Should We Ready for the Dirge of Demise? | Amarendra Kishore

Amidst hullabaloo of carbon plantation, research reveals that single-species carbon plantations threaten native flora and fauna, while delivering negligible benefits.

Ecologists caution that monoculture tree-planting initiatives pose a significant threat to tropical biodiversity, offering only marginal climate benefits. They emphasize that ecosystems such as the Amazon and Congo Basin are being reduced to mere carbon repositories, neglecting their intrinsic ecological value. Amidst the surge in single-species plantation projects aimed at carbon capture, scientists advocate for prioritizing the conservation and restoration of native forests over commercial monocultures. They warn that extensive planting of non-native trees in tropical regions poses a threat to vital flora and fauna, offering minimal climate benefits in return. Jesús Aguirre-Gutiérrez, an ecologist at the University of Oxford who spearheaded the study, expressed that the scientists felt compelled to speak out after observing the surge in commercial plantations across tropical regions.

In the global endeavor to mitigate the rise of toxic gases and carbon emissions, efforts to rejuvenate our environment are burgeoning. Proposals from developed nations advocate for the strategic cultivation of carbon-absorbing tree species, heralding a safeguard for all earthly inhabitants. This practice, now dubbed ’carbon farming’ by scientists, seeks to combat the pressing threat of climate change. Yet, the pursuit of environmental revitalization is not novel; history recounts past endeavors hailed as "successful experiments." From the Sahara and Australia’s deserts adorned with Eucalyptus trees to mechanical carbon sequestration ventures in Barbados, and the cultivation of Jatropha propelled by jet propulsion technology, and the reforestation of Sumatra’s landscapes with acacia, these pioneering actions illuminate humanity’s enduring quest to heal our planet. Today, amidst the urgency of our climate crisis, the cultivation of specific plant species in designated carbon plantations emerges as a crucial strategy in our collective fight for a sustainable future. But the other side has different stories.

The wisdom behind this initiative lies in selecting tree species with dual benefits as it has been claimed, not only do they excel at absorbing carbon from the atmosphere, but their leaves, fruits, and wood also hold substantial commercial value, thus ensuring sustainability for modern civilization. Reflecting this ethos, however, the recent approval of $700 million by the US President for carbon plantations underscores a commitment to this cause. But what is the reality behind this declaration? Across the globe, meticulous plans are being laid out to identify and cultivate species of trees best suited for such endeavors, is it marking a concerted effort toward environmental preservation on a global scale ?

It is indeed striking that such recommendations often originate from Western countries, especially considering India’s rich biodiversity and the centuries-old lifestyle intricately woven with its natural surroundings, renowned for their air-purifying properties. Research conducted by a university in Finland sheds light on the cultivation of acacia trees in barren lands within wildlife areas, revealing a dual benefit: not only does it mitigate carbon dioxide levels, but it also contributes to an augmentation of the groundwater table. It’s worth noting that acacia, a native tree of the Indian subcontinent, plays a pivotal role in this process. However, the suitability of plant species thriving in European countries may not necessarily translate to compatibility with our own ecosystem. Hence, it’s imperative to approach the adoption or rejection of such recommendations with careful consideration of their respective benefits and drawbacks in the context of our unique environmental landscape.

Ecologists caution that monoculture tree-planting initiatives pose a significant threat to tropical biodiversity, offering only marginal climate benefits. They emphasize that ecosystems such as the Amazon and Congo Basin are being reduced to mere carbon repositories, neglecting their intrinsic ecological value. Amidst the surge in single-species plantation projects aimed at carbon capture, scientists advocate for prioritizing the conservation and restoration of native forests over commercial monocultures. They warn that extensive planting of non-native trees in tropical regions poses a threat to vital flora and fauna, offering minimal climate benefits in return. The ecologists highlighted the growing trend of establishing commercial pine, eucalyptus, and teak plantations in tropical regions for carbon offsetting purposes. They emphasized the unintended repercussions of this practice, including the desiccation of native ecosystems, soil acidification, displacement of indigenous flora, and exacerbation of wildfire occurrences. Despite the myriad ecosystem functions and services offered by tropical ecosystems, society has regrettably reduced their value to a singular metric – carbon. While it is widely assumed that maximizing standing carbon stocks inherently benefits biodiversity, ecosystem function, and socio-economic co-benefits, the reality often diverges from this presumption.

