COP26 and Deforestation

By M. Ghazi Randhawa’ 22 & Matthew Neils’ 22

World leaders pledge to halt and reverse deforestation: A cause for celebration?

Hello from Swarthmore! In addition to the excellent coverage of the COP26 proceedings from Alicia, Daniel, and Melissa this week, we are hoping to provide some analysis of the news coming out of the conference from a Swarthmore perspective. Given the attention that it has garnered, the magnitude of the agreement, and the obvious relevance of forest health to us on our arboretum campus, the landmark commitment to ending and reversing deforestation seems a fitting place to start.

Even when surrounded by them, we sometimes take for granted the enormous impact that trees have on global carbon accounting. Stable forests act as massive carbon sinks, sequestering CO2 from the atmosphere. New research estimates that global forests absorb on net 1.5 times the total carbon emissions of the United States each year. However, this carbon does not disappear; when forests are cleared or burned, it is released back into the atmosphere. Indeed, of the world’s three largest rainforests, only the Congo Basin remains a solid carbon sink. Deforestation has a double impact; it stops potential carbon-uptake of the forest and releases carbon that was stored there.

In light of these impacts, representatives of 133 countries covering as much as 85 percent of the forests in the world and at least 30 corporations have signed an agreement committing to stop deforestation by 2030 and make efforts to reverse it. In addition to reaffirming Paris agreement goals of ending deforestation in developing countries, the agreement contains roughly $19 billion in financial commitments to reforestation projects in developing countries and promises to provide remuneration to indigenous people to acknowledge their role as custodians of forests.

Despite the newsworthy nature of this agreement, many experts and activists are skeptical of its ability to create meaningful and lasting differences in deforestation practices. Much of this doubt stems from previous failures of similar agreements. Of particular salience among critics is the 2014 New York Declaration on Forests, a voluntary commitment to halve deforestation by 2020 and eliminate it by 2030. Originally heralded as an impressive step forward, with over 200 signatory countries, multinational corporations, indigenous leaders, and non-governmental organizations, the retrospective story of the agreement has largely been one of disappointment.

The ambitious 2014 commitment was followed by a general lack of published mitigation targets, and the countries that did create targets were unambitious. Indeed, the 2019 five-year report of the project carried the subtitle “A Story of Large Commitments yet Limited Progress.” The data indicate that this assessment may actually have been overly positive; a 2020 report of progress on deforestation goals found, “an average of 41 percent more [tropical primary forest] loss each year after [the agreement] was signed than before.” Needless to say, the 2020 goal of halving deforestation was not met. The Declaration on Forests followed a pattern that many observers of global climate governance are only too familiar with; a promising initiative is introduced at a conference, but national-level financial, administrative, and political follow up is insufficient to achieve its goals.

Despite these past experiences, there is good reason to believe that the new agreement has both new magnitude and a new approach that give it the opportunity to break the pattern of disappointing deforestation commitments and achieve a more meaningful impact. The most important feature of success has been the inclusion of Brazil, Russia and China in this declaration, countries who had not signed onto previous agreements on deforestation. The inclusion of China has large potential for impact because its growing economy has been driving major deforestation in fringe forested areas like Pacific island countries. Similarly, Brazil has been witnessing unprecedented deforestation in the past decade, so its commitments are a good signal.

Secondly, the increased finance for protecting the forests is a necessary attempt to fix the distributive consequences in developing countries of stopping deforestation. Deforestation has immediate benefits for the local communities while ending deforestation has long-term global benefits. Larger financial commitments are an important step in addressing distributive consequences, fostering local support for reforestation measures, and supporting front-line communities. It is the first step to set up a system that works for everyone.

Thirdly, there has been a marked increase in the provision of philanthropic financial commitments by private actors like Jeff Bezos. This shows the growing awareness and perceived urgency of climate action amongst non-state actors. This should be encouraged and shows there is great potential for raising funds for certain oft-overlooked causes of climate action. The inclusion of pledges by at least 30 corporations to cut out products like coffee that drive deforestation in developing countries is a very important and much needed step to halt this blatant exploitation of forests in the developing world. In countries like Brazil, industrial sources of deforestation vastly outnumber the local population’s demand for deforestation.

However, let us not paint too much of a rosy picture of the massively grim state of forests. No international agreement on controversial issues plays out as effectively as it was intended and that is why we see a constant evolution of the treaties, agreements, and bureaucratic setups governing them. The biggest concern has been the role of countries that  bought-in to the deforestation setup for the first time. While Brazil’s inclusion in the agreement has been touted as a game changing scenario for deforestation and harbinger of success of the agreement, critics have alleged that Brazil’s commitment resembles active attempts at greenwashing and is nothing more than a hollow pledge to gain access to climate finance. While Brazil has sent the second largest delegation to COP26, deforestation rates in Amazon in the past 12 months from June have reached their highest levels ever. So will Brazil show a turn around in the next decade? We can only speculate that there is a high chance of underperformance in Brazil due to its current regime’s anti-environmental actions leading right up to COP26 and its needs as an emerging economy. In such a situation, the role of transnational networks of epistemic and activist in the implementation of this agreement in Brazil is of paramount importance in holding it accountable.

Similarly, China has shown a colder attitude to climate change negotiations in COP26 in a clear departure from its earlier ambitions of global leadership in climate action. It has shown clear preference for pursuing environmentally unsustainable practices if the costs get too high with their announcement of 11 new coal plants in view of rising oil prices. Deforestation agreements can suffer a similar fate in China if costs of abatement of deforestation locally and globally get too high.

The US congress also has a history of refusing to ratify environmental treaties due to domestic political conflicts. If Democrats lose control of the Senate in 2022 midterm elections or there is a lack of broad support for these pledges, the USA’s commitment and support to this agreement and other such agreements at COP26 could become a problem.

Lastly, this agreement would not mean anything if the haves of this world continue consuming the same lifestyles that drove our Blue Marble to this state of sheer fragility and possible collapse at the expense of have-nots. The pledged to source out deforestation-driving products by corporations is a necessary step, but many of these companies still fall short of providing remuneration for the profit earned by dwindling forest cover of developing countries over the past decades. Just as fossil fuel companies knowingly brought us to the brink of climate crisis, corporations that drove deforestation have KNOWINGLY landed us in a world of shrinking and fragmenting forests and an extinction crisis by imperilling biodiversity. They should be held accountable. Moreover, we as consumers should feel compelled to source our material comforts locally and sustainably. There is evidence that consumers can change their lifestyles for the better and deforestation is one sector that can allow consumers to express their preferences and make an impact.

Finally, it is vital that we as members of civil society place pressure on governments and the private sector to follow through on their commitments. In the United States and other signatory countries, this looks like working to build political will for ratification, an extensive reforestation program, and meaningful support to indigenous communities, as well as tying agreement followthrough to their diplomatic agenda. Citizens have a vital role in ensuring that agreements made at COP are followed and expanded, and in shaping a more sustainable and just future.