Should We Allow Fringe-Forest Communities To Benefit Financially From Protecting Forest Reserves To Conserve Them?

It is very disappointing that so many members of our nation's political class do not seem to understand why it is vital that we protect the remainder of Ghana's forest cover. Forests ensure biodiversity. They contain trillions of Ghana cedis in yet to be discovered medicinal plants, and provide valuable ecosystem services including the protection of watersheds for the river systems that are the sources of treated water for the people of Ghana.

Indeed our quality of life depends on ensuring healthy forests - for which reason we must protect them from illegal loggers and mining companies that operate irresponsibly environmentally.

One of the most effective ways of protecting the remainder of Ghana's forests, is to simply hand them over to the fringe-forest communities that border them - and strike low-carbon development agreements that will ensure that such communities benefit financially from being custodians and protectors of the remainder of our country's forests. We must thank Providence that there are far-sighted politicians who back President Akufo-Addo's determined fight to protect what is left of our natural heritage.

It is to them that must fall the task of convincing their colleagues who don't care much about the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs), and think that mining provides jobs and therefore ought to be prioritised over the protection of Ghana's forested areas - regardless of the consequences for present and future generations of our people.

In light of that, today, for the benefit of all the members of Ghana's political class, we have culled a January 2015 article from the New York Times entitled "Make Forests Pay". It was written by Don J. Melnick, Mary C. Pearl and James Warfield. Please read on:

"Make Forests Pay"
A Carbon Offset Market for Trees
By DON J. MELNICK, MARY C. PEARL and JAMES WARFIELD JAN. 19, 2015

Forests have vanished, equivalent in size to over half of the

continental United States. The rate of cutting, burning and clearing

shows no signs of abating.
Tropical forests store huge amounts of carbon. When their trees are

cut or burned, the carbon is eventually released into the atmosphere,

mixing with oxygen to form the long-lasting greenhouse gas carbon

dioxide. The pace of deforestation is so great today that it accounts

for an estimated 12 to 15 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions

annually.
Economic forces drive this destruction — for timber, rangeland, mining

and development. But there is also a powerful economic argument for

preservation. Forests’ carbon reserves can be monetized and sold as

offsets to greenhouse gas emitters who need them to comply with

regulatory emissions limits, or who voluntarily want to reduce their

carbon footprint.
These offsets typically are sold by utilities or other industrial

companies that have reduced their emissions below a government-imposed

cap. The offsets equal the emissions below the cap; their price is

determined by supply and demand. The buyers are companies whose

emissions are above the cap; the offsets are subtracted from their

excess emissions, enabling them to avoid penalties. There is also a

voluntary market where companies and individuals buy offsets to reduce

their carbon footprint. The revenue is used to finance energy

efficiency and other projects to reduce emissions.
Continue reading the main story
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
These markets are booming, with trades each year in the tens of

billions of dollars. But a potential pool of offsets has been largely

left off the table — offsets that represent carbon emissions avoided

by not destroying tropical forests. These were difficult to value

because there was no way to accurately quantify the carbon savings.

Nor were there reliable, transparent systems to ensure these forests

would remain standing or that proceeds would be returned to local

communities.
For those reasons, the European Union, which has the world’s largest

system for trading carbon offsets, has not allowed offsets for what’s

known as avoided deforestation. Other carbon markets, like the one run

by the California Air Resources Board, are considering it.

The objections are now being addressed. In recent years, accurate and

inexpensive techniques have been developed to quantify and verify

carbon emissions that would be avoided by not destroying forests.

Credible mechanisms for indemnifying offset credits (meaning, an acre

of forest will always be protected even if the specific acre behind

the credit is destroyed) and returning the proceeds from the sale of

the offsets to local communities have also been devised. A new system

that combines all of those components and biodiversity conservation,

known as the Rainforest Standard, which we and 60 other scientists,

lawyers and businesspeople have developed, is now being tested in

South America to safeguard a 1.6-million-acre forest.

Newsletter Sign Up
Continue reading the main story
Opinion Today
Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists,

The Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the

world.
You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New

York Times's products and services.
See Sample Privacy Policy Opt out or contact us anytime

Although this expanse is designated a “protected area,” it has only

four guards. This is not unusual. In the Amazon and elsewhere, there’s

not enough money to adequately safeguard protected forests from

threats like illegal logging and ranching. This is where forest

offsets can make a real difference. Allowing them to be traded would

give carbon reserves tangible value that could be sold for real money,

which could be used to protect these biologically diverse forests.

The added benefit is that saving a tropical forest of, say, a million

acres would prevent roughly 367 million tons of carbon dioxide from

escaping into the atmosphere, where some of it would remain for

thousands of years.
In our pilot project, a major corporation has agreed to buy one

million offset credits over 20 years. All of the money will underwrite

a trust fund to manage and protect the forest and help local

communities develop sustainable livelihoods such as eco-tourism, fish

farming and beekeeping.
A second, smaller project has just started in Southeast Asia, and we

are working to replicate these projects elsewhere.
Corporations in growing numbers understand what’s at stake. In

September, 40 major companies, including Kellogg and Nestlé, pledged

to cut tropical deforestation in half by 2020 and stop it entirely by

2030. The group included some of the largest companies handling palm

oil, which vow to impose tough standards on production, limiting

activities that are devastating old-growth tropical forests,

especially in Southeast Asia.
Offsets, whether compulsory or voluntary, can be another tool for

protecting tropical forests. The European Union and other carbon

markets should reconsider their policies. These forests can have a

worth beyond the value of their plunder as governments and industries

turn to market-based solutions to slow the warming of our planet.

Don Melnick and Mary Pearl are professors of biology at Columbia and

the City University of New York, respectively. James Warfield is

deputy director of Columbia’s Center for Environment, Economy and

Society.
A version of this op-ed appears in print on January 20, 2015, on Page

A21 of the New York edition with the headline: Make Forests Pay.

Today's Paper|Subscribe
Continue reading the main story
Trending
Nikolas Cruz’s Lifetime of Trouble: Family Loss, Flashes of Rage

Florida Shooting: Nikolas Cruz Confessed to Police That He Began

Shooting Students ‘in the Hallways’
The Names and Faces of the Florida School Shooting Victims

The Interpreter: What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings? International

Comparisons Suggest an Answer
Trump’s Inaugural Committee Paid $26 Million to Firm of First Lady’s Adviser

Contributing Op-Ed Writer: The Tyranny of Convenience

Editorial: The N.R.A. Can Be Beat
Yuzuru Hanyu Commands the Stage. Nathan Chen Falls Off It.

No, Mikaela Shiffrin Can’t Win Them All
Op-Ed Columnist: Budgets, Bad Faith and ‘Balance