FORESTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE

INTRODUCTION
The earth is becoming warmer as a result of emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere through human activities. Global warming or human induced climate change is strongly linked to the higher incidence of extreme weather events globally such as hurricanes and droughts in recent times. For example, heavy rainfall in Northern Ghana this year which have led to unfortunate deaths and destruction of property has been linked to human induced climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in their global climate change assessment reports have consistently indicated high to very high probabilities that if the drivers of human-induced climate change are not addressed, our planet may become increasingly un-inhabitable.

This article discusses the curious case of forests which is both a driver of the global warming problem as well as one of the most potent solutions to the problem. Also outlined in this article are strategies that are being undertaken globally and in Ghana to incorporate forestry as a strategy to address the climate change challenge.

THE ROLE OF FORESTS
Deforestation remains a major driver of human-induced climate change. Deforestation is defined as the conversion of forests to other forms of land use. The Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates that 13 million hectares of forests globally were degraded or deforested each year from 2000 to 2010 (FAO 2010). A forest area equivalent to the size of Ghana was therefore lost every two years during the last decade. The world currently has an estimated 850 million hectares of degraded forests. The IPCC estimates that about 17 per cent of annual greenhouse emissions are as a result of deforestation and degradation of forests (IPCC 2007).

It can, therefore, be deduced that implementing strategies that will prevent deforestation will contribute substantially to climate change mitigation (or reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere). This method of mitigating climate change is termed as forest carbon stocks conservation and it is attained through sustainable management and use of forests; integrated fire management; management of forest biodiversity and management of protected areas and wildlife.

Forests (management) can help to tackle climate change in other ways too. Forests can aid in sequestering or absorbing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Forest management strategies such as afforestation, reforestation and agroforestry increase the stock of forests and thereby enhance photosynthesis which boosts the capacity of the forests to absorb more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The trees incorporate the carbon dioxide as carbon in their biomass, soils and even wood products for possible perpetual storage.

Sustainable forests (management) also help forest fringe/ dependent communities to adapt to climate change impacts. Several dwellers of communities adjoining forests in Ghana are engaged in the collection of snails, mushrooms as well as manufacture of pestles and chewing sticks from non-timber forest products for their livelihoods. Additionally, good forest management ensures that the micro-climate conducive for agricultural productivity is enhanced for these communities. These livelihoods would be lost through deforestation and these communities may become poorer. Poor people tend to be very susceptible and have low coping capacities to climate change impacts. Thus, sustainable forest management ensures that there is an enhancement of the livelihoods of these communities to make them better off and consequently enhance their adaptive capacity to climate change impacts.

Forests play other essential roles which are depicted as co-benefits in sustainable forest management interventions that seek to address climate change impacts. These co-benefits include preservation of water bodies, protection of soils from erosion and degradation, and biodiversity conservation.

Global forestry programmes for climate change mitigation/ adaptation
Global negotiations on climate change have led to the development of two major international forestry based climate change mitigation initiatives. These initiatives include the forestry component of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and the REDD+ scheme.

The CDM is one of the three mechanisms for reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as outlined in the Kyoto Protocol, which was formulated in 1997 and ratified in 2005. The other mechanisms in the Kyoto Protocol are International Emissions Trading and Joint Implementation. The essence of the CDM is to allow developing countries to be actively engaged in activities that results in the reduction of GHGs whereas developed countries have the option to purchase offsets created by these CDM projects to enable them to meet their binding targets. There are a variety of projects under the CDM and these include forestry initiatives such as afforestation and reforestation strategies. The CDM, however, excludes avoided deforestation as a result of difficulty in the measurement of what constitutes avoided deforestation. The CDM has chalked some successes but to date a bulk of all CDM projects (over 80 per cent) emanates from China and India whereas the European Union (EU) have been the main purchasers of CDM offsets. The EU has however indicated that they will be introducing tighter measures for purchasing CDM credits from 2013 and the bloc will only purchase CDM credits from Least Developed Countries (LDCs) who currently account for negligible CDM projects. This position of the EU is likely to have implications for the long term sustainability of the CDM and by extension the forestry component of CDM.

