7/31/2019 Dioxid Carbon
2/2
The synergy between forest protection for carbon and biodi-
versity does not extend easily to naturally low
carbon-density
ecosystems,such as savannasand woodlands (Nelson et al.,
2008).It
is of particular concern that under the Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM) there are funds for afforestation, i.e., the
process
of plantingtrees in areasthat have notsupported
forestsincebefore
1940, including species-rich natural grasslands and savannas
(Putz
and Redford, in press). If these areas are planted with trees,
or if
carbon stocks are enhanced by fire suppression or removal of
the
grazers and browsers that historically prevented
treeencroachment,
then the biodiversity losses will be staggering. Fortunately for
these
lowcarbondensity ecosystems,the CDMis so cumbersome thatvery
few projects have successfully secured approval (Locatelli et
al.,
2008), but these impediments could be removed during the
next
commitment period. Given that tropical savannas and other
open-
canopied ecosystems are in as much jeopardy as closed-canopy
forests, the enthusiasm for tree planting among carbon
investors
(Neeff et al., 2009) could create perverse incentives leading to
major
biodiversity losses from areas that fall on the wrong side of
the
forest-not forest dichotomy.
Many UNFCCC negotiators recognize the social and environ-
mental pitfalls associatedwith commodification of biomass
carbon
but worry about burdening the new agreement with too many
regulations tangential to its climate change mitigation goals.
Someassurance will derive from linking carbon project design to
the
standards of the Climate, Community and Biodiversity
Alliance
(http://www.climate-standards.org) or legislative
imperatives
that require carbon trading regimes to maintain ecological
integrity. But for projects that involve forest management,
it
makes sense to take advantage of the many years of experience
of
the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) or other credible
third-party
certification programs (Subak, 2002). In any case,
mechanisms
need to be installed to avoid the negative biodiversity con-
sequences of valuing forests and other natural ecosystems only
or
primarily for their climate mitigation potential.
References
Dove, M.R., 1983. Theories of swidden agriculture, and the
political economy ofignorance. Agroforestry Systems 1, 8599.
Fargione, J., Hill,J., Tilman, D., Polasky,S., Hawthorne,
P.,2008. Land clearingand thebiofuel carbon debt. Science 319,
12351238.
Harmon, M.E., Ferrell, W.K., Franklin, J.F., 1990. Effects on
carbon storage of con-version of old-growth forests to young
forests. Science 247, 699702.
Koh, L.P., Ghazoul, J., 2008. Biofuels, biodiversity, and
people: understanding theconflicts and finding opportunities.
Biological Conservation 141, 24502460.
Locatelli, B., Pedroni, L., Salinas, Z., 2008. Design issues in
clean developmentmechanism forestry projects. In: Streck, C.,
OSullivan, R., Janson-Smith, T., Tar-asofsky, R. (Eds.), Climate
Change and Forests: Emerging Policy and MarketOpportunities.
Chatham House, London, pp. 107124.
Ludwig, D., Hilborn, R., Walterns, C., 1993. Uncertainty,
resource exploitation, andconservation: lessons from history.
Science 260 (17), 36.
Neeff, T., Ashford, L., Calvert, J., Davey, C., Durbin, J.,
Ebeling, J., Herera, T., Janson-
Smith, T., Lazo, B., Mountain, R., OKeeffe, S., Panfil, S.,
Thorburn, N., Tuite, C.,Wheeland, M., Young, S., 2009. The forest
carbon offsetting survey 2009.
http://www.ecosecurities.com/Registered/ECOForestrySurvey2009.pdf
.
Nelson, E., Polasky, S., Lewis, D.J., Plantinga, A.J., Lonsdorf,
E., White, D., Bael, D.,Lawler, J.L., 2008. Efficiency of
incentives to jointly increase carbon sequestra-tion and species
conservation on a landscape. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of
Sciences of United States of America 105, 94719476.
Putz, F.E., Zuidema, P., Pinard, M.A., Boot, R.G.A., Sayer,
J.A., Sheil, D., Sist, P., Elias,J.K., Vanclay, 2008. Tropical
forest management for carbon retention. PLOSBiology 6,
13681369.
Putz, F.E., Redford, K.H. Tropical forest definitions,
degradation, phase shifts, andfurther transitions. Biotropica, in
press.
Sasaki, N., Putz, F.E. Critical need for new definitions of
forest and forestdegradation in global climate change agreements.
Conservation Letters,2009,
doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00067.x.
Subak, S., 2002. Forest certification eligibility as a screen
for CDM sinks projects.Climate Policy 2, 335351.
Venter, O., Meijaard, E., Possingham, H., Dennis, R., Sheil, D.,
Wich, S., Hovani, L.,Wilson, K., 2009. Carbon payments as a
safeguard for threatened tropical
mammals. Conservation Letters,
doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00059.x.Walker, A., 2005. Seeing
farmers for the trees: community forestry and the arbor-
ealisation of agriculture in Northern Thailand. Asia Pacific
Viewpoint 45, 311324.
F.E. Putz*
Department of Biology, University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
K.H. Redford
WCS Institute, Wildlife Conservation Society,
2300 Southern Blvd., Bronx, NY 10460, USA
*Corresponding author
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (F.E. Putz)[email protected] (K.H.
Redford)
2 July 2009
Editorial / Global Environmental Change 19 (2009) 400401 401
http://www.climate-standards.org/http://www.ecosecurities.com/Registered/ECOForestrySurvey2009.pdfhttp://www.ecosecurities.com/Registered/ECOForestrySurvey2009.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00067.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00059.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00059.xmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00059.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00067.xhttp://www.ecosecurities.com/Registered/ECOForestrySurvey2009.pdfhttp://www.ecosecurities.com/Registered/ECOForestrySurvey2009.pdfhttp://www.climate-standards.org/
