“Zero” deforestation targets misleading, say experts

WARSAW, Poland — Targets set by governments and others to cut deforestation can be misleading and might not save as much rainforest as intended, undermining the fight against climate change, scientists say in a review published on Thursday.

“Until targets are clarified, and metrics agreed upon, zero may mean nothing at all,” say authors Sandra Brown, director of ecosystem services at U.S. environmental services firm Winrock International, and Dan Zarin, programme director of the Climate and Land Use Alliance.

Targets for reducing deforestation need to be urgently clarified and adapted to each country, the authors say, to ensure greater accountability.

Efforts to save forests are a key part of two-week U.N. climate talks that began on Monday in Warsaw, Poland. Forests help fight climate change by soaking up billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, while cutting them down accounts for about 10 percent of mankind’s greenhouse gas emissions.

As global demand for food and resources grows, governments, companies and NGOs have set zero- deforestation targets to try to curb forest loss. But the definitions are often ambiguous and can lead to unintended consequences such as carbon-rich natural forest being cleared and replaced with newly planted forests, the authors say in a commentary in the journal Science.

The problem is there are a variety of targets that have been set but many are not transparent. Some specify “net deforestation,” others “gross deforestation,” while some do not specify at all.

For instance, Brazil has pledged to cut gross deforestation in the Amazon by 80 percent by 2020 from historically high levels in 1996–2005, while Peru has set a target of zero net deforestation of primary and natural forests by 2021. Indonesian paper and packaging giant Asia Pulp & Paper this year said it would halt all natural forest clearance as part of its new forest policy but has not elaborated on the target.

Cutting down natural forest and replanting it is not a like-for-like solution, said Zarin, a tropical forests specialist based in Washington.

“You can’t ‘net out’ deforestation by planting trees — a problem inherent in many of the current targets — because newly planted forests are far less valuable for carbon, biodiversity and forest-dependent people than standing native forests,” he said.

WHEN ZERO ISN’T ZERO

Net deforestation is based on losses from deforestation and gains from forest regeneration and/or tree plantations over a set period of time. But setting a target of zero net-deforestation can make the mistake of equating the value of reforestation with that of protecting native forests, the authors say.

Many consumer goods companies have committed to zero net-deforestation targets as a metric for sustainability. But Brown and Zarin say this is like setting fuzzy production or revenue targets that would enable those responsible for delivering on them to engage in accounting tricks if they come up short. The implications could be significant when dealing with growing demand for commodities by major corporations.

For example, the Consumer Goods Forum has committed to achieving zero net-deforestation by 2020. The forum’s 400 members include some of the world’s top retailers and manufacturers, such as Unilever, Carrefour, Coca-Cola and Nestle, which combined have more than $3 trillion in annual sales.

A gross deforestation target of zero for some nations or regions, particularly developing nations still with large forest cover, would be unrealistic because it does not allow for any expansion of infrastructure or agricultural production, say the authors.

The solution is to set separate, ambitious targets for reductions in gross deforestation and for reforestation, they say, rather than sweeping one-size-fits-all goals.

More developed rainforest nations, such as Brazil or Indonesia, can meet ambitious targets to curb forest loss, particularly for commodity production in which more efficient practices and better use of existing cleared lands means less need to clear forests.

“At the global level, a zero deforestation target means much more than what is achievable if the meaning is ‘gross’, and much less if the meaning is ‘net,’” say the authors.

David Fogarty writes about climate change and the environment and is a media adviser for the Climate and Land Use Alliance.

Editors note: Read here as well... Don't Demonize Deforestation - sovereignty matters as well!