon stocks" are to be considered by Annex I countries to meet such commitments (Art 3.3.). According to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) this group includes industrialised countries and ex-planified economy countries, in process of transition to a market economy.

The so-called Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), defined by the Kyoto Protocol in Article 12 as a form of cooperation between both groups, provides a way by which Northern countries will be able to comply with their commitments, simply through the establishment of extensive tree monocrops in the South. When a public or private entity of an Annex I country invests in a plantation project in the South, it is the investing country that will receive emission reduction certification for the project. As a matter of fact this provision, that goes together with the net approach, means that industrialized countries are freed of their responsibility to cut their carbon emissions in a significant way, while the South will offer their territory to projects aimed at capturing them, which will bring negative environmental consequences with them, as tree monocrops do. On the other hand it is not fair that those countries historically responsible for global warming would now receive assistance from poor countries. This is "foreign aid" upside down, isn’t it?

Let’s take the case of the tree plantation project promoted by the Dutch FACE Foundation (Forests Absorbing Carbon Dioxide Emissions). This organisation aims to plant 150,000 hectares of trees to absorb CO2 equivalent to that emitted by a modern 600 MW coal fired power plant. Half of this area has been set up in the Ecuadorian Andes. Far from promoting the use of native species, the project is based on eucalyptus and pines. Even though these exotic species grow slowly in that environment, FACE justifies their use by saying that most of the native species in Ecuador have disappeared because of deforestation and that local people’s knowledge about them have been lost with the forests themselves. This is however untrue and the only reasonable argument to justify the use of exotics is that they are easier and cheaper to plant.

Large-scale monoculture plantations are known to be detrimental to the environment, both in natural forests and in grassland ecosystems: decrease in water yield at the basin level, acidification and loss of permeability of soils, nutrient depletion, alteration in the abundance and richness of flora and fauna. Nevertheless, there is an aspect of plantations that is perhaps not so well known: their social and cultural effects. Indigenous peoples and local communities that live in the forests are suffering encroachment of their lands by plantation companies and are forced to leave them, losing their lands and livelihoods, what means undermining the material and spiritual basis of their respective cultures. In many cases, plantations require the previous destruction of the natural forests. The case of the Tupinikim and Guarani indigenous peoples in Espirito Santo, Brasil, is paradigmatic. After a long and unequal struggle to recover their ancestral lands, taken away by Aracruz Cellulose to establish eucalyptus plantations for pulp production, they were recently forced to sign an agreement that reduces significantly the area of their lands, to the benefit of the company. In the Portuguesa state of Venezuela, Smurfitt Cartons is dispossessing local peasants of their lands and destroying and replacing riverine forests with eucalyputs, pines and gmelina monocrops. Oil palm plantation companies in Sumatra, Indonesia, are expropriating local peoples’ lands, which has resulted in civil unrest, since they are willing to defend their lands and livelihoods. Similar situations involving either eucalyptus and/or oil palm are also frequent in Sarawak, Malaysia, where indigenous peoples are being dispossessed of their traditional lands to make way to plantations and are fighting back to defend the forests. In Chile, large-scale pine plantations have expelled peasants from their lands and substituted the forests that provided to people's livelihoods. The list of local communities affected by tree plantations is indeed very long and the above are just a few examples to prove the social and environmental destruction that this "solution" can imply if implemented at an even larger scale.

Other global processes --as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests-- are now warning about the potential impacts of tree plantations on forest biological diversity and on other attributes of natural ecosystems. Even the Kyoto Protocol itself mentions that Annex I countries "shall strive to implement (their) commitments ... in such a way as to minimize adverse social, environmental and economic impacts on developing country Parties" (Art. 3.14). However, actions are going in the opposite direction to words. National inventories of greenhouse-effect gases that every state has to prepare for monitoring its situation in relation to the commitments of UNFCCC consider the increase of tree plantation areas --called "planted forests"-- as positive for the global environment and include carbon capture by plantations in their respective budgets. Such methodology was adopted without taking into account the mentioned negative impacts nor the regional or local features that can affect the calculation. The net effect of a plantation on carbon intake --once all the variables are taken into account-- is still at the hypothesis stage.

