Why we need to reconcile efforts for Conservation of forest and Reforestation

The debate over whether the Global North should pay for conservation and restoration of forest (REDD+) and whether conservation or reforestation is better is long-standing and yet it has not been resolved satisfactorily.? Neither has the deep-rooted misbelief that REDD+ projects in isolation can solve all deforestation within a short period of time (e.g. project life of 30 years).? Finally, what we do to preserve forestry even beyond the (eventual) time where we have fully decarbonized but need to carbon sinks to remain intact.? I look to address some of these interconnected issues in this article.

Similar issues have been highlighted by Illuminem (Renat Heuberger and Steve Zwick) in the paradoxes issued in December 2024.? This article is also in response to these paradoxes.

Specially I will address the debate about whether conservation (REDD+) is more /less efficient than reforestation and the price discrepancy between the two (paradox 13), the baseline problem in REDD+ about forest being at risk (paradox 20) and the issue around unrealistic expectations of what a REDD+ project can achieve (paradox 21 and 24).? It is my believe that these paradoxes are ultimately reflections of a lack of appreciation of the complexity of and need for conservation.? In making my arguments I will draw on previous article I have written on similar topics.

Executive Summary

• Technology solutions (e.g. CCS and DACs) built in the Global North seems to be a way for these countries to avoid dependence in the Global South for conserving vital carbon sinks and somehow perpetually contribute to the preservation of forest.?? An analogy may be drawn to dependence of oil & gas being replaced with renewable energy.?? It is uncomfortable but, in my view, this is a wrong direction of thinking.? We need to choose the most economically solutions globally even if that means wealth transfer from the Global North to South.
• NBS is arguably the most cost-effective solution when considering the probability weighted permanent sequestration of emissions.? The debate about whether paying for conservation of existing forest (REDD+) or reforestation is the best way to address climate change is long-standing.? Although I offer arguments in favour of REDD+, I believe that we need both types, and that reforestation and conservation should be considered as one solution and that they operate on a continuum.? The interrelatedness arises from the need for the forest to remain standing for perpetuity (or at least 100 years) to meet requirement of permanence (permanently sequestering and storing carbon).??
• This interrelatedness leads to several observations including (A) Community-based ARR projects developers should have an valid expectation that a REDD+ project will be approved by standard setters at the end of the project life (B) It should be possible to implement a project that has both reforestation and conservation within the same project and (C) Project developers should proof that it is likely to be sustained on carbon finance from REDD+ beyond the ARR project periods until alternative funding sources are available, maybe generation later.? That also means that whilst the price of Community-based ARR should be higher than REDD+, to cover the generally higher cost, higher risk and long pay-back period of reforestation than conservation (REDD+), the price of REDD+ must remain high enough to preserve the forest.? That is not the case today.?
• I argue that it is fundamentally flawed to believe that forests are only at risk if there is historical evidence of deforestation.? It incentivises wrong behaviour (logging and failing to put in place laws to protect forest and enforcement) and does not honour the countries that have managed to preserve forest against the odds.? This is where HFLD has a rightful place.? A better approach is to look at the economic conditions of a country and the opportunity cost and evaluate the future risk of deforestation.?? Countries with little realistic alternatives to create minimum living for those depending on forest.? This is inherently subjective and comes with the realisation that this is socio-economic (poverty) issue.? We don’t want to allow REDD+ in countries that should have the economic means to preserve forest.?
• Buyers of NBS carbon credits are often not sufficiently aware of the extreme complexity of stopping deforestation and therefore has unrealistic expectation that a REDD+ project can halt deforestation within the project life (e.g. 30 years).?? Deforestation almost always have it roots in social-economic conditions (poverty, lack of education and medical services) and a REDD+ project cannot be expected to resolve that alone in 30 years.? It is an intergenerational effort.?? I argue that for REDD+ projects we should evaluate permanence on whether they have a Theory of Change (TOC) that with high likelihood will provide a permanent solution to deforestation that does not rely on carbon credits.? This is in line with arguments made by David Antonioli.
• Ultimately carbon credits from REDD+ (including HFLD) will not provide long-term funding for NBS beyond the time where the World decarbonises to Net Zero (if ever) because by then there is much less incentives to purchase the credits.? We must either develop a viable biodiversity credit market or accept that countries in the Global North will continue funding conservation as a global public good even beyond Art 6 and meeting the Paris Agreement via NDCs. We in the Global North can never expect communities to care as much about nature as we want them to when they have much more basic socioeconomic problems to deal with. I call that Living in Maslow’s Penthouse We cannot expect others to have the same priorities as we do. If we want to preserve nature far outside our own countries, we must pay for it.
• I remain convinced that NBS remain the most effective tool to combat climate change.? My urge is for project developers and buyers to build partnerships which accepts that projects are complex and won’t be perfect.? That does not mean that they are not valuable.? For this to happen project developers must be open to questions (even when it exposes it to criticism) and buyers must reciprocate by standing by a project also when mistakes take place.??

