GLOUCESTERSHIRE, UNITED KINGDOM: Woodland path by ancient beech trees - Fagus - in late spring, ... [+]
The growing “climatization” of forests has meant too much focus has been put on their role as carbon sinks, and not enough emphasis has been placed on their value as complex ecosystems or social welfare benefits, according to a new study.
The study by the Science-Policy Programme (SciPol) of the International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO) urgently calls on policymakers to radically shift their approach to forest governance away from the fixation on forest carbon sequestration.
Instead, it argues forest governance policies must incorporate the social values of forests and deprioritise market-based solutions.
The study also claims the success of international forest governance to slow down deforestation remains limited and hard to measure.
Although there has been some progress in reducing the global rates of tropical deforestation, it warns there is still a rising sense of crisis over climate change, biodiversity loss and increasing social and economic inequalities.
And it argues the growing urgency of the climate change crisis has led to the commodification of forests for their carbon sequestration potential.
According to the report, this has led to the rise of new markets for carbon and biodiversity that often focus on short-term economic gains over long-term sustainability and justice.
It also warns the current international forestry governance (IFG) system has led to an “Olympics” of different pledges and targets.
The report states continued references to deforestation rates as the main indicator for IFG effectiveness shows a “limited awareness of the diversity of needs and demands” connected to forests around the world.
The report’s main lead author, Professor Daniela Kleinschmit of Freiburg University, said in an interview while there is nothing wrong with looking at forests in terms of carbon storage, there are many other factors which also need to be taken into consideration.
Professor Kleinschmit said there needs to be greater emphasis on forests as eco-systems, biodiversity and how they impact the people who live near or depend on them.
“We should be looking into who are benefitting from issues around forest governance, and who might be losing from them, as well,” the professor told me.
“The needs and the priorities of people in different regions will differ, including what they want from a forest and what they need for it to happen,” she added. “There is no one-size-fits-all approach.”
The professor also rejected the “win-win” marketing narrative that consumers are negating any environmental impact of a tree being planted if they buy a particular product.
“In some countries there are also spiritual and cultural impacts if you take away trees or plant another tree there,” she added. “We have to consider these spiritual and cultural needs.”
Another of the report’s lead authors, Professor Constance McDermott from the University of Oxford, said in a statement “market-based approaches” to forest governance such as carbon trading and zero deforestation supply chains are becoming an increasingly popular.
But she added they also risk “perpetuating inequalities and producing perverse effects” on sustainable forest management.
“Non-market-based mechanisms such as state regulation and community-led initiatives offer important alternative pathways for just forest governance,” added Professor McDermott.
The report follows a separate study by the Arbor Day Foundation, which highlights the health and wellbeing benefits of forests and green spaces.