In sum, the promotion of tree monoculture plantations under the CDM by the ongoing global process on climate change has a weak scientific basis. From a political, social and environmental perspective, far from being a solution to the problem, they contribute to consolidate a scheme that is threatening people and the environment worldwide. A change in this approach is urgently needed. Article 9 of the Kyoto Protocol itself considers the possibility of implementing such changes "in the light of the best available scientific information and assessments on climate change and its impacts, as well as relevant technical, social and economic information". But, of course, this is not a matter of wording but of political will. Shall the COP4 in Buenos Aires be another lost opportunity?

For and against forest conservation and climate stabilization

Deforestation and forest degradation worldwide have been and are cause of concern. Rates of loss in tropical as well as in temperate and boreal areas are alarming. All tropical forests have suffered an increase in the rate of deforestation, while the few remaining primary temperate forests, as well as boreal forests are under severe threat.

Forests are not empty. They are the home of millions of indigenous peoples and local communities, which live in or near them and depend on their resources. Besides the services forest ecosystems provide at the local level, they are a major factor for the stabilization of the global climate. This function is of course not new, but the ongoing process of discussions and negotiations on global warming have emphasized its importance. In effect, the UNFCCC in its Art. 1.7 defines "reservoirs" as "a component of the climate system where a greenhouse gas or a precursor of a greenhouse gas is stored". Since, according to the above mentioned definition, mature forests are enormous carbon reservoirs, their conservation is capital for avoiding an increase in the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. On the contrary the destruction of primary forests, through fires for example, adds considerable quantities of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Deforestation and changing land-use patterns also add other greenhouse gases to the air. The conversion of forest to rangelands increases the liberation of methane and the burning of forests adds nitrous oxide to the atmosphere. It is out of discussion that forest conservation worldwide would be an effective way of achieving the ultimate objective of the UNFCCC, that is "the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system" (Article 2). Article 4.1.d of the Convention establishes –among the commitments of all Parties- their obligation to promote and cooperate in the conservation and enhancement of sinks and reservoirs, including forests.

Nevertheless, and in spite of the official conferences, consultations and workshops happening here and there, that result in nice declarations and recommendations, very little has been done to stop this destructive process and avoid its detrimental effects. This cannot reasonably be attributed to the evil nature of the stakeholders involved, but to the logics of the dominating economic system. The market oriented approach has completely ignored the negative effects of forest destruction on the forests themselves as a natural resource, on global climate and, for sure, on the people that live in and on them. Promotion of cash-crops, ranching schemes, tree monocrops, commercial logging, oil exploitation, large dam projects are showing that deforestation is not casual or "natural" but the consequence of such an approach. Some cases shall be mentioned.

- Southern countries are being more and more pushed to deplete their natural resources –forests included- to generate funds to pay their foreign debt. Indonesia, for example, aims at becoming the first oil palm exporter in the world. Local communites and indigenous peoples are deprived of their land and forests by oil palm companies, that do not hesitate even in setting fire to natural forests to clear up land for plantations. The increase of paper consumption in the North is causing the expansion of tree plantations for pulp in lands previously occupied by natural forests that are substituted after logging, as it is happening with pine plantations in the temperate forests of Chile. Paradoxically in Tasmania, Australia, center of origin of the genus Eucalyptus, massive native clearance and replacement by monoculture plantations are underway.

- Local communities and environmental organizations are denouncing and facing destructive logging activities. In Gabon, for example, the primary tropical forest of the Okano River Basin is being felled down by Malaysian logging companies. Environmental groups of Guatemala have recently succeeded in disuading the US logging giant Simpson Forestry to continue its logging activities in the Rio Dulce area. These kinds of activities are not limited to the South: logging is also destroying the Pacific old-growth rainforests of Canada and the USA and environmentalists have suffered even physical violence for their activities.

- Oil exploration and exploitation is an important factor for the destruction of tropical forests, which adds yet another negative point to the performance of oil companies in relation to global warming. The Yasuni National Park, a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve in Ecuador, and Kithar National Park in Pakistan, are being menaced by oil exploration by Perez Compact of Argentina, Elf of France and Premier Oil. In Nigeria, Shell has not only been depleting the forests and encroaching native peoples lands, but also using the apparatus of State security to threaten those who oppose its activities. At the same time Shell is setting up tree plantations in the South, with the aim of creating a "green image".

