“The term ‘carbon offsetting’ is scientifically absurd”
To stabilize global temperatures, the Paris Agreement pledged a transition to a net-zero emissions world by 2050, with a 45% reduction by 2030. To achieve these goals, forests are our best ally, but they are also the central issue in a true geopolitics of carbon. We discuss this with Alain Karsenty, an economist at CIRAD and an expert on the subject.
Read the first part of this interview on deforestation “Deforestation: ‘Part of the solution lies in international trade’” on the University of Montpellier website.
Can we speak of a “geopolitics of forests”?
Forests and all vegetation absorb about a quarter of the carbon emitted by human activities; the oceans absorb another quarter; the remaining half remains stored in the atmosphere and contributes to global warming. We can therefore speak instead of a “geopolitics of carbon” in the sense of the ecosystem services provided by natural environments.
Global deforestation, however, continues to rise, up 4% in 2022 (Le Monde 10/23/2023). Are forests still carbon sinks?
Estimates are difficult to make, but it is believed that the Amazon is no longer a net carbon sink. In Asia, deforestation has been so extensive that forests are now net emitters ofCO2. The last remaining tropical carbon sink is likely the Congo Basin.
What about France’s forests?
We have the fourth-largest forest area in Europe, after Sweden, Finland, and Spain, and the third-largest timber stock in Europe, after Germany and Sweden. We are counting heavily on our forests to achieve France’s carbon neutrality goals by 2050, but we note that in 2021, French forests absorbed 31.2 Mtof CO2, or about 7.5% of national emissions. That is nearly half the amount from ten years earlier (57.7 Mtof CO2). French forests are indeed expanding, but due to wildfires, droughts, heatwaves, diseases, and pests, the carbon sink is becoming less and less effective. With French Guiana, France has a large area of tropical forest and thus a significant stock to preserve, but this is likely no longer a carbon sink, partly due to temperatures that are often too high. The forests that absorb the most today are young boreal and temperate forests.
The international community has been mobilized since the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, yet the mechanisms put in place aren’t working?
The Kyoto Protocol launched the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) in the early 2000s, a system allowing companies in industrialized countries to purchase carbon credits generated by projects in developing countries. These companies could offset their emissions by financingCO2 reduction or absorption projects in the Global South, such as installing wind turbines or planting trees. A carbon credit thus corresponds to one ton ofCO2 avoided or removed from the atmosphere. Many of these credits are considered questionable because verifying the reality of these reductions and their permanence is extremely difficult. Furthermore, since the number of projects capable of generating carbon credits is very high, the excess supply has caused prices to drop, with the majority of transactions occurring at less than one dollar per credit. Today, there are over a billion credits that have still not been sold, and most of them never will be.
In 2005, the UN launched the REDD+projects , which you are also quite critical of. Why?
This mechanism was designed to allow countries that reduced their deforestation to seek compensation or sell carbon credits. The problem is that a baseline must be agreed upon: relative to what is the reduction in deforestation calculated? The choice of the baseline scenario used to measure this decline was left to the discretion of the countries. Since these are counterfactual scenarios, they are neither verifiable nor open to challenge by the payers. For example, Brazil chose as its baseline a period in the 2000s, when deforestation in the Amazon was at its peak, in order to show the maximum possible reduction in deforestation. Many countries in Central Africa, which consider themselves to be only just beginning deforestation, rely on prospective scenarios and want to be paid for “avoided deforestation”—that is, relative decreases (compared to the baseline scenario)—which generally mask absolute increases in deforestation.
REDD+ is a mechanism between states, but does it also include private companies that wish to offset their emissions?
Unlike the Clean Development Mechanism, under the UN framework, only states can sell REDD+ carbon credits. The priority at the national level is to prevent deforestation from simply shifting from one area to another (so-called “leakage”) and to encourage governments to implement policies that promote forest conservation and sustainable forest management. This has greatly frustrated carbon investors seeking to profit from the sale of their credits, as well as certain NGOs that use the REDD+ system to fund biodiversity conservation.
So they’ve set up a kind of parallel market?
Yes, projects that use the REDD+ label but are privately run and have nothing to do with the UN mechanism. They are certified by private labels, the best known of which is VERRA-VCS, which certifies avoided deforestation projects, among others. In fact, the vast majority of forest credits you’ll find on this voluntary market are certified by VERRA.
What’s the problem with these avoided deforestation projects?