Conservation or Reforestation

The debate about whether paying for conservation of existing forest (REDD+) or reforestation (Afforestation, Reforestation and Revegetation or ARR) is the best way to address climate change is long-standing.?? It is the topic of paradox 13 by Renat Heuberger and Steve Zwick

Today the two types of credits are governed by different methodologies and have vastly different price points (see below).? Proponents of ARR argues that we can’t get to Net Zero if we offset our emission by avoiding emission (from deforestation) another place.? The math does not stack up as the atmosphere is still left worse off than before by the amount of emission that takes place.

Proponent of REDD+, of which I am one normally make two arguments:

1. REDD+ projects are more efficient per dollar spend.? Restored forests in moist tropical regions sequester up to 11 tonnes per hectare per year (above ground). By contrast, protecting standing rainforests immediately preserves 300-400 tonnes per hectare per year, a 30 times difference. Considering that the price for nature-based removal credits is often seven times that of avoidance credits like REDD+, you get a rough efficiency factor of over 200. The challenge is that these price differentials do not necessarily reflect the full impact of a project’s positive impact on climate change mitigation.? Refer to my previous article on the point of Probability Weighted Impact.
2. REDD+ projects avoid real emissions that otherwise would have occurred with high likelihood.? Thinking in the simplistic mathematical terms outlined above ignores the complex reality where we must care equally about preserving carbon sinks than building new ones.? Perhaps more given the efficiency outlined above.

It seems likely that this debate will persist for a while, and I want to offer therefore the point that we need both types, and that reforestation and conservation should be considered as one solution and that they operate on a continuum.? The interrelatedness arises from the need for the forest to remain standing for perpetuity (or at least 100 years) to meet requirement of permanence (permanently sequestering and storing carbon).??

My argument is best illustrated by looking at the two types of ARR projects.? Commercial plantations. that focus on large-scale planting of a monoculture of non-native, commercial tree species. That may be harvested for timber and thus have an alternative income beyond the project life of an ARR project.? In contrast Community-based tree planting facilitate the planting of trees on private lands owned by small-scale landowners. These project, that often offers higher biodiversity benefits and community benefits do not often have a viable funding source after the ARR project life.?? They risk therefore deforestation when funding runs out.? An example of this risk is?VCS 594, a Uganda-based community project where owners of ~56% of the project area (and 86% of the project’s planted trees) chose to remove their land from the project, in order to harvest planted Eucalyptus, during its third monitoring period.

It follows therefore that for permeance to be ensured Community-based ARR projects likely must be followed by a REDD+ project and as argued below the funding source may need to be multi-generational before an alternative funding source can be obtained.? That is the commitment we (individual, corporates and government in the Global North) must be willing to undertake.

When REDD+ is used to put in place basic infrastructure (health, education) it indeed creates new solutions, and this is why governments should be keen to support REDD projects and commit to the long-term protection of the forest.? REDD+ can provide the key infrastructure for which the government does not have the resources to pay for today.? REDD+ here serves it is akin to using carbon finance to introduce new technologies where income from carbon credits can be used to build a local factory which reduces costs and then enables the factory to continue producing without the carbon subsidy.