- Mining activities are also an important factor of forest degradation. Virgin rainforest of Suriname are threatened by the increase of mining concessions that the Government is granting to foreign companies. The Grasberg gold mine in Irian Jaya, Indonesia, is polluting water resources and provoking the loss of local forests. Similar effects is having copper exploitation in Bougainville and Ok Tedi, in Papua New Guinea.

The above mentioned examples are a token of the present discouraging situation and illustrate what the text of the UNFCCC really means by "human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere" (Article 1.2).

At the opposite side, other people are confronting these destructive schemes in their everyday actions to conserve their land, resources and cultures, and are thus positively contributing to climate stabilization:

- The Dayak, indigenous ethnic groups of Sarawak (Malaysia) and Kalimantan (Indonesia), have been leading a long struggle, started in the late 1980s, to stop the destruction of their rainforests by "development" plans such as commercial logging and plantations, large dams and industrial shrimp farming.

- The Cofan indigenous peoples, who have recently occupied the Dureno 1 oil well in the Ecuadorian Amazon; the ‘Uwa struggling against Occidental Petroleum in Colombia, and the Kolla of Salta, Argentina, opposing the San Andres gas pipeline to protect the "yungas", a mountain forest ecosystem rich in biodiversity.

- Small farmer communities of Pucallpa, Peru, who are reverting crops and pasture lands to secondary forests, that provide fuelwood and timber for domestic use, and offer environmental benefits such as biodiversity conservation and carbon sequestration.

- Nigerian environmentalists and indigenous peoples, which are defending the Okomu Forest Reserve, an area that still boasts of pristine forests in spite of economic pressure from the huge monocrop plantations established in it by Michelin Rubber Company and Okomu Oil Palm Company and the logging company Africa Timber and Plywood.

- Environmentalist groups in the North American Pacific Coast, who are bravely facing logging companies to protect the remaining old growth boreal forests.

These people and many others in similar conditions should be regarded as the authentic contributors to the achievement of the "ultimate objetive of this Convention" (Article 2). Several international legal instruments and initiatives mention the role of indigenous peoples and local communities in forest conservation. For instance, the Indigenous Peoples Convention, introduced by the ILO in 1989, calls upon the signatory states to take measures to protect and preserve the environment of the territories indigenous peoples inhabit and to recognize their land rights. The "Call for Action" issued during CBD COP2 in Jakarta, in 1995, stressed "the need to develop and implement methods for sustainable forest management which combine production goals, socioeconomic goals of forest-dependent local communities, and environmental goals."

Unfortunately, the present trend of global negotiations on climate change does not seem to go in this direction. The Kyoto Protocol is being regarded more as a trading agreement than as an environmental agreement, since Northern countries and private corporations –main responsible for the alteration of the world’s climate- are the most relevant actors in the diplomatic scene and seek to impose their points of view. The "promotion of sustainable forest management practices" –as stated in Article 2.ii of the Kyoto Protocol as an obligation of Annex I countries- seems to be only dead letter.

Trees, forests and climate in Buenos Aires

The Conference of the Parties (COP4) of the Climate Change Convention will be meeting during the first two weeks of November in Buenos Aires. Much of the discussion will concentrate on the role of forests as carbon sinks and many negotiations will include deals between Northern and Southern countries on how to trade emissions and sinks: we emit, you sink.

While the whole world expects that COP4 will bring about solutions to global warming, the fact is that many Northern governments --and particularly the major emitters-- will try to trade much of their emissions instead of limiting them at source. On the other side, many Southern governments will be eager to sell their sinks at the best price possible. If it weren't tragic it would be funny: humanity is facing a major threat and governments are tinkering with figures and money instead of implementing real solutions.

Apart from the above, there are a number of further problems which confuse the whole issue, namely the definition of forests, the confusion between carbon reservoirs and sinks, the reductionist view of forests, and the question of whether tree plantations can be carbon sinks.

