Millennium Development Goals and Deforestation

The plight of tropical forests and the people who live there attracts little more than small print in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Hidden within the nebulous Goal 7 - "ensure environmental sustainability" - lies Indicator 25 which calls vaguely to reverse the loss of "land area covered by forest". There is no distinction between tropical and other types of forest and no connection made with the fundamental vision of the MDGs to reduce poverty.

Guarana fruit, Brazilian forest, CFU000522 © Roberto Faidutti / Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

The result is that national poverty reduction strategies, together with the development aid that supports them, tend to exclude forest programmes. Yet the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that 350 million people, including 60 million classed as indigenous, live within or close to tropical forests and are highly dependent on forest produce for livelihoods, food, fuel and medicine. The majority of these people fall into the category of extreme poverty that the MDGs are supposed to address.

The UN Forum for Forests (UNFF), the global body responsible for driving forward the "management, conservation and sustainable development" of forests, has succeeded only in securing a non-legally binding international agreement on the building blocks of sustainable forest management. Whilst forest coverage in non-tropical areas is recovering, satellite studies show that the global area of tropical forests was reduced by 2.36% between 2000 and 2005, almost 150 square kilometers every day.

Climate Change and Deforestation

Although the role of tropical forests as a vital carbon sink has long been understood, the current international agreement dealing with climate change, the Kyoto Protocol, offers no more protection to tropical forests than the MDGs. This is because the only countries obliged to achieve quantifiable emission reductions before 2012 are those from the wealthy higher latitudes - poorer countries in which the most important forests are located are committed only to "promote sustainable management" of forests under the original UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Destruction of the rainforest releases carbon dioxide through disturbing the substantial residue of carbon in the soil, the decay of leaves and wood, and combustion in "slash and burn" forest clearance. Whilst timber products store carbon, the amounts are small relative to the surrounding destruction. The science of this human-induced carbon exchange is complex but there is consensus that deforestation contributes about 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions, more than the world's transport sector. It also removes future capacity to absorb carbon dioxide. The intensity of forest-related emissions is illustrated by Indonesia whose rate of deforestation has propelled the country into the world’s top three emitters of greenhouse gases, despite its relatively modest industrialisation.

Science is still evolving on the threat of a feedback loop - the impact a warming planet might have on tropical forests - but studies of the Amazon rainforest suggest a slow conversion to dry savannah. This nightmare prospect would dismantle the vital contribution of the tropical forest to the biosphere - as a carbon sink through photosynthesis, as an influence on local climate and rainfall through respiration, as a medium for water storage and filtration through root structure, and as a protector of soil quality and quantity, and species biodiversity. One hectare of Amazon rainforest can contain more plant species than the whole of Europe; the current rate of extinction of plant and animal species through deforestation is believed to be 1000 times greater than that in pre-human history.
Causes of Deforestation

Log barge, Indonesia, FO-5709 © Patrick Durst / Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

The root cause of deforestation is the failure of the world’s market economy to award any value to this inventory of assets of the rainforest, in stark contrast to rocketing prices of timber, minerals, fossil fuels, meat and biofuel crops, each of which involves destruction of the forest. Commercial interests driven by these opportunities overwhelm the weak institutional capacity typical of developing countries, where corruption and poor law enforcement can be exploited.

Too many countries struggle to provide a sound framework for forest governance. Without legal backing to their own lands and title, the rights of forest dwellers are too easily brushed aside by powerful individuals or corporations. The result is widespread illegal logging and land-grabs for agriculture or ranching, inflicting abuse of individual rights and loss of national income. In Cambodia, even the most senior politicians have been accused by Global Witness of involvement in illegal timber business for their personal benefit. In Papua New Guinea, all logging is believed to be illegal as has been the case in countries plagued by internal conflict such as Liberia and Burma where opposing sides exploit timber to finance their armies.

Institutional failure to control market distortion is not confined to developing countries. Despite considerable consumer pressure, rich countries have made inadequate efforts to develop and respect certification schemes which validate the source of a timber product. Less than 2% of the world’s tropical forest is certified as sustainable and most imported tropical timber is illegally harvested. However, the 2008 US Farm Bill includes the world’s first law banning the import or purchase of illegal timber and the European Union is considering similar action through agreements with individual countries. There is greater resolve of multinational retailers to monitor suppliers, and in persuading China to bring to heel its rape of the Burma rainforest.
Carbon Financing for Reduced Deforestation

Phaeomeria Magnifica, Brazilian forest, CFU000507 © Roberto Faidutti / Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Rising concern about climate change has catapulted the subject of reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) into international negotiations for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. Discussions have focused on the principle that rich countries should compensate forest countries for calling a complete halt to deforestation. Payments could be assessed by a business technique known as "opportunity cost" which values the lost opportunity of logging or agriculture which could otherwise have occurred. The influential Review on the Economics of Climate Change prepared by Sir Nicholas Stern for the UK government calculated this figure to be $5 billion per annum for the 8 countries contributing 70% of forest-related emissions, just 5% of current foreign aid budgets. Stern concluded that addressing deforestation is one of the most efficient and cost effective ways of tackling climate change whilst simultaneously delivering the many other valuable benefits of protecting tropical forests.