The conclusions that this naturally leads me to – and as outlined further below – are:

1. Community-based ARR projects developers should have a valid expectation that a REDD+ project will be approved by standard setters at the end of the project life based.? Circumstances may change between initiation of the ARR projects and the end-of-life, but some assurance must be given that the REDD+ project be approved even if deforestation logically has not taken place in the project area.?? If that is not the case, we cannot expect the project to permanently sequester carbon.
2. It should be possible to implement a project that has both reforestation and conservation within the same project (e.g. one project design description).? This will reduce cost and cater for the fact that reforestation happens effectively at the forest edge (i.e. as an extension of existing forest).
3. Project developers should proof that it is likely to rely on carbon finance from REDD+ beyond the ARR project periods.? That also means that whilst the price of Community-based ARR should be higher than REDD+, to cover the generally higher cost, higher risk and long pay-back period of reforestation.? Nevertheless, the price of REDD+ must remain high enough to preserve the forest.? That is not the case today.? Different deforestation drivers have varying opportunity costs. Commodity extraction, agriculture and timber logging typically have higher opportunity costs than fire preservation and subsistence living. For example, avoiding oil palm-based deforestation in Indonesia has an average opportunity cost above $30/tCO2eq, far exceeding the current price paid for REDD+ credits at $5-10/tCO2eq – and at times as low as $2/tCO2eq.? To believe we can stop deforestation arising from these different causes at the current, often too low price we pay for carbon credits today (as low as US$2/tCO2eq) is at best na?ve and at worst tantamount to wilful ignorance.

The Complexity of nature preservation and inflated expectations

In paradox 21 and paradox 24 Renat Heuberger and Steve Zwick rightfully point to the paradox that when tackling specific challenges projects often highlight other inequalities and unresolved issues such as lack of education, health challenges, gender inequalities, or widespread poverty. They state: “Buyer’s expectations can quickly turn to disappointment upon realizing that, despite the supported project, local communities continue to live in poverty, and several pressing issues remain unsolved. Paradoxically, by tackling one problem, these initiatives risk criticism for not addressing others—issues that may have gone unnoticed without the project’s spotlight.”

This paradox, in my view, arises because buyers of NBS carbon credits are often not sufficiently aware of the extreme complexity of stopping deforestation and therefore has unrealistic expectation that a REDD+ project can halt deforestation within the project life (e.g. 30 years).?? Deforestation almost always have it roots in social-economic conditions (poverty, lack of education and medical services) and a REDD+ project cannot be expected to resolve that alone in 30 years.? It is an intergenerational effort. This is because without first getting communities out of poverty and then having in the place the basic infrastructure such as healthcare and education, it is rarely feasible to create long-lasting job alternatives and enterprises.

So, what can be done to resolve this paradox?? The most obvious answer is education of the buyers in the hope that they would reduce expectations and pay a higher price.? Reality is, that we have tried that for long and it does not seem to work and whilst I do believe that industry bodies like the ?Natural Climate Solutions Alliance (NCSA) have done a lot but probably could do more I would suggest two other solutions.

• REDD+ projects we should evaluate permanence on whether they have a Theory of Change (TOC) that with high likelihood will provide a permanent solution to deforestation that does not rely on carbon credits.? The Project Design Description (PDD) should outline the specific and targeted activities that the project will undertake to achieve the ToC and show that it is highly likely that this can be achieved.? I discuss this in detail in a previous article. ?It needs to be understood that adherence to the PDD should not frustrate an adaptive approach to community benefits. This is in line with arguments made by David Antonioli.
• Buyers of carbon credits should accept the complexity and commit to an offtake that ideally extend beyond the life of a project.?? Only then is it worth the buyer’s due diligence.? This is probably unrealistic, but more long-term offtakes, even if only 10-15 years, are valuable but more important is that the buyer feels a commitment to the project and will work with the developer.? This also mean that project developer should welcome investors and buyers deep interest in the project and provide the disclosure requested as far as feasible.? We need buyers and developers to feel like partners more than entering purely a transactional relationship.?