The climate change negotiations are based on the FAO's definition of forests. According to this organization, a forest is "an ecosystem with a minimum of 10 per cent crown cover of trees and/or bamboos, generally associated with wild flora, fauna and natural soil conditions, and not subject to agricultural practices." The term 'forest' is further subdivided, according to its origin, into two categories: natural forests and plantation forests. Natural forests are "a subset of forests composed of tree species known to be indigenous to the area", while plantation forests are subdivided into: a) "established artificially by afforestation on lands which previously did not carry forest within living memory" and b) "established artificially by reforestation of land which carried forest before, and involving the replacement of the indigenous species by a new and essentially different species or genetic variety."

Amazingly enough, such definition has gone basically unchallenged until now. Any lay person can see that a plantation is not a forest, but the "experts" confuse the issue and define any area covered with trees as being a "forest". The only case in which a plantation could be termed a forest is that in which an area originally covered by forests is replanted with trees and shrubs original to the area. However, this category is explicitly not included in the definition of plantation forests!

From our perspective, tree plantations have only one thing in common with forests: they are full of trees. But the two are essentially different. A forest is a complex, self-regenerating system, encompassing soil, water, microclimate, energy, and a wide variety of plants and animals in mutual relation. A commercial plantation, on the other hand, is a cultivated area whose species and structure have been simplified dramatically to produce only a few goods, whether lumber, fuel, resin, oil, or fruit. A plantation's trees, unlike those of a forest, tend to be of a small range of species and ages, and to require extensive and continuing human intervention. Plantations are much closer to an industrial agricultural crop than to either a forest as usually understood or a traditional agricultural field. Usually consisting of thousands or even millions of trees of the same species, bred for rapid growth, uniformity and high yield of raw material and planted in even- aged stands, they require intensive preparation of the soil, fertilisation, planting with regular spacing, selection of seedlings, weeding using machines or herbicides, use of pesticides, thinning, mechanised harvesting, and in some cases pruning.

The above is not an idle or academic discussion. Accepting the FAO's definition implies accepting plantations as a substitute for forests and therefore accepting that, being "forests", they have a positive social and environmental role to play. This is totally false. It is well documented that large-scale industrial tree plantations have already proven to be detrimental to people and the environment in a large number of countries and in many cases they have been a major cause of deforestation. We therefore demand of the FAO --and those who accept its definitions-- that "natural forests" be called simply forests (primary and secondary) and "forest plantations" be called tree plantations.

A second important confusion is that between carbon reservoirs and carbon sinks. A full-grown forest is a carbon reservoir. Its carbon intake through photosynthesis is balanced with its carbon emissions. The amount of carbon contained in a forest is basically the same all the time. If the forest is destroyed, the stored carbon will be released --sooner or later-- to the atmosphere, thus contributing to the greenhouse effect.

Forests that have been cut and are regrowing can be very efficient in capturing carbon (both in trees and undergrowth) and therefore, as part of many other equally important functions they perform, they can be considered as carbon sinks. As trees grow, their intake of carbon is higher than their emissions, thus having a net positive balance regarding the amount of carbon dioxide (the main greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere.

On the other hand, tree plantations --which are being publicised as the main carbon sinks-- have yet to prove this role. In general terms, any area converted to tree plantations should until proven otherwise be regarded as a net carbon source and not as a carbon sink. In numerous cases, plantations have replaced either primary or secondary forests and this has meant the release of more carbon than that which the growing plantation can capture, even in the long run. There is a second crucial issue: will these plantations be harvested or not? If harvested, then they would at best be no more than temporary sinks, capturing carbon until harvest and then releasing most of the captured carbon in a few years (in some cases even in months) as the paper or other products of the plantation are destroyed. If not harvested, then tree plantations would be occupying millions of hectares of land which could be dedicated to much more useful purposes, such as providing people with food. There is yet another issue concerning the changes that a plantation introduces to the local environment. Converting wetland to plantation can, for instance, result in the release of important amounts of carbon dioxide from the soil.

There are therefore many uncertainties about the assumption that plantations anywhere can be carbon sinks for any length of time longer than the early period of fast growth --and perhaps not always even then. This "common sense" assumption needs to be supported by research before plantations are accepted as carbon sinks.

