For the living beings on this planet, forests are a fundamental ecosystem. They regulate the climate, they are a repository of biodiversity and they supply us with water, among other things. They are also a source of food and humans, in addition to eating, use the plants of the forests for obtaining wood, for the elaboration of medications... Teresa Pérez of the World Tropical Forest Movement (WRM) Association recalled that millions of people live in or through forests. The UN General Assembly proclaimed 2011 as the International Year of Forests, and according to public data, more than 300 million people live in the forests of the world, especially in the countries of the Global South, of which 1.6 billion live. “The protection of forests is essential to defend the interests of these people,” explains Pérez, “but these communities do not have their rights over forests guaranteed. For governments, and for those who have economic interests in the forests, those who have lived there for thousands of years are foreigners to be expelled. They want to blame them for deforestation, although it is clear that the causes are other.” Experience shows, says Pérez, that where the rights of the locals have been respected, the jungle is the one that is best founded.

According to the WRM member, the wood and mining industry is primarily responsible for the loss of forests. A report by the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) reveals that between 2000 and 2010, 130 million hectares of forests were lost in the world. Less than three times the area of the French or Spanish State. The greatest losses were recorded in South America and Africa. In the previous decade, from 1990 to 2000, more land was lost, 160 million hectares. Although the decline in the forest has slowed down – and we will soon see that this is a fact to be taken with caution – the figures are very worrying according to the FAO itself.

What is the forest?

The following can be read on the WRM website: “According to FAO, in the period 2000-2010 the loss of forests was lower due to the increase in the number of planted forests. Tree plantations account for 7% of all the world’s forests.” But WRM does not agree with the definition of the forest used by the FAO, as explained by Teresa Pérez: “A few years ago we launched a campaign for FAO to change its definition. For them, tree monoculture plantations are also forests, which improves deforestation statistics. But monoculture areas are not forests, they do not fulfil the ecological functions of forests.” On the contrary, according to Pérez, they cause problems. On the one hand, they lead to a loss of biodiversity; on the other hand, they are large consumers of water, while the real forest is a water provider. In addition, a monoculture area is private property. The one who buys the land to plant one of these plants can throw those who lived there before, and it's something that's happening in many parts of the world.

Tree plantations are on the rise around the world and whiten deforestation data. For example, if we take account of monoculture headings, in recent years the forest area of the United States and Europe has increased, according to Jaume Grau, from Ekologistak Martxan. However, if we meet the criteria identified by the WRM, tree monoculture is one of the causes of deforestation. In fact, the basic forest, which fulfils all the ecological functions mentioned above, is sometimes extracted for planting in its place. The aim is to obtain wood, paper and, above all, biofuels in recent years.

REDD Strategy

In recent years, the problem of forest conservation has been linked to climate change. There are several reasons for this. Jaume Grau explains that one of the causes of carbon dioxide emissions – one third of the total – is deforestation. First, because one of the intervals of deforestation is the burning of the forest. On the other hand, as the trees disappear, they stop detecting CO2 from the atmosphere. And thirdly, because CO2 accumulated in the ground for thousands of years is easier to escape into the atmosphere after this soil has lost the stability of the forest.

The REDD strategy was first mentioned in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 2005. The meaning of the acronym is the reduction of emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. Three years later, other objectives such as conservation, sustainable use and increased carbon stocks in forests were added to the initial idea. Since then, the acronym REDD+ has been used to describe the strategy. There are currently hundreds of pilot projects in the world, all or almost all in tropical countries, and although no specific deadline has been given, it is expected that REDD+ will be officially launched in a very short time. Reducing emissions and curbing deforestation are goals to be welcomed, but many environmental associations believe that REDD will do more harm than good, because it has a wrong starting point. As you have pointed out, this is a starting point that is centred on the economy.

WRM offered REDD a full issue of its publication in August last year. In it, it makes a fierce criticism of the strategy. According to the article The sins of the REDD+ approach (sins of the REDD+ approach), deforestation has a much smaller effect than burning fossil fuels on climate change, and is also very different. “Matching the carbon released by deforestation with the carbon released by fossil fuels is a false premise, as the main cause of climate change is increased combustion of fossil fuels. Global warming is due to that carbon that has been stored underground for millions of years and is not involved in the natural cycle of plants. The false argument is that the ban on emissions from deforestation can compensate for fossil fuel emissions. REDD deals with a single source of carbon, which is also a secondary source, and does not address the root causes of deforestation.”

REDD+ strategy projects need complex measurements to determine the carbon content of a forest. It is estimated that money will be paid in exchange for the conservation of this forest, but Teresa Pérez has denounced that it is not clear in what direction the movements of money are going to move. “One of the supposedly used arguments for REDD is that poor communities living in the forest will be able to get money for conserving that forest, but it will really be very difficult for these groups to get money, among other reasons because it is very difficult to measure the amount of carbon in the forest, and that work will hardly be able to be done by local communities. On the other hand, it will be the Western companies that take care of it.” The problem is that these companies are going to acquire forest ownership first. As has already been observed in a number of REDD pilot projects – see box above – the effect is deplorable for the forest population, which, on the pretext of conservation, prevents them from living their normal lives.

Towards forest privatisation

Today, 80% of the world’s forests are in the public domain, but a strategy such as REDD can increase privatization. As Jaume Grau of Ekologistak Martxan warned us, “project funds are contingent upon the will. Who puts the pasta? The Western governments, with the crisis there is? No, companies will put it, but if they win something in return, no. Among other things, they will be able to continue emitting carbon in Iparralde in exchange for conserving a forest in the South, thinking that one equals the other.”

The new context, instead of slowing down the problem, increases in the opinion of Teresa Pérez: “One of the axes of the new concept of green economy will be forests. If all the functions of the forest can become a market, new threats will be added to existing ones. It is possible, for example, that in the not too distant future forests may become private in order to be able to market the water in them.” The WRM considers it a priority to ensure the rights of people living in forests. “Thanks to them we have preserved what we have and they should have ownership and control of the forest.” That would be the first step that Pérez should take for the benefit of forests, apart from the privatisation mechanisms. For the time being, however, the market jungle is being imposed.