\n<\/p>\n
Editor\u2019s note: From \u201cblue carbon\u201d to \u201cecosystem services,\u201d environmental jargon is everywhere these days. Conservation International looks to make sense of it in an occasional explainer series we\u2019re calling \u201cWhat on Earth?”<\/em><\/p>\n In this installment, we explore the role \u201cHFLDs\u201d play in storing climate-warming carbon.<\/em><\/p>\n You climate people and your acronyms.<\/strong><\/p>\n Yes, we really do use a lot of them.<\/p>\n IPCC. UNFCCC. REDD. You even made \u2018TREES\u2019 into an acronym. I can\u2019t keep them all straight.<\/strong><\/p>\n I know. It\u2019s a lot. To be fair, \u201cU-N-F-triple-C,\u201d as we in the climate world call it, is a lot easier to say than \u201cUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.\u201d<\/p>\n I guess so.<\/strong><\/p>\n Thanks for clicking on this story, anyway.<\/p>\n Well, I\u2019m here now. So \u2014 what does \u2018HFLD\u2019 mean? I assume it\u2019s an acronym for something.<\/strong><\/p>\n It is. It stands for “High Forest cover, Low Deforestation.\u201d<\/p>\n And what does that mean?<\/strong><\/p>\n It\u2019s used to describe places \u2014 countries, usually \u2014 with relatively large areas of intact forests and low rates of deforestation.<\/p>\n In other words, countries that haven\u2019t cut down most of their forests.<\/strong><\/p>\n More or less. Strictly speaking, HFLD countries are defined as having more than 50 percent of their forest cover and a deforestation rate under 0.22 percent per year<\/a>. In other words: Half their original forest cover is still there, and they\u2019re trying to keep it that way.<\/p>\n And this is important because forests are important \u2026<\/strong><\/p>\n \u2026 Indeed. We\u2019ve covered<\/a> this<\/a> amply elsewhere<\/a>, so no need to recap it all here. For this discussion, though, the most important thing to remember about forests is that they absorb and store a lot of the climate-warming carbon pollution that we humans produce: Intact, undisturbed forests can remove something like 436 million metric tons of carbon per year<\/a>. That\u2019s the same amount of greenhouse gases produced by 344 million<\/a> gasoline-powered passenger vehicles driven for one year \u2014 more than the number of vehicles registered<\/a> in the United States.<\/p>\n Wow. So we want more countries to be considered \u2018HFLD.\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n Well, yes \u2014 but perhaps the most important thing for now is to keep deforestation low in current HFLD countries.<\/p>\n OK. So how many HFLD countries are there now?<\/strong><\/p>\n At present, 33 countries meet this definition; the top three are Guyana and Suriname in South America, and Gabon in Africa.<\/p>\n Great. So \u2026 some countries have a lot of forests and have managed to keep them. What\u2019s the problem, then?<\/strong><\/p>\n The problem, simply put, is that just because those countries have large, intact forests now doesn\u2019t mean those forests are safe in the long term. According to the board<\/a> of the Architecture for REDD+ Transactions, known as \u201cART\u201d \u2014 another fun climate acronym for you! \u2014 \u201cfuture deforestation is projected to extend into intact, high-carbon forests, resulting in greenhouse gas emissions of an estimated 170 billion tons of [carbon dioxide] by 2050 \u2014 four times current annual emissions.\u201d<\/p>\n So there is a real risk of more countries losing HFLD status if they can\u2019t afford to maintain \u2014 or steer toward \u2014 a low-deforestation, low-carbon-pollution economic path. It\u2019s a warning sign if countries lose their HFLD status \u2014 in fact, five countries lost this status<\/a> between 2010 and 2019: Cambodia, Laos, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe and Zambia.<\/p>\n So these countries need money<\/em> to maintain their forests, I take it.<\/strong><\/p>\n That\u2019s a big part of it. Unfortunately, it pays to clear forests \u2014 that\u2019s the main reason people do it. You can sell the timber, plant crops or raise livestock in their place. A lot of countries \u2014 including HFLD countries \u2014 need financing to help reverse the economic equation that values forests more when they\u2019re dead than when they\u2019re alive.<\/p>\n But there\u2019s more to it than just money \u2014 some need technical help, others need to resolve issues related to carbon rights and land tenure.<\/p>\n Do HFLD countries receive financial support now?<\/strong><\/p>\n They do, but not that much. Since 2007, HFLD jurisdictions have received less than US$ 2 billion<\/a> in climate finance. This may sound like a lot, but it pales in comparison to the markets that drive deforestation. For instance, cattle production nets US$ 80 billion per year<\/a> in the United States alone<\/em>. Meanwhile, the global timber industry has topped US$ 1 trillion in value<\/a> this year. Without dedicated finance to help countries maintain their forest cover, they are likely to be overwhelmed by the scale of these pressures.<\/p>\n So what are HFLD countries supposed to do? Like, why are we talking about this?<\/strong><\/p>\n I\u2019m glad you asked. It comes down to carbon markets.<\/p>\n Oh, no.<\/strong><\/p>\n Oh, yes.<\/p>\n That\u2019s the carbon credits stuff?