The distinction between carbon reservoirs and sinks is not a theoretical discussion either. The conservation of a forest cannot be seen as a measure to mitigate global warming, but as a measure to avoid increasing the problem. A forest can be compared with an oil deposit underground. If the oil is kept there, the current situation will not improve, but it will not be aggravated. Therefore, forest conservation should be seen as a necessity to avoid further problems.

On the other hand, it is true that secondary forest regrowth can have a beneficial effect. However, until now, governments and "experts" have emphasized plantations (and not secondary forests) as one of the main solutions to global warming. This is linked to the above discussion on the definition of forests as well as to the discussion that questions the reductionist approach to forests.

At the climate change level, forests are being seen strictly as carbon stores; at the forestry level, forests are seen as wood for industry; at the agricultural level as obstacles to crops; at the pharmaceutical level as potential medicinal plants. Such approaches are all wrong if each is considered in isolation, because forests contain all those potential functions, but only as long as they are viewed as a whole and not as divisible parts. When they are seen and treated as having just one function, then the consequences are negative impacts to local societies and to local environments.

Such an approach is obviously present in the following argument, already being promoted by some "experts": given that primary forests are only carbon reservoirs --and not sinks-- then it makes sense to cut them, to convert them into durable goods (whereby the carbon within will remain locked in the wood until the "durable goods" are destroyed) and to plant a fast growing tree monoculture instead (which will supposedly retrieve extra carbon from the atmosphere). As economists would say: a win-win solution. But forests are not only carbon reservoirs. They perform a number of environmental and social functions which cannot be replaced by those of any plantation. The win-win situation becomes a lose-lose one for local peoples, water catchments, local flora and fauna, agricultural production, etc.

The reductionist approach of seeing forests and trees as carbon reservoirs and sinks is also antagonistic to the policy of biodiversity conservation to which the world's governments have committed themselves, particularly when large-scale plantations are promoted as a major solution to the problem. This contradiction was noted by the Conference of the Parties of the Biodiversity Convention (Bratislava, 1998) which "notes the potential impact of afforestation, reforestation, forest degradation and deforestation on forest biological diversity and on other ecosystems, and, accordingly, requests the Executive Secretary to liaise and cooperate with the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to achieve the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity." Translated, the message is: you are looking at forests and plantations only from your own narrow viewpoint and forgetting that forests (and not plantations) are essential for biodiversity conservation.

Both from a social and environmental perspective (including but not limiting the issue to climate change), we strongly support forest conservation, including primary and secondary forests. But we equally strongly oppose the conversion of forests, forest lands and grasslands to supposed "carbon sink" monoculture plantations, which entail only one (dubious and unproven) positive impact (the capture of carbon dioxide) and a much larger number of negative impacts on peoples' livelihoods and on their environment.

COP4 should thus focus on the emissions side of the equation (limiting the use of fossil fuels, including the much-promoted natural gas). This would involve real commitments to reductions from Northern countries. On the reservoir side of the equation, it should support other ongoing international processes aimed at forest conservation. Regarding sinks, it should only provide incentives for secondary forest regrowth in all countries of the world --and not just in Southern countries-- with the involvement of local communities willing to have an opportunity to bring their forests back. And put the crazy idea of covering millions of hectares of fertile lands to "carbon sink" tree plantations where it belongs: in the dustbin.

Climate Change Convention: much ado about nothing

Nothing much seems to have happened during the 4^th Conference of the Parties held in Buenos (COP4) Aires from 2 to 13 November. From a broad perspective, this can be regarded as very bad news, given that climate change is happening and will increasingly affect the lives of millions of people. From a more concrete perspective, the same news can be seen as positive, given that the majority of governments don't seem to be willing to make the difficult decisions that need to be made: subsitution of fossil fuels by renewable, clean and low impact energy sources and worldwide forest conservation. As the whole discusion on how to address climate change is focused on negotiations to avoid major cuts in fossil fuel use and to avoid real measures to halt deforestation, the seemingly bad news coming from Buenos Aires can be considered -in such a context- as good news.

Regarding forests and tree plantations as carbon reservoirs and sinks, decisions on the definitions of deforestation, reforestation and afforestation as per Article 3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol will be taken by the first COP following release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of a Special Report on Land-Use Change and Forestry (which will take place at COP6). Additionally, it was agreed that decisions on the inclusion of any additional human-induced land-use and forestry activities eligible for consideration by Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (Article 3.4) will also be decided at the first COP following release of the IPCC-Special Report (additional activities could include forestry, forest conservation, soil conservation, other agricultural activities, etc.).