The Bali Climate Change Conference in December 2007 endorsed this principle by requesting countries to investigate “positive incentives that aim to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries”. To address the immense practical difficulties in measuring the opportunity cost and in verification, the World Bank has set up the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) which funds essential preparation work for selected countries with a view to establishing pilot programmes. An initial criticism of the concept is the moral hazard of rewarding the cessation of an activity which is often already illegal. By contrast, in Paraguay the government backed up its ban on logging with satellite technology and adequate enforcement staff, successfully reducing illegal logging by 85%.

Forest burning for pasture, Central African Republic, CFU000204 © Roberto Faidutti / Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

The general presumption is that, in return for their payments, rich countries will demand carbon credits which could be offset against their emissions targets. Whilst formal announcements emerging from the Bali conference were silent on the subject, the prospect alarms climate change campaigners who point out that the cut in forest-related emissions will simply be converted into “business as usual” consumption elsewhere. The European Union evidently agrees, having announced that “easy” REDD credits will not be accepted in the European Carbon Trading Scheme until 2020.

Time is not on the side of this type of reform, given that any post-Kyoto agreement is scheduled for 2012 at the earliest. The Stern Review cryptically pointed out that, if worldwide deforestation remains unchecked, its carbon emissions for the years 2008-2012 alone will exceed those of the entire history of aviation up to the year 2025.
Community Forestry

Camisea pipeline scars rainforest © Amazon Watch

Although indigenous groups have been awarded token observer status in FCPF governance, the current REDD approach shows little sign of transferring financial or executive benefits to the people directly dependent on the forests. An alternative rights-based approach by contrast would target aid to forest communities, seeking a basis for sustainable livelihoods through secure land rights and support for forest markets whether small-scale timber or "non-timber forest products". Such priorities would also offer greater protection against non-timber infrastructure projects of which oil and gas exploration in the Western Amazon provides the most controversial examples. The Comisea gas pipeline in Peru cuts through a national reserve, overriding protection of the rights of indigenous people. Clearing forest for roads or pipelines fractures the sensitive ecosystem and weakens resistance to clearance for agriculture.

There are however limitations to community-based forest management; in practice the forest often acts as a safety net for other livelihoods, some even connected with commercial logging. A progressive national strategy may therefore concentrate on recognising the different forest stakeholders and aligning their rights and responsibilities to create mutual interest in forest sustainability. For example, in Liberia, where the opportunity has arisen for a fresh start after years of collapse, the government has divided forest resources into three categories, for forest communities, for protected areas, and for commercial logging with obligations to invest a share of profits in local services.

Logging which targets carefully selected trees with techniques which minimise collateral damage can transform the long term yield of the forest - such areas combined with protected forest reserves are believed to extend to about 5% of all global tropical forests. Nevertheless, a truly sustainable model for tropical forest management remains elusive and many campaigners prefer to advocate zero logging.
Deforestation in Brazil

Deforestation for soy production, Brazil © Greenpeace International

Brazil is the country most linked in the public mind with tropical forests; about 40% of the Amazon rainforest, the largest in the world, lies within Brazil's borders. Over 23 million people live in the Brazilian Amazon region, many of them on unregistered land and dependent on the forest for their livelihoods. Since 1990, Brazil has not only become the world’s largest exporter of soya and beef but also a world leader in the science and production of ethanol. Much debate on deforestation therefore centres on the extent to which these advances have been earned at the expense of the rainforest - almost half of all global deforestation between 2000 and 2005 occurred in Brazil. Sensitive to these accusations, traders in Brazil have since 2006 agreed a moratorium on the sale of soya grown on land converted from forest (an approach refused by palm oil companies in Indonesia).

A country which has become a potential economic powerhouse, jostling for position in influential global forums, can surely break the mould and create the institutional capacity to defeat the evil of illegal logging. Great hopes have been placed in the Action Plan for Amazon Deforestation Prevention and Control launched by President Lula da Silva in 2004 and backed by tough laws. However, after initial success, the rate of annual deforestation in Brazil has risen sharply in 2007/08, unable to resist the forces of world commodity prices.
Deforestation in Democratic Republic of Congo

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) offers similarities to Brazil in that it embraces about 50% of the vast Congo Basin rainforest with about 40 million people dependent to some degree. Whilst there have been serious abuses of logging licences, the country's share of the forest is relatively undisturbed due to the undeveloped infrastructure. With a newly elected democratic government and donors ready to provide support, the opportunity exists to learn from generations of mismanagement in Africa and beyond.

A dubious start was made in 2002 when the World Bank encouraged the government in a development model which envisaged that timber should be a major export market, with little account of the interests of local communities. After to a wave of criticism from global forest campaigners, the World Bank retracted its advice and the government has banned the issue of new licences whilst it reviews all those currently in force, many of them gained illegally since 2002. Enforcement of licence conditions in this vast and impoverished country, plagued by corruption, will be a daunting challenge.

Help us to complete OneWorld Guides
Many important development issues are missing from our range of Guides. OneWorld wants to fill these gaps as part of our efforts to improve understanding of the issues faced by developing countries. We receive no funding for the production of our educational resources. Every small contribution helps!