<\/strong><\/p>\n That\u2019s the carbon credit stuff. Of course, we\u2019ve already talked about carbon credits<\/a>. In<\/a> great<\/a> detail<\/a>. But to refresh your memory, carbon credits are generated by projects that pay communities and countries to NOT cut down their forests, with each credit representing a metric ton of carbon.<\/p>\n Briefly, they work like this: Companies can pay for credits to compensate for some of the impacts of their greenhouse-gas pollution. That compensation is passed onto the people who maintain forests in developing countries as an incentive to continue their efforts. Done well, this process generates a double benefit: Companies are encouraged to reduce their emissions so they don\u2019t have to pay for so many credits, while the forest protectors receive a financial benefit as long as they keep the forests standing. These forests then can continue to absorb more climate-warming carbon from the atmosphere.<\/p>\n So are there HFLD credits?<\/strong><\/p>\n Indeed. They\u2019re just like other forest-carbon credits, only they\u2019re created using a different kind of approach and labeled as such.<\/p>\n But let me guess \u2014 there\u2019s a catch.<\/strong><\/p>\n Well. Yes. The catch is that, according to critics, HFLD areas should not be eligible for investments like this \u2026<\/p>\n \u2026 because those areas aren\u2019t at a high enough risk of deforestation.<\/strong><\/p>\n Precisely! Some people and organizations believe that HFLD credits don\u2019t actually lead to reductions in carbon emissions1<\/sup> \u2014 that they don\u2019t fulfill the requirement of \u201cadditionality.\u201d<\/p>\n Remind me: What does \u2018additionality\u2019 mean?<\/strong><\/p>\n You already came close to answering that: Additionality is the idea that forest protection \u2014 and the carbon reductions associated with it \u2014 would not<\/em> have occurred without the investment. This is a fundamental concept behind carbon credits. To earn a credit, the forest protectors must demonstrate that the forest is at risk. That\u2019s difficult to establish in places that don\u2019t have a long track record of deforestation \u2014 even though we know those risks are real.<\/p>\n In a way they were victims of their own success.<\/strong><\/p>\n True. It was a perverse situation for forest communities: The harder that people worked to protect their forests in HFLD areas, the less<\/em> eligible they were for incentives to support their work. So, you end up with a situation where the best way for communities to get access to finance is to stop trying to protect their forests, and instead let deforestation rates rise.<\/p>\n Yikes.<\/strong><\/p>\n Exactly. And getting that finance is critical. It\u2019s much easier (and better for the climate) to protect existing<\/em> forests than to plant new ones.<\/p>\n Wait: Why? Like, why not just plant new trees?<\/strong><\/p>\n New trees don\u2019t grow fast enough to compensate for the loss of older ones, which contain decades of stored carbon. There\u2019s also the fact that mature forests are significantly better for wildlife, for protecting water supplies, for reducing erosion, and so on. We should plant new trees, it\u2019s true \u2014 but we should do that while<\/em> protecting the old ones, not instead<\/em> of protecting them.<\/p>\n William Moomaw, an environmental scientist, explained this in a 2019 interview<\/a>:<\/p>\n It\u2019s not that we shouldn\u2019t do afforestation [planting new trees] and we shouldn\u2019t do reforestation. We should. But recognize that their contribution will be farther in the future, which is important. In order to meet our climate goals, we have to have greater [carbon] sequestration by natural systems now. So that entails protecting the carbon stocks that we already have in forests, or at least a large enough fraction of them that they matter.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n I see \u2014 so we have to protect forests even if they\u2019re not <\/em>under threat.<\/strong><\/p>\n Here\u2019s the thing: Forests everywhere are<\/em> under threat. From 2000 to 2020, the world lost roughly 12 percent of intact forest landscapes, according to a report<\/a> published in November 2022. At that rate, more than half the world\u2019s intact forests will be damaged or cleared by 2100. And the study indicates that the rate is growing<\/em>.<\/p>\n Ouch.<\/strong><\/p>\n I know. So, better to figure out ways to protect these places now, before it\u2019s too late \u2014 and carbon credits can help to do that, at a big enough scale, right now<\/em>. It\u2019s time to give HFLD credits their due and pave the way for them to be part of the equation.<\/p>\n I can see that. And I\u2019m sure you people will come up with a few new acronyms along the way.<\/strong><\/p>\n Sadly, you\u2019re probably right.<\/p>\n 1<\/sup><\/em>Carbon offsetting refers to compensating for carbon dioxide emissions arising from activities (often emitted by corporations) by buying an amount of so-called \u2018credits\u2019 that equate to emissions having been reduced.<\/p>\n Bruno Vander Velde is the managing director of content at Conservation International. Want to read more stories like this? Sign up for email updates.<\/a> Also, please consider supporting our critical work.<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n
Further reading:<\/h2>\n