Terrestrial biodiversity’s only chance is avoided deforestation

24 01 2014

farming forestsToday I was shocked, stunned and pleasantly (for a change) surprised. Australia has its first ‘avoided deforestation’ carbon farming project.

It is understandable that this sort of news doesn’t make the Jane & Joe Bloggs of the world stand up and cheer, but it should make conservation biologists jump for bloody joy.

So why exactly am I so excited about the setting aside of a mere 9000 ha (90 km2, or 10 × 9 km) of semi-arid scrub in western New South Wales? It’s simple – nothing can replace the biodiversity or carbon value of primary forest. In other words, forest restoration – while laudable and needed – can never achieve what existing forest already does. We know now from various parts of the world that biodiversity is nearly always much higher in primary forest, and that the carbon structure of the forest (especially below-ground carbon) can take centuries to recover.

Another problem with restoration – and if you’ve ever been involved in any tree planting yourself, you’ll know what I mean – is that it’s incredibly expensive, time-consuming and slow. Wouldn’t it make more financial sense just to save forests instead of trying to rebuild them?

Of course it is, so the logical conclusion from a conservation perspective is to save primary forest first, then worry about restoration next. The problem is, there are few, if any, financial incentives for keeping forests standing in the private sector. The stumbling rise of the carbon economy is a potential resolution to this problem, although neither the Kyoto Protocol nor most national carbon-trading schemes adequately account for the carbon value of existing forests.

Up until today, even Australia didn’t have any examples.

However, under the Carbon Farming Initiative (soon to be replaced with The Coalition’s joke of a climate-mitigation policy), we as a nation have our first example of a property owner being paid to protect a native forest for its carbon value.

Fantastic, you say? Yes, it is. Unfortunately, it’s not likely to be a very widely implemented tool. The problem is that niggly requirement of ‘additionality‘ that we previously identified as being one element of the unholy trinity of carbon farming impediments.

Under the current Carbon Farming Initiative legislation, a property owner is only eligible for carbon funding if the forest(s) that he/she owns were already slated to be cleared. In other words, they are paid to relinquish their permits to clear for (in this case) 100 years (the ‘permanence’ requirement within the unholy trinity).

As most know, after centuries of deforestation, Australia is back on the forest clearance bandwagon after we elected so many right-wing state and Commonwealth governments in recent years. It is not only a heart-breaking tragedy for biodiversity after decades of fighting to impose anti-clearing legislation, it seriously erodes carbon-financed incentives to preserve existing forests because governments are making it easier to clear.

The only logical conclusion then is to abandon, or seriously overhaul, the additionality requirement for existing forests on private land. If we could provide even a modest financial incentive for keeping existing forests ‘in perpetuity’, landowners would be far less likely to raze their forested land just to put on a few more hundred head of cattle or sheep on marginal pasture.

One can understand why additionality requirements were implemented in the first place – they ostensibly prevent landowners from rorting the carbon-trading scheme by getting paid to do what they had always intended to do (in the case of native forest, that would be ‘nothing’). This would inevitably lead to no net carbon benefits for a forest that for all intensive purposes, had never been earmarked for destruction.

However, the current state of play and the likely increasing pressures on forests from climate-change induced fire increases, human population density increases (and the subsequent rise in demand for agricultural or forestry-plantation land) and development, means the notion that forests not currently slated for destruction under existing permits are not of concern is patently bullshit.

All existing forests in Australia are threatened and there is absolutely no guarantee these days that they will be protected (even in National Parks!). As such, all primary forests should have a higher intrinsic value than any other sort of land-use type from biodiversity and carbon perspectives. We as a society need to pressure our administrators to allow for financial incentives to flow to private landholders regardless of their ‘intentions’. Think of it as investment in future ecosystem services for our grandchildren.

CJA Bradshaw


Actions

Information

8 responses

16 04 2014
South Australia’s tattered environmental remains | ConservationBytes.com

[…] losses, when it has been clearly demonstrated [4] that biodiversity offsets do not work, because native vegetation cannot be replaced (both in terms of biodiversity and […]

14 03 2014
Lower biodiversity => lower human health | Green Resistance (teaching, organizing, and eco-thinking)

[…] do need the reminder, though.  We do need to be told again that habitat loss, fragmentation, invasive species, over-exploitation and of course,climate change, are bad for […]

14 03 2014
Lose biodiversity and you’ll get sick | ConservationBytes.com

[…] core concepts of conservation ecology are well-established: we know that habitat loss, fragmentation, invasive species, over-exploitation and of course, climate change, are bad for […]

7 02 2014
Incentivise to keep primary forests intact | ConservationBytes.com

[…] can by no means ensure biodiversity maintenance. I therefore see the most promising innovation in tweaking existing carbon-trading rules to value primary forest above all other forms of land use, effectively erasing the unfortunate requirement of ‘additionality’ (providing more […]

1 02 2014
This Week’s Cool Green Science News Roundup « strange behaviors

[…] Why avoided deforestation is paramount for biodiversity conservation – and why financial incentives to protect them should be knockout good. (Conservation Bytes) […]

25 01 2014
Jenny Sinclair

Actually, the first AD project under the CFI was Horse Ridges Native Forest Protection Project in Western NSW, which was issued credits in Nov 2013.

http://greencollarclimate.com.au/news/media-release-first-native-forest-protection-carbon-credits-created/

The first project on leasehold land was Osterley Downs, also in Western NSW. Both projects are being run by GCS and we are working closely with local landholders. We also authored the AD methodology being used under the CFI

The link to the register of projects where this can be verified can be found here http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Farming-Initiative/Register-of-Offsets-Projects/Pages/default.aspx

25 01 2014
CJAB

I should have specified – the 1st government-funded (non-voluntary) avoided-deforestation project

24 01 2014
King for a day – what conservation policies would you make? | ConservationBytes.com

[…] that all privately owned native forests would have an intrinsic carbon value and would be therefore eligible for payment from carbon pricing if maintained in perpetuity (following an insurance-based approach). The requirement for additionality would be waived in this […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 6,691 other followers

%d bloggers like this: