Reforest the Tropics, Inc. An applied research program demonstrating climate change mitigation through sustainable farm forestry

McKinsey & Company has just published a new study estimating the costs of various measures for curbing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.  The report provides an updated “Global Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Curve,” an estimate of which measures would be most effective for slowing climate change, and how much they would cost. Cathy Vaughan summarizes certain aspects of the report over at Columbia University’s Climate Matters Blog.

RTT Forest in Costa Rica

Of particular interest to Reforest the Tropics (RTT) is the section on Forestry, beginning at page 116 of the full McKinsey report.  The report notes that forestry (including land use and land change) is the second-largest source of GHG emissions in the developing world and the fourth-largest source of emissions globally.  The report concludes that forestry, as an abatement lever for controlling GHG levels, represents a very large (reducing emissions to negative 0.7 GtCO2e per year in 2030) and cost effective (below € 30 per tCO2e) approach.

How does RTT’s ongoing work fit into McKinsey’s analysis?  The McKinsey authors identified four categories of forestry-related “abatement levers,” which may be used to curb atmospheric GHG levels:  (1) Avoided Deforestation; (2) Afforestation; (3) Reforestation; and (4) Forest Management.  By and large, McKinsey treats these as distinct categories; however, the RTT model combines at least two of these approaches.  RTT establishes new forests primarily on land previously used for farming or grazing (an “Afforestation” lever, according to McKinsey).  However, whereas McKinsey uses a “carbon graveyard” model for afforested lands, RTT actively employs “Forest Management.”

Indeed, RTT uses an advanced Forest Management approach involving regular monitoring and measurement, replanting where necessary, and periodic selective thinning to allow for sustained forest growth (more info here and here).  The period thinning, in particular, allows for steady carbon sequestration in addition to a regular income stream for the land owner — which serves as an incentive to the land owner to protect and preserve the integrity of the carbon sequestration forest.

The McKinsey study is a must-read for anyone interested in the viability of forestry as an approach for controlling greenhouse gas emissions.

Following up from our earlier post discussing the debate over “secondary” tropical forests, we note that Dr. William Laurance, a scientist for the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, has provided an informative summary of the debate over at The Green Room, an environmental news series on the BBC News website.

Contrasting the varying views on the benefits of secondary forests, Dr. Laurance noted that environmental researchers nevertheless share some common views:

“Like many others, we are counting on the Obama administration to have more forest- and biodiversity-friendly policies than we’ve seen in recent years.”

Indeed, science-driven environmental policies will inform the debate over secondary forests by revealing how to maximize the beneficial environmental impact of neglected tropical farms and other previously cleared rain forest areas.

Without a doubt, tropical rain-forest destruction must be curbed.  But is a new forest better than no forest at all?  That’s one of the questions addressed in an interesting article by Elisabeth Rosenthal of the New York Times.  In discussing the varying viewpoints regarding the new jungles popping up in areas of previously cleared tropical rain forest, the article evaluates the ecological benefits of these unplanned “secondary forests.”

Part of the debate about these new forests, Rosenthal explains, is that some view them as alleviating the need to prevent the ongoing destruction of native tropical rain forest — a critical habitat for many of Earth’s most exotic and endangered species.  The article explains:

These new “secondary” forests are emerging in Latin America, Asia and other tropical regions at such a fast pace that the trend has set off a serious debate about whether saving primeval rain forest – an iconic environmental cause – may be less urgent than once thought. By one estimate, for every acre of rain forest cut down each year, more than 50 acres of new forest are growing in the tropics on land that was once farmed, logged or ravaged by natural disaster.

Of course, in the short term, unmanaged secondary forests can never match the biodiversity or carbon sequestration potential of original tropical rain forests.  But these new forests nevertheless play an important role in the tropical ecosystem.  Dr. Joe Wright, a researcher at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, touted the benefits of secondary forests:

“A botanist can look at the trees here and know this is regrowth,” he said. “But the temperature and humidity are right. Look at the number of birds! It works. This is a suitable habitat.”

Importantly, many secondary forests arise from unmonitored growth of abandoned farmland.  Whatever the merits of these forests, Rosenthal’s article does not, unfortunately, address the planned growth of new tropical forests on farmland — such as the carbon-offset forests planted and managed by Reforest The Tropics.

As long as cleared tropical farmland exists, researchers must address what should best be done with it.  As Rosenthal has illustrated, letting it go abandoned, forming unplanned secondary forests, is one option.  Another viable option, as RTT continues to demonstrate, involves planting and managing productive forests, which promote biodiversity, sequtester carbon dioxide at high rates, and generate income for the farmers.