Abstract
This book analyses and develops overarching concepts for forest policy and forest governance and includes a detailed investigation into the historical discussion on forests. Besides that, the book examines opportunities and limits for negative emissions in a sector that – like peatlands – appears significantly less ambivalent compared to highly technical large-scale forms of geoengineering.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
The future development of the land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector is of crucial importance for combating climate change and the long-term preservation of natural resources as well as protecting biological diversity (Rogelj et al. 2019; Bologna and Aquino 2020; Pörtner et al. 2021). This is even more the case for the overall land sector including agriculture in general, forestry and other land use (AFOLU). From a climate perspective, the unique characteristic of the sectors is that they do not only account for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions but also serve as a sink for GHGs. There is an enormous potential for natural carbon storage by soils and the upstanding biomass, particularly forest ecosystems, peatlands and other wetlands as well as arable land, provided these environmental compartments remain intact or are restored and used in a sustainable way, preserving natural functions (Ekardt et al. 2020; Bologna and Aquino 2020; Forsell et al. 2018; Funk et al. 2019; Grassi et al. 2017; Verschuuren 2017). It must be noted, however, that the international law term LULUCF does, in contrast to AFOLU, not cover some core sectors connected to land use that represent high emission levels – namely livestock farming and fertiliser production (Ekardt et al. 2018a; Weishaupt et al. 2020).
In earlier analyses, we have taken a closer look at peatlands that bear the promise of combining negative GHG emissions with biodiversity protection (Ekardt et al. 2020) – and problematic technological approaches to negative emissions called geoengineering (Wieding et al. 2020). In the present volume we will focus on the importance of forests, also considering the manifold interactions with other types of land use. This will include a critical review of the controversial natural scientific debate on the potentials of forests regarding climate (and biodiversity) protection. The contribution will serve – besides some historical examinations on the economic, legal, mythical, and societal background – as a basis for a status-quo analysis of forest governance. In the end, this will enable us to draft some optimising regulatory options. All governance analysis will focus on the international and European policy level as the overall framework of forest policy approaches. As we will show, there are manifold reasons why global challenges such as climate change and biodiversity loss should be addressed as far as possible by means of transnational policy instruments (see also Ekardt 2019). This is why, even though thus far forest policy as such is under the competence of the EU Member States, we will assess the EU’s climate, energy and agricultural sector, that significantly influence the forest sector and provide an indirect competence for the forest sector on EU level (see also Aggestam and Pülzl 2018).
For decades, the world’s forests have faced accelerating degradation and loss, impairing nature’s balance, biodiversity and climate protection to a potentially life threatening extent (Grassi et al. 2017; Bologna and Aquino 2020). On the one hand, the irretrievable loss of flora and fauna is weakening functioning ecosystems as the basis of all life on earth (IPBES 2019; Wilkinson et al. 2018; Gómez-González et al. 2020). On the other hand, the sink capacity for GHG emissions – needed more urgently than ever in human history to fight the climate crisis – is steadily decreasing (FAO and UNEP 2020). Since 1990, approximately 420 million hectares of forest have been lost due to their conversion to other land uses (FAO and UNEP 2020). Primary forests, the lungs of the earth, decreased by over 80 million hectares during that time (FAO and UNEP 2020, 18). The development is therefore already close to passing irreversible tipping points (on the example of the Amazon see Staal et al. 2020; Leite-Filho et al. 2019, 2020; Gatti et al. 2014).
One of the main reasons for the ongoing land-use change causing deforestation is agricultural expansion for the production of animal food (cattle ranging, soy bean production). Other causes include palm oil production and various implications of the use of fossil fuels such as growing cities, expanding road construction, etc. (Weishaupt et al. 2020; Rajão et al. 2020; FAO and UNEP 2020, p. xvi; Teng et al. 2020; Taheripour et al. 2019; Ekardt 2019). Today, approximately 70–85% of the world’s farmland is dedicated to animal-derived food production, such as meat and dairy products (Poore and Nemecek 2018; on the variation of figures on that: Weishaupt et al. 2020). This shows a tremendous impact on both the occurring GHG emissions from the LULUCF sector and the globally accelerating biodiversity loss due to increased land-use pressure (Hedenus et al. 2014; Poore and Nemecek 2018; Weishaupt et al. 2020). Concerning climate protection, there are estimates that 6.6 Gigatons CO2equ per year, corresponding to 49% of the total GHG emissions of the food sector could be avoided, and sink capacity of terrestrial ecosystems could be enhanced by 8.1 Gigatons CO2 on average each year in a 100-year timespan assuming a no animal scenario (Poore and Nemecek 2018). While livestock farming for several reasons could (and should) be drastically reduced, but cannot be cut back to zero worldwide, as we have discussed elsewhere (Weishaupt et al. 2020; Stubenrauch 2019; Ekardt 2019; Ekardt et al. 2018a, b), it nevertheless becomes clear that drastically minimised livestock farming and a phasing-out of fossil fuels are indispensable to combat the climate and biodiversity crisis and to protect and/or restore worldwide forests (Clark et al. 2020; Weishaupt et al. 2020; Heck et al. 2018; Mengis and Matthews 2020; Rogelj et al. 2019; Willett et al. 2019; Ekardt 2019). Besides carbon dioxide emissions (CO2), livestock farming is a main contributor to non-CO2 emissions such as methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and nitrogen oxides (NOx) (Blandford and Hyssapoyannes 2015, 175 et seq.; Frank et al. 2017, 5 et seq.).