The REDD+ scheme seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from avoided deforestation and forest degradation and (+) to conserve and enhance forest carbon stocks through sustainable forest management (UNFCCC 2011 (Paragraph 70, decision 1/ CP. 16)). The REDD+ scheme therefore incorporates all forest management activities which contributes to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Deforestation and poor forest management tends to be associated with developing countries. Consequently, the REDD+ scheme is usually conceptualised as a scheme that results in the flow of funds to developing countries in order to incentivise the requisite sustainable forest management strategies (UNFCCC 2008). The essence of the incentives is to make forest conservation more profitable than clearing of forests. As has been outlined previously, sustainably managing forests will also deliver co-benefits to forest fringe communities. The proposal that led to the evolution of the REDD+ scheme was put forward by developing countries at the Climate Change Conference of Parties at Montreal in 2005 (Streck 2008, pp. 243 – 244). The past eight years have seen enormous negotiations for a global framework for the scheme. Factors such as a sustainable financing mechanism for the scheme, as well as a potent way of measuring, monitoring, reporting and verifying REDD+ activities are yet to be sorted out at the global level. However, through targeted support by the United Nations and developed countries such as Norway, REDD+ activities have commenced in several developing countries including Ghana.

To be continued:
In the concluding part of this article, the writer will throw light on Ghana’s forestry programmes for climate change. Stay tuned!

Author:

Kwame Agyei holds a master's degree in Climate Change from the Australian National University (2012). He has worked with the Forestry Commission (FC) of Ghana since February, 2007. His main job responsibilities at FC involve engaging forest fringe communities as key partners to ensure the successful implementation of forest management operations including community-based reforestation programmes such as the Modified Taungya System as well as prevention of deforestation. He also holds a Graduate Diploma in Environmental Management from the Australian National University (2011) and Bachelor of Science in Natural Resources Management from the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (2005).

Tweet

Climate Change, GM Crops and Food Security

"Our partners in Europe have blocked all new bio-crops because of unfounded, unscientific fear" -- George Bush, 2003

Genetically modified foods (GM foods, or biotech foods) are foods that have specific changes introduced into their DNA by genetic engineering techniques. Generally, the aim of genetically modifying food is simple, either to make the food more marketable or make it easier to produce. So far America seems to be leading in the cultivation of GM crops as they are reported to have grown some 66.8m hectares of GM crops, even in 2010. GM technology has been enthusiastically embraced in the Americas and in many Asian countries. Same cannot be said of Europe, though, where many countries are subject to severe restrictions on growing GM crops. Developing countries are also moving quite fast with the cultivation of GM crops. Brazil, Argentina are embracing GM crops. In Africa, Burkina Faso and South Africa are the leaders in cultivation of GM crops. I am not writing to support or fight against the adoption of GM crops but I would like to provoke more thinking along climate change, GM foods and Food Security, especially in Africa. Should the continent just say “NO” to it or we need to look a little more closely?

African countries are particularly vulnerable to climate change because of their dependence on rainfed agriculture, high levels of poverty, low levels of human and physical capital, and poor infrastructure. The negative effects of climate change on crop/food production in Africa are well researched and documented. In Africa, agriculture sector accounts for a large share of GDP, export earnings, and employment. Many studies point to decline in yields of crops such as rice, wheat, and maize. Irrigation water supply reliability is expected to worsen in Sub-Saharan Africa due to climate change. Increasing temperature, low rainfall, altered rainfall patterns and even droughts, flooding, pests and diseases is likely to worsen Africa’s food security and the likelihood of having and an increase in the number of malnourished children on the continent. So, what is commonly heard on the lips of many African climate scientists is how to adapt to these changes. How can we continue to grow crops that can tolerate the changing climatic conditions, withstand pests and diseases and increases yield? If there are issues that should consider any African leader, these are!

When a continent is faced with such difficult future, one is likely to grasp at any offer that seems to address these big challenges of food security. One of such offers is Genetically Modified Crops. Two forms of stress resistance especially relevant to climate change are to drought and temperature and there are a number of studies which shows that genetic modifications to major crops such as corn and soybeans have increased their water-deficit tolerance. Enhanced resistance to pests and diseases, salinity and waterlogging, change in flowering times or enhanced responses to elevated carbon dioxide levels have all been demonstrated with GM crops.

There has been so many articles and debates on the advantages and disadvantages of GM crops or foods. When it comes to climate change, some of the argument in in support of GM crops are that through the use of low- and no-till farming methods, fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions can be decreased thanks to less tillage. In effect, GM crops can help farmers fight climate change in the following ways:

•Less fuel consumption on farms due to a reduced need to spray crops.

•Better carbon sequestration. With less tillage or ploughing, over time soil quality is enhanced and becomes carbon-enriched since more crop residue can be left on the fields. In addition, since the soil is not inverted by ploughing, less carbon in the soil will be released into the atmosphere.

•Reduced fertilizer use and N2O emissions. Nitrous oxide has a global warming potential 296 times greater than carbon dioxide. And it stays in the atmosphere for more than 100 years. These emissions can be limited by reduced fertilizer use, which will also mean less water pollution.