?Let’s honour countries that preserve forest despite the odds

In paradox 20 Renat Heuberger and Steve Zwick state that “Carbon credits for afforestation and reforestation are only issued while the trees are growing and actively removing more carbon than they emit. You don’t get credits for storing the carbon after that.? Once a forest is fully grown, carbon funding for ongoing management dries up—unless you can demonstrate that the forest is at risk of being cut down.? In such cases, you could claim carbon credits for “avoiding deforestation”. This creates a troubling paradox: to secure ongoing financial support through carbon credits, a mature forest must be at risk of deforestation. Yet the goal of forest restoration is to eliminate that very risk!”

Some argue that we should abandon the concept of additionality all together.? I support that a forest must be at risk and so be additional.?? We have limited resources to resolve climate change, and it needs to go to the best solutions and projects.? The concept of avoidance only makes sense, as per the argument above, if the risk is real.? However, I would argue that the way we consider risk must change and that it is fundamentally flawed to believe that forests only are at risk if there is historical evidence of deforestation.? It incentivises wrong behaviour (logging and failing to put in place laws to protect forest and enforcement) and does not honour the countries that have managed to preserve forest against the odds.? This is where carbon credits from High Forest Low Deforestation (HFLD) has a rightful place because it issues provides carbon credits to countries that have managed to preserve forest often despite high opportunity cost.? A good example is Ecuador that made the admirable decision to reject oil drilling in the Amazon despite that obvious financial attractiveness of such an additional income source.

A better approach is to look at the economic conditions of a country and the opportunity cost and evaluate the future risk of deforestation.?? Countries with little realistic alternatives to create minimum living for those depending on forest.? This is inherently subjective and comes with the realisation that this is socio-economic (poverty) issue.? We don’t want to allow REDD+ in countries that should have the economic means to preserve forest.? ?Making the distinction could be based on the UN list of least developed countries or possibly a slightly wider group of countries.

When countries have sufficient economic means to preserve forest via legislation then the need to pay may stop.? This happens only when countries are at such stage of development where they have realistic alternative sources of income than forestry and a stable population growth that does.? It points to the fact that deforestation and social/economic progress are intrinsically linked.?? To resolve this is an intergenerational undertaking.

Preservation beyond Net Zero

It follows logically from the discussion above to ask who will pay for reforestation and avoiding deforestation?? Today it is mainly countries (Art 6 of the Paris Agreement) and corporates that have an unabated emission.? If we one day manage to decarbonise our economies to Net Zero the incentive to provide this funding is greatly diminished and the clear risk is that countries and corporates in the Global North will stop the funding.?? As argued above, this is not sustainable because if we allow deforestation to continue the deplete the carbon sinks then we will still have a net emission.

So, what is the solution??? Many suggested that we need the biodiversity market to come into existence. Such market clearly could be part of the solution but it is not sufficient.?? Not all forest at risk of deforestation will have sufficient biodiversity benefits to be funded by such a market.? A more viable alternative is to accept that countries in the Global North must continue funding conservation as a global public good even beyond Art 6 and meeting the Paris Agreement via Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).

We in the Global North can never expect communities to care as much about nature as we want them to when they have much more basic socioeconomic problems to deal with. I call that “Living in Maslow’s Penthouse”. We cannot expect others to have the same priorities as we do. If we want to preserve nature far outside our own countries, we must pay for it.

Final Thoughts

I remain convinced that NBS remain the most effective tool to combat climate change.? My urge is for project developers and buyers to build partnerships which accepts that projects are complex and wont be perfect.? That does not mean that they are not valuable.? For this to happen project developers must be open to questions (even when it exposes it to criticism) and buyers must reciprocate by standing by a project also when mistakes take place.??