However, the exact strategy on forests (and negative emission options in general) is always dependent on the targets that have to be fulfilled. According to Art. 2 para. 1 of the Paris Agreement (PA)Footnote 1 global warming should be limited to well below 2 °C compared to pre-industrial levels and efforts should be pursued to stay within a 1.5 °C-temperature limit. We have shown elsewhere (Ekardt et al. 2018b; Ekardt 2019; Wieding et al. 2020) that this implies a legally binding obligation to stay within the 1.5 °C limit. We will see in Sect. 2.1 that this requires zero emissions by 2035. To reach carbon neutrality, zero fossil fuels and a massive reduction of livestock farming are necessary, but not sufficient (see in detail Wieding et al. 2020; Mengis and Matthews 2020; Rogelj et al. 2019). In the future, all inevitably occurring GHG have to be compensated for by the creation of negative emissions in sinks (IPCC 2019; Rogelj et al. 2019; Ekardt et al. 2018b; Heck et al. 2018). The exact amount of negative emissions needed is still an open question as well as how they can be generated. This always depends on the efforts to cut down GHG emissions.
In this context, alongside enhanced soil carbon sequestration in agriculture (Fließbach et al. 2007; Scotti et al. 2013; De Mastro et al. 2019), reforestation, forest restoration and large-scale afforestation are increasingly discussed in IPCC climate scenarios as nature-based negative emission technologies (NETs) (Smith et al. 2014, 12, 18; IPCC 2019). Bastin et al. estimate that globally 1 billion hectares are available for additional forest without using agricultural or urban land. This could contribute to limiting global warming to 1.5 °C by 2050 (IPCC 2019; Bastin et al. 2019). However, there is a lively scientific debate on the degree to which forests and natural sinks in general can or have to contribute to climate protection or whether large-scale technical approaches in the field of geoengineering have to be considered as well (IPCC 2019; Bastin et al. 2019; Veldman et al. 2019; Scurlock and Hall 1998; Selva et al. 2020; Bond and Keeley 2005). Most geoengineering techniques are thus far still in development and might pose additional threats to human rights, while their effectiveness in climate protection remains largely unproven (Heck et al. 2018; IPCC 2019, 96; Wieding et al. 2020). In contrast, natural sinks like forest ecosystems already play an important role in stabilising the climate (Grassi et al. 2017). One focus of the book (Chap. 4) will therefore be a critical assessment of the potentials of forests ecosystems in climate as well as for biodiversity protection (IPCC 2019; IPBES 2019; Wieding et al. 2020).
Building on that in Chaps. 5 and 6, the most effective design of policy instruments that steer a respective land use which integrates forests as a key component for climate and biodiversity protection is derived. Potential trade-offs between climate, biodiversity protection, the need to globally secure food security and the increasing need for biomass in a post-fossil world are considered. Already existing legal instruments in the context of forests from international, transnational and in some cases (as an example) also national approaches will be assessed regarding their governance effect. The overarching research question is, how forest governance as one crucial part of land-use governance has to be designed to be in line with the climate target of Paris Agreement and the Convention on Biological DiversityFootnote 2 (CBD). The study will function as a complement to our earlier studies on peatlands, on large-scale geoengineering, on land-use-based mitigation and others (Wieding et al. 2020; Ekardt et al. 2018b, 2020; Stubenrauch 2019; Garske 2020; Ekardt 2019; Garske et al. 2020). In these studies, some problems in governing the land use sector have already been identified, especially the problem of depicting climate and biodiversity effects in highly heterogeneous landscapes. Such problems will also play a major role in the present study which will, by these means, contribute to the overall discussion in sustainability governance on various policy instruments such as regulatory law, subsidies, levies, and cap-and-trade schemes.
