Reducing forest emissions needs good science

The climate change debate offers a way to integrate forest management into development policy, but strategies must be informed by good science. Conservationists have long recognised the role of forests in supporting indigenous people’s livelihoods in developing countries. In addition to fuel and building material, forests often provide critical supplies of food and medicine. They are also an important source of ever-dwindling biodiversity. In Africa, researchers estimate that more than 70 per cent of people depend on forest resources. More recently, cash-strapped governments have grown interested in the idea of being paid to conserve forests because of the ‘ecosystem services’ they provide, such as moderating local air temperature; controlling water flow and mitigating floods; and generating rainfall. But forests are now being propelled into the spotlight for another value: their ability to store carbon and mitigate climate change. Developing countries will be paid for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) in a scheme to be finalised at this year’s climate negotiations in Copenhagen. Forests act as carbon sinks — trees and soil absorb carbon from the atmosphere and store it away. If left intact, such forests could play a crucial role in offsetting carbon emissions. But many tropical forests are being rapidly cleared by logging or to make way for agriculture, releasing the carbon stored in them either rapidly if they are burnt, or more slowly as the organic matter decays. Deforestation can also change soil dynamics and increase erosion, both of which can release more carbon into the atmosphere. Overall, researchers estimate that deforestation emits around one fifth of global carbon emissions. Any effort to tackle climate change in the long term must therefore involve reducing deforestation. The 2007 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) talks in Bali, Indonesia, saw a broad global commitment to reducing emissions from deforestation, and countries around the world are now busy thrashing out the details in time for Copenhagen. REDD offers a singular opportunity to combine forest management with sustainable development but establishing a one-size-fits-all framework is not easy, particularly given the diversity in forest types, management and use found across the tropics. As a result while there is an emerging consensus on some aspects of REDD — for example, that only developing countries should be able to benefit, and that funding should come from multiple sources — many of the details remain to be agreed. Simultaneously meeting local needs and adding to sustainable economic growth is a particular challenge for REDD. A critical component to achieving this is to ensure that REDD strategies are informed by good science that is also locally relevant.