Climate change and forests
So hard to see the wood for the trees
Dec 19th 2007 BALI
From The Economist print edition
Good news, but no certainty of salvation, for forests and their friends
IF THE Bali conference on climate change brought good news to anyone, it must surely be the inhabitants of the rainforests and others committed to preserving those trees. But their reactions have been mixed, ranging from delight to scepticism.
For rainforest campaigners, the Bali statement's allusion to an urgent need for “meaningful action to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation” was a sweet victory, even if the only concrete step in that direction was a “work programme” to test various approaches.
'); // // -->
Under the current regime (expiring in 2012), financial rewards for storing carbon through trees were attached only to reforestation or planting new forests. That restriction became hard to justify as evidence mounted that the destruction of tropical forests caused as much as 20% of heat-trapping greenhouse emissions.
But including “avoided deforestation” in a post-2012 strategy will transform the politics of climate change, globally and inside some countries. For example, with deforestation taken into account, Indonesia and Brazil soar up the table to become the world's third- and fourth-largest emitters.
When the Kyoto protocol was negotiated, deforestation was excluded partly on scientific grounds; people couldn't agree on its precise effects, or on how to measure the carbon loss. Those problems have now been laid to rest by better technology.
But other things have not been settled. Brazil's leaders want a system to reward whole countries for bringing their deforestation rates down to pre-1990 levels and keeping them there. It so happens that Brazil may be the only nation that qualifies. Most other people (including the governor of Brazil's Amazonas state and its indigenous leaders) back a more local and market-based approach.
In any case, systems that rely on the honesty and power of governments will run into problems. Zealous greens are wary of carbon-trading on the moral ground that it lets the rich off the hook; in fact, investors in carbon markets will be the first to shun conservation projects that are manifestly failing because of bad government or corruption.
Take Indonesia, where 80% of deforestation is of dubious legality. Weak law enforcement is the main problem. Contradictory policies—resulting, recently, in a spat between police and the forestry ministry in Sumatra—are another. A decade ago, Indonesia's illegal logging mainly served the pulp and timber industries. Now palm oil, an “ecological” product, is the big driving force. Recent research suggests that for every dollar invested in oil-palm plantations, $20 is recouped in a few years, even without the one-off gain from selling timber. Even if palm-oil prices slip downwards, forest-conservation plans would need to be very robust to compete.
And it is still unclear who would get the money for reducing deforestation. A bad taste was left by the World Bank's failure to consult the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues before launching a “carbon partnership facility” designed to keep forests intact—an error, the bank insists, that is now being rectified.
The decisions taken at Bali call for a couple more years of trial and error before finding the best way to keep trees standing. But the chainsaws won't stand still.
译文:
树木难见，森林何谈
气候变化和森林保护
树木难见，森林何谈 2007年12月19日 巴厘岛
摘自《
经济学人》印刷版
对森林和护林人士是福音，但未必是救赎 如果问及巴厘岛气候变化大会能够给何人带来的福音的话，热带雨林区的居民和忠诚的护林人士必定是非其莫属了。尽管如此，他们的反应仍是混淆不堪，既引以为乐，又疑虑忡忡。
对保护热带雨林的活动人士而言，巴厘声明暗示要迫切进行"有意义的行动去减少因森林砍伐和森林退化所引发的排放量"，这是一场甜蜜的胜利，尽管在此方向所采取的唯一具体步骤还只是尝试不同方案的"工作计划"。
在当前框架下（于2012年截止），对森林吸收二氧化碳上的经济奖励还只局限在人工造林或培植新林上。不过，此限制却很难作为证据去证明：毁林引发了温室气体排放量的20％之多。
然而，包括"避免毁林"在内的2012年后的战略将变革一些国家和全球的气候变化政治学。举例来说，如果把毁林这一因素考虑在内，印度尼西亚和巴西就会跃升到温室气体排放国的前列，分别位列世界第三和第四。
在《京都议定书》协定的时候，毁林并未被列在议程之内，部分原因是出在科学基础的这一问题上。此外，在对毁林所造成的确切影响以及如何测量碳损失方面，人们未能够达成一致。目前，借助较为先进的技术，此类问题已“不足为患”。
其他方面的事情尚未得到解决。巴西领导人希望有一制度去奖励那些把毁林速度下降到1990年前的水平，并时刻保持着的国家。极为巧合的是，可能仅有巴西是“当之无愧”的国家。其他大多数人（包括巴西亚马逊州州长和该州土著人领导）更乐意采取因地适宜和基于市场的机制。
无论如何，依靠政府诚信和权力的体制将会遭遇种种问题。热心的环保人士在道德立场是对碳交易警惕万分，原因在于碳交易会让富人逃避惩罚;事实上，在碳市场的投资者将会首先回避保护项目，同时，由于不履其职的政府或腐败的横行，这些项目显然在日渐失败。
就印度尼西亚而言，国内80％的森林采伐活动的合法性都令人质疑。执法能力薄弱是主要问题。相互矛盾的政策也是一问题，最近在苏门答腊竟引发警方和林业局争吵。十年前，印度尼西亚的非法采伐作业主要是应用在纸浆和木材等工业。当前，棕油（"生态"产品）又是一巨大推动力。最新研究表明，在油棕种植林每投入一美元，在数年内将会赚取20美元，甚至还未包括出售木材的一次性收入。即便棕油价格会下滑，森林保护的计划还仍需极为强劲的抗争。
目前还不清楚谁将会得到在减少毁林上款项。世界银行在征询联合国设立的原住民议题常设论坛失败后，给人留下恶感。随后，世界银行设立了“（森林）碳伙伴基金”(Carbon Partnership facility)，旨在保护森林不受破坏，并声称其正在纠正错误。
巴厘岛会上的决议将需要多年的试验和犯错后，才能找到保持众树林立的最佳途径。然而在当前，倒树之锯，尚未停止。