There was pressure from some countries, including Australia and some EU countries to accelerate decisions on definitions under article 3.3 to be made prior to the IPCC Special Report. In the end, these pressures for early decisions were held back, which can be considered a good thing given the important consequences that such definitions may result in. Canada -for instance- has taken the position that clearcutting of forests, including old-growth forests, should not count as a carbon "debit" since they do not consider that as "deforestation", but that replanting clearcuts should count as a carbon "credit" under reforestation. Absurd as this may seem -it would be like a bank account where none of your checks are debited, and all your deposits are credited- Canada's position is indicative of the wide range of problems that will emerge if definitions on deforestation, reforestation and afforestation are adopted without careful analysis of their consequences.

The Buenos Aires meeting also witnessed marked differences in NGO opinion regarding sinks. Some US based NGOs (namely the Environmental Defense Fund, The Nature Conservancy and the World Resources Institute) promoted very wide expanded use of sinks. The World Rainforest Movement, Friends of the Earth, JATAN, WWF, Greenpeace and many other NGOs took the opposite view, stating that not only will wide use of sinks undermine achievement of the objectives of the Convention -which is to stabilize greenhouse gases at levels below which irreversible impacts to ecosystems, including forest ecosystems, will occur- but that additionally, activities promoted under it will more likely lead to overall negative impacts on forest biodiversity and local communities. Concerns included perverse incentives to log and clear primary forests, accelerated expansion of fast-growing monoculture tree plantations and impacts resulting from those processes on local communities and indigenous peoples.

In sum, neither governments nor NGOs are particularly united at the climate change level and many issues still remain open for discussion. Such situation provides a breathing space for all those concerned with people and the environment, to raise awareness among the public about the role that their governments are playing in these negotiations, so as to influence them in a more positive direction than the one they seem to be heading to.

Contribution to the debate on carbon sinks

One point that is not being sufficiently taken into consideration in the debate about plantations as carbon sinks is the production end of the issue. That is, most of these monocultural non-native species plantations are being grown for either of two products: paper or fiberboard. In both cases, the trees will be turned into chips and then made into something else.

How much of the actual wood fiber grown on the plantation is sequestered? Very little, especially in the case of paper.

Let's see: the trees grow, sucking up a certain amount of carbon as wood fiber mass. Much of the soil around the trees is compacted in the logging process. This does two things: drives out much of the carbon in the organic layer, and makes the soil more prone to erosion, which further frees up the carbon it holds.

Much of the carbon, of course, is turned into leaves which eventually fall to the ground as the tree grows. These leaves rot into the soil, becoming part of that organic layer mentioned above.

The trees are cut and chipped, eventually being turned into pulp and then into paper or cardboard. These products are then used and most often thrown away. In the case of corrugated cardboard, very few countries have achieved recycling rates over 50%. Most of the corrugated in the world is used once and then landfilled.

Even in the US, a country with a relatively high recycling rate (as compared with the rest of the world, not with other industrial countries, that is), only about 14% of white office paper is recycled. Much of the plantations in Brazil and Indonesia, two of the world's leading pulp and paper producers, is going into office paper.

So, this paper --where one would argue that most of the carbon taken up by the plantation has been sequestered-- is pretty much landfilled. Here, the bulk of it will, over time, decompose in an anearobic environment -that is, without the presence of oxygen- and be released into the landfill (and eventually the atmosphere) as methane. Methane is 25 times more effective as a global warming gas than is carbon.

Therefore, most of the sequestered carbon will be ultimately released as methane or simply re-released as carbon in the process of harvest, chipping, pulping, waste, production into paper, and finally, decomposition.

A small portion (that going into fiberboard) will become non-durable wood products which will also soon be landfilled. That is, even fiberboard is disposable over a relatively short period of time (at least in America, where this type of furniture lasts only a few years). And when it is buried in the landfill at the end of its short life, it too, will generate methane.

A tiny fraction of the wood fiber produced by the plantation will be sequestered over the long term as durable wood products, far exceeded, however, by the methane generated by the disposal of all the paper and fiberboard thrown out by an ever-expanding overconsumptive global economic machine.