Notes
- 1.
Paris Agreement (PA), United Nations 2015, Paris, France.
- 2.
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), United Nations 1992, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
References
Aggestam F, Pülzl H (2018) Coordinating the uncoordinated: the EU forest strategy. Forests 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9030125
Bastin J-F, Finegold Y, Garcia C, Mollicone D, Rezende M, Routh D, Zohner CM, Crowther TW (2019) The global tree restoration potential. Science 365:76. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax0848
Blandford D, Hyssapoyannes K (2015) The common agricultural policy in 2020: responding to climate change. In: McMahon JA, Cardwell MN (eds) Research handbook on EU agricultural law. Elgar
Bologna M, Aquino G (2020) Deforestation and world population sustainability: a quantitative analysis. Sci Rep 10:7631. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-63657-6
Bond W, Keeley J (2005) Fire as a global ‘herbivore’: the ecology and evolution of flammable ecosystems. Trends Ecol Evol 20:387–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.04.025
Clark MA, Domingo NGG, Colgan K, Thakrar SK, Tilman D, Lynch J, Azevedo IL, Hill JD (2020) Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2°C climate change targets. Science 370:705. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba7357
De Mastro F, Brunetti G, Traversa A, Cocozza C (2019) Effect of crop rotation, fertilisation and tillage on main soil properties and its water extractable organic matter. Soil Res 57. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR18297
Ekardt F (2019) Sustainability – transformation, governance, ethics, law. Environmental humanities: transformation, governance, ethics, law. Springer, Heidelberg
Ekardt F, Wieding J, Garske B, Stubenrauch J (2018a) Agriculture-related climate policies – law and governance issues on the european and global level. Carbon Clim Law Rev 12:316
Ekardt F, Wieding J, Zorn A (2018b) Paris agreement, precautionary principle and human rights: zero emissions in two decades? Sustainability 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082812
Ekardt F, Jacobs B, Stubenrauch J, Garske B (2020) Peatland governance: the problem of depicting in sustainability governance, regulatory law, and economic instruments. Land 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9030083
FAO and UNEP (2020) The state of the world’s forests. Forest, biodiversity and people. FAO, UNEP, Rome
Fließbach A, Oberholzer H-R, Gunst L, Mäder P (2007) Soil organic matter and biological soil quality indicators after 21 years of organic and conventional farming. Agric Ecosyst Environ 118:273–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.05.022
Forsell N, Korosuo A, Federici S, Gusti M, Rincón-Cristóbal JJ, Rüter S, Sánchez-Jiménez B, Dore C, Bratjerman O, Gardiner J (2018) Guidance on developing and reporting Forest Reference Levels in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/841. EU Commission, Brussels
Frank S, Havlík P, Soussana J-F, Levesque A, Valin H, Wollenberg E, Kleinwechter U et al (2017) Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture without compromising food security? Environ Res Lett 12:105004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa8c83
Funk JM, Aguilar-Amuchastegui N, Baldwin-Cantello W, Busch J, Chuvasov E, Evans T, Griffin B et al (2019) Securing the climate benefits of stable forests. Clim Policy 19:845–860. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1598838
Garske B (2020) Ordnungsrechtliche und ökonomische Instrumente der Phosphor-Governance. Unter Berücksichtigung der Wirkungen auf Böden, Gewässer, Biodiversität und Klima. Metropolis, Marburg
Garske B, Stubenrauch J, Ekardt F (2020) Sustainable phosphorus management in European agricultural and environmental law. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12318
Gatti LV, Gloor M, Miller JB, Doughty CE, Malhi Y, Domingues LG, Basso LS et al (2014) Drought sensitivity of Amazonian carbon balance revealed by atmospheric measurements. Nature 506:76–80. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12957
Gómez-González S, Ochoa-Hueso R, Pausas JG (2020) Afforestation falls short as a biodiversity strategy. Edited by Jennifer Sills. Science 368:1439. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd3064
Grassi G, House J, Dentener F, Federici S, den Elzen M, Penman J (2017) The key role of forests in meeting climate targets requires science for credible mitigation. Nat Clim Chang 7:220–226. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3227
Heck V, Gerten D, Lucht W, Popp A (2018) Biomass-based negative emissions difficult to reconcile with planetary boundaries. Nat Clim Chang 8:151–155. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-017-0064-y
Hedenus F, Wirsenius S, Johansson DJA (2014) The importance of reduced meat and dairy consumption for meeting stringent climate change targets. Clim Chang 124:79–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1104-5
IPBES (2019) The global assessment report on biodiversity and ecoystem services. Summary for policymakers. IPBES, Bonn