Once upon a time, the virtues of Jatropha cultivation were sung without hesitation, heralding a vision of a carbon-free Earth. The Indian government, in alignment with this fervor, unveiled the National Biofuel Policy in 2008, envisioning that a significant portion—about 20%—of the nation’s domestic diesel demand would be met through biofuels, including those derived from Jatropha. Advocates touted the multifaceted benefits of Jatropha, from its oil extraction for fuel to the burning of its dried plants. Yet, amidst the praise, there lingered misconceptions. Often overlooked are the profound implications that species recommended for carbon farming, including Jatropha, may have on the monsoon system. Equally concerning is the ambiguity surrounding the extent to which these plants and trees’ interactions with the soil may reach—a topic largely absent from current discourse. As we navigate the complexities of environmental stewardship, these critical considerations demand our attention.

It’s noteworthy that during the 1960s to the 1980s, a global trend of Eucalyptus cultivation emerged. Proponents touted its versatility, emphasizing not only its timber but also the potential for paper and leather production from its bark, resin extraction, and medicinal oil derived from its leaves. Despite fervent arguments made by nations and paper manufacturers alike, Eucalyptus cultivation has now become a contentious issue. Today, even contemplating its cultivation in rural areas is approached with caution, given the ecological ramifications it may entail.

As the consequences of Jatropha cultivation come to light, one glaring issue emerges: its substantial water requirements. Studies reveal that countries like Brazil, Mexico, and Tanzania have witnessed biodiversity loss stemming from land-use changes necessitated by Jatropha cultivation. In parallel, reminiscent of the challenges faced by tribal communities in Kandhamal, Odisha, where the absence of grasslands beneath sal trees poses difficulties, India grapples with soil and water degradation resulting from Jatropha cultivation. This degradation manifests in forms such as acidification, ecotoxicity, and eutrophication. In Sundarkhedha village, located in Raipur, Chhattisgarh, the aftermath of Jatropha cultivation on the private lands of 18 farmers serves as a cautionary tale. The failed endeavor has prompted these farmers to seek recourse through local courts, citing unsuccessful cultivation attempts and the degradation of their soil.

Years ago, under a contract, the British alternative energy crop company D1 Oils, in collaboration with Wilmar International, India’s largest processor of palm oil, initiated Jatropha cultivation projects with local farmers. Initially, Jatropha plants were sown across 25 acres in Bhoomiya, Tilda tehsil, Madhya Pradesh, and 40 acres in Hansada village, Chhota Udaipur tehsil, Gujarat. However, these endeavors ultimately ended in failure, leading to widespread disillusionment. Additionally, reports indicate that the State Forest Departments in Bilaspur, Korba, Kanker, and Rajnandgaon districts of Chhattisgarh coerced rural communities into cultivating Jatropha, resulting in similar outcomes of disappointment and environmental harm. The repercussions were profound, instilling fear among rural populations for an extended period. As affected villagers turned to local courts for recourse, government officials’ enthusiasm waned. These instances serve as poignant reminders of the challenges and complexities inherent in the introduction of Jatropha cultivation, highlighting the interplay of economic, environmental, and social factors in shaping outcomes.

The mounting pressure exerted by governments on local communities regarding carbon farming stems from the global emphasis on initiatives like Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+), aimed at promoting carbon plantations. However, the ground reality presents a stark contrast. Indigenous communities in Kalimantan, Indonesia, where proposed carbon plantation projects are slated, are deeply apprehensive. Kalimantan stands as one of the world’s highest carbon-emitting regions, mirroring the plight of Indian forests. In response to these concerns, Australia has drafted a proposal to invest $120 million in two carbon plantation projects within Indonesia’s untamed territories. Yet, the condition of Kalimantan’s forests bears a striking resemblance to that of Indian forests, with devastation rampant and corporate interests showing little regard for the lands of indigenous peoples.