Last year, The Guardian (January 18, 2023) caused quite a stir by citing a study (PNAS , September 14, 2020) conducted in Brazil, in which scientists observed that the decline in deforestation was similar in areas with REDD+ projects and in non-REDD+ areas. The declines were not due to avoided deforestation projects, but to Lula’s policies, which, since 2004, have led to a 75–80% reduction in deforestation in the Amazon. Several NGOs also raise concerns about the risk of green colonialism. Blue Carbon LLC, a company based in the United Arab Emirates, has purchased exclusive carbon rights to 10% of Liberia’s land area (Le Monde, September 2, 2023). Will they establish protected areas? Or logging concessions? We don’t know yet.
Are tree plantations also used for carbon offsetting?
The term “carbon offsetting”is scientifically absurd; at best, it is a contribution to a collective effort, not a form of compensation that would “erase” emissions. In an era of megafires and the overall poor health of forests, forest conservation activities or plantations may offer a partial, temporary solution, but they in no way enable carbon neutrality, given the very long residence time (around a thousand years) of a significant portion ofthe CO2 in the atmosphere. That said, some projects are useful and provide welcome funding in certain regions, from which local communities can also benefit. The problem lies in the claim by offset mechanisms to promise “emissions neutralization,” which gives a clear conscience to buyers of credits or consumers of products touted as “carbon neutral.”
What kinds of companies are involved in these REDD+ projects?
Large companies that engage in carbon offsetting beyond their regulatory obligations (where applicable). We’ll find most of the major publicly traded companies, from Microsoft to Shell, Delta Airlines, and so on. Among them, we must distinguish between those making genuine efforts to reduce their emissions and companies that make no changes to their operations and simply buy carbon credits to claim they are “carbon neutral.” In the latter case, it’s clearly greenwashing. Starting in 2026, the EU will effectively ban companies from calling themselves “carbon neutral.”
Since theParisAgreement, however, might Article 6 end up bolstering these private projects?
Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement—whose broad principles have been adopted, but not its rules (delegates at COP 28 were unable to reach an agreement on them)—would, broadly speaking, allow certain private projects to enter the UN compliance market. It is a cleaner development mechanism in a more open version that would specifically incorporate certain forms of avoided deforestation. We will need to be careful, because once you are in the compliance market, a carbon credit is an emissions permit.
What mechanisms would be most effective in encouraging countries in the Global South to preserve their forests?
First, we must invest if we hope to see results later. We know where to invest: in land tenure clarification, transforming unsustainable agro-forestry-pastoral practices, energy systems (the charcoal issue), land-use planning, strengthening the rule of law, and delaying the demographic transition in several countries, among other things. Then, we can provide funding based on the quality, consistency, and implementation of policies and measures aimed at curbing the drivers of deforestation. Organizations and institutions that spend billions to curb deforestation should establish scientific committees of independent experts to assist them in these assessments. In a world where financial resources are limited, it is absurd to tie our own hands with unsuitable procedures and payment rules, which all too often result in rewarding countries for fortunate circumstances rather than for efforts translated into public policies.
Which countries or institutions are putting money on the table?
Norway is the best example. This country has developed numerous bilateral agreements with countries in the Global South. It spearheaded CAFI (Central African Forest Initiative), a coalition of donors in which Norway is contributing over $500 million (France is contributing $6 million) to finance investments. But Norway attaches conditions to the disbursement of the promised funds. When Bolsonaro dismantled environmental policies in Brazil, Norway halted its payments to the Amazon Fund, as did Germany. Yet the Green Climate Fund, a multilateral institution, disbursed hundreds of millions of dollars to Brazil at that time for deforestation rates lower than in the past, even as deforestation was on the rise again and laws protecting forests were being systematically undermined. Setting conditions that deviate from established rules is virtually impossible in a multilateral framework, where the money you contribute no longer truly belongs to you.
Countries in the Global South are asking the international community to pay for the environmental services provided by their forests. What do you think about this?
We’ve mainly heard from African countries on this issue, as they are the only developing countries that still have carbon sinks. However, Brazilian President Lula made a somewhat similar proposal at COP 28 (Le Monde , November 24, 2023). These are rent-seeking approaches, except that there aren’t necessarily many people willing to pay these rents. The international community has always refused to pay for carbon stocks (standing forests). Once again, it’s better to invest in effective policies, and there are enormous financial transfers to be made in this area. But let’s do it on a sound basis.