Great Bear Rainforest needs both protection and a new economy

Originally published in the Vancouver Sun
Tuesday Jan 22, 2013

Opinion: Carbon credits generated from improved forests management meet the test

Recently there have been criticisms that the carbon stored in trees set aside from logging in the Great Bear Rainforest doesn’t meet the test to qualify for carbon offsets.

ForestEthics Solutions and our colleagues at Sierra Club BC, with whom we work closely on protecting forests, agree that carbon credits should meet the highest standards, including requirements of transparency by the provincial regulations. We also believe that carbon offsets can only be meaningful as part of plan that includes deep emissions reductions. Given our involvement in implementing the Great Bear Rainforest agreements we feel that, while transparency should be required, the carbon credits generated from improved forests management there meet the test. Here’s why:

The Great Bear Rainforest Agreements announced in 2006 were based on reaching two goals concurrently: ecological integrity and high levels of human well-being. We wish these goals were fully achieved, as promised, in 2009, but that is not the case. There have been incremental and significant gains but not enough to meet the criteria for forest health laid out by a team of ecology experts. Nor have high levels of human well-being been fully achieved. When First Nations signed on to establishing over 100 new protected areas and to applying improved logging rules they said they would require initiatives to improve human well-being in their communities. It was a quid pro quo with a dollar amount attached - $200 million in investment to build a new conservation friendly economy. $120 million was raised by 2007 for the protected areas.

The critiques of the Great Bear carbon credits state that these credits don’t meet the criteria of “additionality” and that the project lacks transparency. Additionality is a proof that the carbon emission reduction would not have happened without the revenue from selling the carbon to offset someone else’s emissions. Having worked with all parties involved for the last 7 years to ensure full implementation of the Great Bear Rainforest milestones, we can attest that Ecosystem Based Management, including setting aside 700,000 hectares of rainforest by 2009 would not have happened without carbon revenue-sharing agreements between the province and First Nations. Some critics of the Great Bear carbon credits have asserted that conservation in the region has been assured since 2001 and 2006. That is absolutely not the case. A series of agreements with First Nations was required, including carbon credits.

As importantly, if the agreements are going to be completed by setting more forest off-limits to reach the science based target of 70 percent of the natural level of old-growth forest, more carbon credits will likely be required to garner First Nations support.

Read the full article »

FAIR USE NOTICE. ForestEthics is making this article available in our efforts to advance the understanding of environmental and social issues. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of ANY copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for any purpose, you must obtain permission from the owner of any copyrighted material.
[default donate block]

Give to ForestEthics