IPCC (2019) Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. IPCC, Geneva
Leite-Filho AT, Yameê V, de Sousa Pontes, and Marcos Heil Costa. (2019) Effects of deforestation on the onset of the rainy season and the duration of dry spells in Southern Amazonia. J Geophys Res Atmos 124:5268–5281. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD029537
Leite-Filho AT, Costa MH, Rong F (2020) The southern Amazon rainy season: the role of deforestation and its interactions with large-scale mechanisms. Int J Climatol 40:2328–2341. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.6335
Mengis N, Damon Matthews H (2020) Non-CO2 forcing changes will likely decrease the remaining carbon budget for 1.5 °C. npj Clim Atmos Sci 3:19. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-020-0123-3
Poore J, Nemecek T (2018) Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360:987. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216
Pörtner H-O, Scholes R, Agard J, Archer E, Arneth A, Bai X, Barnes D et al (2021) IPBES-IPCC co-sponsored workshop report on biodiversity and climate change. IPBES, IPCC, Bonn
Rajão R, Soares-Filho B, Nunes F, Börner J, Machado L, Assis D, Oliveira A et al (2020) The rotten apples of Brazil’s agribusiness. Science 369:246. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba6646
Rogelj J, Forster PM, Kriegler E, Smith CJ, Séférian R (2019) Estimating and tracking the remaining carbon budget for stringent climate targets. Nature 571:335–342. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1368-z
Scotti R, Conte P, Berns A, Alonzo G, Rao MA (2013) Effect of organic amendments on the evolution of soil organic matter in soils stressed by intensive agricultural practices. Curr Org Chem 17:2998. https://doi.org/10.2174/13852728113179990125
Scurlock JMO, Hall DO (1998) The global carbon sink: a grassland perspective. Glob Chang Biol 4:229–233. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.1998.00151.x
Selva N, Chylarecki P, Jonsson B-G, Ibisch P (2020) Misguided forest action in EU biodiversity strategy. Science 368:1438.2-1439. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc9892
Smith P et al (2014) Agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU). Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, pp 811–922
Staal A, Fetzer I, Wang-Erlandsson L, Bosmans JHC, Dekker SC, van Nes EH, Rockström J, Tuinenburg OA (2020) Hysteresis of tropical forests in the 21st century. Nat Commun 11:4978. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18728-7
Stubenrauch J (2019) Phosphor-Governance in ländervergleichender Perspektive – Deutschland, Costa Rica, Nicaragua. Ein Beitrag zur Nachhaltigkeits- und Bodenschutzpolitik. Beiträge zur sozialwissenschaftlichen Nachhaltigkeitsforschung. Metropolis, Marburg
Taheripour F, Hertel TW, Ramankutty N (2019) Market-mediated responses confound policies to limit deforestation from oil palm expansion in Malaysia and Indonesia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 116:19193–19199. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1903476116
Teng S, Khong KW, Ha NC (2020) Palm oil and its environmental impacts: a big data analytics study. J Clean Prod 274:122901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122901
Veldman JW, Aleman JC, Alvarado ST, Michael Anderson T, Archibald S, Bond WJ, Boutton TW et al (2019) Comment on “The global tree restoration potential.”. Science 366:eaay7976. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay7976
Verschuuren J (2017) Towards a regulatory design for reducing emissions from agriculture: lessons from Australia’s carbon farming initiative. Clim Law 7:1–51. https://doi.org/10.1163/18786561-00701001
Weishaupt A, Ekardt F, Garske B, Stubenrauch J, Wieding J (2020) Land use, livestock, quantity governance, and economic instruments—sustainability beyond big livestock herds and fossil fuels. Sustainability 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12052053
Wieding J, Stubenrauch J, Ekardt F (2020) Human rights and precautionary principle: limits to geoengineering, SRM, and IPCC scenarios. Sustainability 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218858
Wilkinson DA, Marshall JC, French NP, Hayman DTS (2018) Habitat fragmentation, biodiversity loss and the risk of novel infectious disease emergence. J R Soc Interface 15:20180403. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2018.0403
Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, Springmann M, Lang T, Vermeulen S, Garnett T et al (2019) Food in the anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393:447–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Stubenrauch, J., Ekardt, F., Hagemann, K., Garske, B. (2022). Problem Statement and Research Issues. In: Forest Governance. Environmental Humanities: Transformation, Governance, Ethics, Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99184-5_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99184-5_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-99183-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-99184-5
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)