- Using carbon sinks for climate change
- The issues

INTRODUCTION
Planting trees is being proposed as a solution toClimate change because trees absorb carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas. These tree planting programs are being referred to as 'carbon sinks'.

As political and financial interest in sinks projects intensifies, the environmental consequences of this push remain far from clear. While tree planting is very valuable for the environment in many ways (decreasing salinity in soils, restoring biodiversity, etc.), the carbon they are being required to absorb from the burning of fossil fuels is the 'fossil' carbon trapped hundreds of millions of years ago.

It is the release of this trapped carbon dioxide that is the cause of climate change that must be addressed. Planting trees for climate change reasons will at best be a short-term measure for taking insignificant amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere.

THE ISSUES
Tree planting programs as carbon sinks are being proposed as a perceived low-cost approach toClimate change mitigation. Such projects may provide significant new financial resources for biodiversity conservation. However, a problem is that forest projects are diminishing the impetus to find long-term solutions toClimate change, delaying the essential transition away from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources.

In addition, these projects may be providing incentives to establish tree plantations that may actually accelerate the loss of natural forests. The reason for this is that as young trees absorb more carbon dioxide (C0₂) than established trees, the desire to gain 'credits'' for young plantations over old growth forests may lead to the clearing of older forests for their replacement with new plantations.

Background

• Consumption of fossil energy accounts for about 80% of human emissions of C0₂.
• Land disturbance land clearing, fires and degradation of forests and woodlands - accounts for the remaining 20%.
• The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that at least one-third of the world's remaining forests may be adversely affected by changing climate and will become a significant net source of CO₂ emissions.
• Australia's native vegetation is an important store of C0₂ and should be protected to avert further increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.

1. Sequestering carbon should not be treated as equivalent toCurbing fossil energy emissions.

• The long-term security of stored carbon is uncertain, due to pests and diseases, land clearing, the threat of illegal logging, forest fires, and climate change itself. While curbing emissions of C0₂ by reducing consumption of fossil fuels is guaranteed to result in climate change benefits.

1. Forest-generated carbon offsets are likely to weaken the pressure for changes in the energy sector.

• a long-term solution toClimate change will require fundamental changes in the energy sector, with a shift away from primary reliance on fossil fuels and toward renewable technologies and energy sources. Credit for carbon sequestration (trapping) is being used to shift emphasis away from curbing C0₂ emissions in the energy sector.

1. Scientific uncertainty in measuring sinks could undermine achieving real emissions reductions.

• Without agreed, scientifically verifiable systems for measuring carbon fixation, the door is open to inflated claims of sink 'enhancement', false claims and possibly fraud. Our ability to measure carbon fluxes into and out of the land base, including forests, is extremely imprecise.

1. Carelessly drafted rules will undermine both forest conservation and climate mitigation.

• Giving emissions credits for tree-planting could add new economic incentives toClear native forests so that new plantations can be established for carbon credit.
• Credits that are issued without proper independent tracking of what happens to the forest and the wood will mean that we get more emissions in the atmosphere than would have occurred without the project.

• A more precise definition of 'forests' and forest-related activities under the Kyoto Protocol is needed to ensure priority is given to maintaining potential carbon sources and enhancing existing carbon sinks, particularly old growth forests, rather than the creation of tree plantations. This will prevent forests becoming a source of emissions.

• Limiting the portion of a C0₂ target that can be met using forest and land-use offsets to no more than, say, the same percentage generated as emissions from this sector.
• 'discounting' or 'price adjustment' credit for sequestration activities to reflect their uncertainty in amount, insecurity over time, and inherent limitations in meeting long-term climate objectives.

• If the wood product pool is to be considered as a 'credit,' then one will have to 'debit' that amount of biomass lost as a result of the harvesting, processing and final use process.
• A complete accounting system would place large demands on many countries/states, demands which may not be feasible from a cost or capacity perspective.

• Activities should not be included that can not be measured and accounted for in the starting year 1990.
• Assess the magnitude of the impact on country commitments by adding new land-use change and forestry activities to the Kyoto formula.
• Emissions from old-growth logging and clearing should be included as a debit to Australia's greenhouse account.

• There needs to be recognition of some of the negative environmental and socio-economic impact of plantation developments.

The need for independent auditing of project activities:
- The integrity of sinks projects depends on independent verification of both a project's design and implementation. A global network of LUCF projects that is not independently evaluated against a common standard, risk losing credibility with both the public and industry.