The science behind carbon sequestration in plantations is not science at all, but is instead smoke and mirrors used to generate more plantations, benefitting large paper, pulp and wood products companies, at the expense of the Earth and local people.

Carbon sink plantation promoters seem to have forgotten that in order to actually sequester the carbon, the trees must either:

- be left to grow; or

- be turned into durable products that will hold that carbon for hundreds of years; and

- never be allowed to decompose in an anaerobic environment.

None of this is happening in any substantial way when it comes to fast-growing non-native plantations.

Source: Tim Keating, Rainforest Relief

Can expansion of plantations be a solution to combat global warming?

Large scale overseas plantation projects planned by Japan's paper industry cannot be accepted in joint implementation or in the Clean Development Mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol to combat climate change.

What is actually resulting from plantations is forest degradation and related carbon emissions. At the same time, carbon contained in the wood that is extracted from plantations is released almost immediately in the case of pulpwood plantations, because wood is transformed into paper, much of which is short-lived, thereby releasing the stored carbon back to the atmosphere. Before assessing any CDM projects, it is therefore necessary to close a number of loopholes contained in forestry accounting.

1. The expansion of plantations was part of 'forest degradation' in the 1980s, causing loss of closed forests and carbon emissions.

In order to achieve high precision estimates of deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries, the FAO conducted a satellite sampling research ("Forest Resource Assessment 1990", FAO 1995). This land use change measurement by the FAO can be utilized in the context of global warming. Estimates are based on the concept of Carbon Stock Change method accounting, which is one candidate to be used in the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol.

According to the satellite image analysis, in the 1980s, 75% of the new tree plantations in developing countries in the tropics were made by replacing closed natural forest that had existed there ten years earlier. Plantation projects therefore serve as agents of destruction for natural forests. Most of these new plantations may be for oil palm or pulpwood production purposes.

Original tropical forest stores biomass at average rates of 220 tonnes per hectare. Typical plantations store biomass at average rates of 120 tonnes per hectare. A decrease of 100 tonnes of biomass is equivalent to roughly 50 tonne-carbon, or 183 tonne-CO2 emission. Therefore, the 3.95 million hectares of forest converted to plantations in the 1980s means 725 million tonnes of CO2 emissions.

The result of initial logging and subsequent plantation is therefore an increase in the net carbon emissions that contribute to global warming, and accounted for as 'forest degradation'. Although remaining plantations can sequester carbon dioxide, part of that carbon is extracted as timber or other products, while net Carbon Stock remains constant in the remaining plantations.

High expansion rate of plantations is expected in the future, just as the case in the 1980s, which expanded plantation area 25% within the decade, so the total plantation related carbon accounting is net 'emission' of carbon dioxide.

2. Consumption patterns are essential for Carbon Stock estimates

Most afforestation schemes such as those initiated by Japanese paper companies are large scale and involve profitable non-native species. This extension overseas of Japan's "expanded forestation" paradigm is causing social, environmental and human rights problems in many targetted areas.

In the process of pulp and paper production, more than half of the carbon stored in the woodchip is consumed as a biomass energy resource and emitted into the air as CO2. Paper products are subsequently used for only one year on average. Half of these products are then recycled, but the other half are burned as waste, producing further CO2 emissions.

Wood used for pulp and paper production is therefore fundamentally different from timber products that are used on a longer term basis as the timber industry claims. Rather it should be treated as the same usage as fuelwood.

3. IPCC's guideline of Sink inventory is contradictory, thus causing a loophole.

Cutting activities are accounted for the host country's activity by now, while part of planting credit will be given to the donor country. This is a carbon leakage problem, which allows the developed country to abandon its emission reduction target. A trade related cost internalization scheme, such as traded timber vs Annual Allowance Unit barter trading or simply barter accounting scheme should be developed to close the loophole.

Reference: Forest Resources Assessment 1990 (Global Synthesis, 1995, FAO Forestry paper No. 124)

Source: Tadashi Ogura, Japan Tropical Forest Action Network (JATAN)
<PBC00720@nifty.ne.jp> <oguogu@jca.ax.apc.org>