•For some crops, it is not cost-effective to remove weeds by physical means such as tilling, so farmers will often spray large quantities of different herbicides (weed-killer) to destroy weeds, a time-consuming and expensive process, that requires care so that the herbicide doesn't harm the crop plant or the environment. Crop plants genetically-engineered to be resistant to one very powerful herbicide could help prevent environmental damage by reducing the amount of herbicides needed.

•There are many viruses, fungi and bacteria that cause plant diseases. Plant biologists are working to create plants with genetically-engineered resistance to these diseases

In a report titled, GM crops: global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996–2010, UK-based PG Economics concluded, ‘crop biotechnology has contributed to significantly reducing the release of greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural practices. This results from less fuel use and additional soil carbon storage from reduced tillage with GM crops. In 2010, this was equivalent to removing 19.4 billion kg of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or equal to removing 8.6 million cars from the road for one year.’

But there are arguments against the adoption of GM crops too. Here are some of them:

•Changing plants may have lasting effects on other organisms in the ecosystem. The change in a plant may cause it to be toxic to an insect or animal that uses it as its main food source.

•Due to the widespread use of insect resistant genes in crops the insects may become resistant to the genetic modifications. This would cause a widespread loss of crops and plants that have the natural immunity leading to a loss in biodiversity.

•Breeding and cross pollination across unintended species could occur resulting in things such as insect resistant weeds.

•Genetic modification could cause allergies in humans due to gene modification of plants.

•Some studies have shown that it may affect the human digestive system in a number of ways. The incorporation of substances that may interact badly with one another in food or in fact be poisonous to people may happen. The modification of certain genes may make some plant substances difficult to digest at all.

•A major economical concern is that the control of world food sources may be limited to large companies because they own the GM seeds and have the money to start and finish the accreditation process.

•Genetic modification can also make it difficult to know what you are eating, as a plant could contain animals products via genetic engineering. This could cause issues for those with dietary restrictions and religious commitments.

These are samples of the arguments as I have presented them here. But where should Africa go? Technology is good for climate change adaptation. Why shouldn’t we go for it? If we go for it, are we ready for the negative consequences if they are true?

I believe the continent must tread carefully. Our leaders should commit resources into research that can be independently conducted to inform our position on whether to accept or not to accept GM foods and GM crops production.

"Let those with the luxury to choose whether to have red meat, white meat or whatever other colour meat not stand in the way of those who are simply asking to have a meal" -- Hon William Ruto, 2010

Tweet

SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

Sustainable Development is a major concern that all nations of the world must unite to address. While others may choose to debate sustainable development, those in developing world like Africa view it as an only choice that needs utmost attention and effort from the global community. Not only does Africa and the developing world recognise the need to develop and the challenges that confront them, but also appreciate the importance of sustainable ‘economic, political, ecological and cultural development’. Africa’s history with natural resources exploitation and its failure to promote sustained growth, environmental integrity and improved social capital is a lesson well learnt in moving forward.

Permit me to focus this discourse more on Africa as a model of the developing world. Among the political and economic factors that contribute to Africa’s challenges are: Conflict and governance – and there are many of these in Africa – in Somalia, in some countries of Central Africa, in Sudan, in Mali, I note with interest the recent establishment of an Institute for Sustainability and Peace by the United Nations University. This institute, I believe, will do its best in addressing the conflicts in Africa in a sustainable way. I see no need to start something which cannot be done in a sustainable way. The world, when left alone, will run itself sustainably. So if any intervention cannot be done sustainably, it should be done in a sustainable manner.

Another major factor to consider in the whole discourse on sustainability in Africa is agriculture due to the major role it plays in Africa’s development. Urbanization, expanding deserts, the adverse effects of climate change, the demographic profile of the continent, etc are complex issues that require major efforts for sustainable development. There is also a need to give much attention to develop green economic policies and develop/adopt green technologies that go a long way to establish equilibrium with the ‘ecological support systems.’ Africa has a wealth of indigenous knowledge that can contribute to economic as well as cultural sustainability. There is a need to establish meaningful partnerships among developing countries, to better use Indigenous knowledge and adapted technologies instead of importing technologies and remain in the quagmire of endless dependence.

Sustainable development must be seen as a process that ensures a minimum of decent livelihood for the satisfaction of basic human needs for all strata of the population. The value of our natural capital, the wealth of benefits and services provided to people by biodiversity and ecosystems must be fully accounted and integrated into national and corporate planning and reporting practices, policies and programs. Our renewable natural resources must be harnessed in an environmentally sustainable manner for them to recover at natural rates, while managing non-renewable resources with a view to protecting the needs of future generations.

Given Africa’s enormous wealth in natural resources, the challenge of sustainable development is above all a question of democratic governance and human rights, or the responsible management of these resources in the interest of the public.

Tweet