Despite sharing a cohesive social and cultural fabric and relying on natural resources, indigenous communities find their ancestral lands, whether fertile or infertile, upper or lower, continuously under threat. These communities, deeply intertwined with specific pieces of land within their cultural and social groups, face persistent attempts at destruction. Measures like REDD+ have left indigenous communities grappling with the fear of losing their ancestral territories. In the southern part of the island, Sangaihatu, a significant portion of land has already succumbed to destruction due to the cultivation of palm trees initiated by the REDD+ program, directly impacting their way of life and cultural systems. With the introduction of REDD+, crime rates in forest regions have surged, exacerbating the plight of indigenous communities who find themselves displaced from their own lands. The current situation in India’s tribal areas starkly parallels the oppressive scenario unfolding in Sangaihatu.

The stark reality is that the technological concept of carbon plantations has wrought detrimental impacts on the traditional ways of life, agriculture, and livelihoods of indigenous communities, resulting in harm to the environment. This paradigm shift has created a disheartening scenario where conservation efforts aimed at preserving mountains and forests inadvertently jeopardize the survival of indigenous peoples. Just as development projects such as dams, mines, factories, and roads have historically displaced millions of indigenous people worldwide, the culture of indigenous communities once again finds itself under threat. Regrettably, the situation in indigenous areas of Kenya mirrors the destruction caused by palm tree cultivation initiated by the REDD+ project in other regions. It is lamentable that Kenya lacks legislation to protect indigenous peoples from eviction in the name of forest conservation, leaving their heritage vulnerable to exploitation and displacement.

Today, under the guise of carbon plantations, the World Bank and the United Nations (UN) are orchestrating a concerted effort to seize control over the world’s forest resources, cloaking their ambitions in promises of prosperity. Consequently, the global trend of "saving forests" persists, with nations worldwide, including their own, succumbing to these schemes. It is worth noting that whenever such initiatives are unleashed by the World Bank or championed by developed countries, forests across both developed and developing nations are ruthlessly cleared under the guise of environmental protection or biodiversity conservation. Once again, developed countries are leveraging the REDD+ strategy under the pretext of environmental conservation and sustainable management of biological resources to economically dominate the third world. To fortify this agenda, several nations, including the United States, Australia, and numerous European countries, have enacted the Carbon Rights Act within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol.

In line with the precedent set by the Carbon Rights Act, it is anticipated that India’s Parliament will soon enact legislation purportedly aimed at expanding forest cover, all under the guise of forest densification. However, the pertinent question arises: what type of forests are being cultivated, and for whose benefit? Only time will unveil the true nature of India’s forests in the coming decades. Moreover, under the regulations of the year 2022, state governments have been granted carte blanche to seek permission from Gram Sabhas (elected village councils) to extract any portion of forests, without the necessity of their consent—a departure from previous provisions requiring their approval.

Now, the traditional forests renowned for their rich biodiversity stand at risk of being supplanted by commercially-driven species, ostensibly promising prosperity. Tree-planting has been lauded as a crucial strategy in mitigating global warming, with numerous public and private initiatives underway to rapidly expand forest cover worldwide to achieve net zero goals. However, research suggests that the environmental benefits derived from tree-planting initiatives vary significantly based on the scale and type of restoration efforts, and necessitate vast expanses of land. A study conducted in 2019 found that allowing natural forests to regenerate could potentially sequester 40 times more carbon than plantation-based approaches. Certainly, plantations play a crucial role in meeting society’s demand for paper and wood products. However, rebranding industrial plantations as carbon offsets presents another challenge within the unregulated carbon offsets market. It’s essential to recognize that tree-planting initiatives should not be viewed as a substitute for urgently reducing fossil fuel emissions.

Whenever we prioritize one aspect of nature above all others, we inadvertently encourage the proliferation of that aspect at the expense of everything else. Simon Lewis, a professor of Global Change Science at University College London, said it was dangerous to treat trees as “nothing more than sticks of carbon†. Throughout history, Lewis opines, "....we’ve assigned value to components like food, timber, and medicines. Now, we’re replicating this pattern with carbon". Yet, the pressing query remains, whose prosperity will these changes truly serve, and where will indigenous peoples find their place in this new landscape? These are questions that have never before surfaced in India’s history, underscoring the unprecedented challenges faced in balancing economic interests with environmental preservation and the rights of indigenous communities.

(Author: Amrendra Kishore is a Delhi-based development journalist)