Demystifying REDD

“Destroying a tropical rain forest and other species-rich ecosystems for profit is like burning all the paintings of the Louvre to cook dinner.” EO Wilson

REDD is pronounced just like the color in the American flag, and similarly, it may represent the next big patriotic symbol. Most Americans hope to leave the legacy of a high quality of life for their children and grandchildren (as did our parents and grandparents); REDD contributes directly to that aspiration. REDD is also the new buzz word circulating among international policy and conservation circles. It stands for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation. At the international level, REDD is central to discussions at COP15, also known as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Copenhagen, Denmark. Within the United States, the House of Representatives has passed a climate and energy bill that included a REDD component. And the Senate will soon be voting on similar measures. For many developing countries who have not yet sold the logging rights to their tropical forests, REDD represents a unique rescue plan that takes both conservation and economics into consideration. But REDD still has many unresolved components, which will likely cause lively dialogue in Copenhagen.

Currently, tropical deforestation contributes over 15% of global carbon emissions, because the burning and clearing of forests contribute enormous amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Not only does deforestation contribute to the warming of our planet, but the loss of these forests eliminates significant amounts of “natural capital” for future generations. International policies to conserve forests represent patriotic actions that benefit the next generation, and also offer a win/win scenario to both developed and developing countries.

What is REDD and how can citizens support it? REDD represents a policy that will essentially pay countries to conserve their forests. Currently, the forests of Madagascar, New Guinea, Peru, Brazil and many others have the potential to provide important short-term livelihoods to their citizens through selling timber and clearing for agriculture. However, these forests provide an important service to people beyond the borders of their home country. In the process of photosynthesis, trees (especially tropical forests) absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide from our atmosphere, and then release oxygen while storing the carbon as trunks and root material. Carbon storage by forests is called an “ecosystem service,” meaning that the trees provide a benefit to humankind through their natural metabolism. These important functions are worth billions of dollars, and include such services as oxygen production, soil erosion control, fresh water storage, homes for biodiversity, and sources of medicine, foods, and building materials. Because carbon storage by trees slows the warming of our atmosphere, this ecosystem service buffers us from weather extremes such as floods and hurricanes, thereby saving money and lives. Old-growth (or primary) forests tend to store more carbon than young plantations. But most primary forests in developed countries such as America, Australia and Europe have been cut down. On the other hand, developing countries such as New Guinea and Peru still have vast expanses of original forests that are extremely valuable in terms of providing ecosystem services to the entire planet. By paying these countries to conserve their forests, the REDD policy offers an important bargaining chip for international climate change negotiations . REDD also upholds environmental justice: it offers compensation to indigenous peoples who will safeguard their forest resources for the long-term benefit of the entire planet instead of selling them for logs or soybean plantations.

But REDD is not easy to enforce. Who will insure that these forests remain intact, and who will police the payments from developed countries to developing countries? Such issues create complex negotiations at the international level. But with each year of delay, more of the world’s carbon storage capacity (i.e. tropical forests) is cut down. The implementation of REDD represents important first-steps to establish economic values for irreplaceable natural resources such as long-lived trees.

Will the twenty-first century be looked upon in history books as the crisis era, whereby global emissions become irreversible? Will global initiatives such as REDD serve as a catalyst for living sustainably? With the increasing incidence of climatic extremes, businesses are beginning to include nature’s services in their accounting ledgers. Forests not only represent carbon storage but they also provide flood control and biodiversity libraries, benefits that offset insurance and health costs. In short, forests are worth more alive than dead.