Community control will help protect forests and boost their role as carbon sinks, which will not only reduce global emissions but also help in preserving biodiversity and ensuring food security
Local communities, including indigenous peoples, control much of the world’s forests. Giving them legal rights to it will dramatically increase their interest in protecting these forests. That will be the best way to pull carbon dioxide out of the air and control global warming, points out Climate Lands Ambition and Rights Alliance (CLARA).
In October 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published a special report on the importance of keeping average global temperature rise within 1.5 degrees Celsius from preindustrial days. IPCC experts worked out how the world could do that, but pointed out that this would require unprecedented changes in the global economy and would be very costly indeed. See: 1.5 degree ambition demands radical change, UN warns
CLARA, an alliance of advocates, faith-based organisation and scientists, has now come up with an alternate set of solutions that it says will cost far less and will not require potentially risky mitigation measures, like carbon capture and storage. The new set of solutions, including land rights to local communities, was presented at the December 2-14 UN climate summit in Katowice, Poland.
Pointing out that around half the world’s lands are under customary land use claims rather than individual property rights, a CLARA spokesperson said legalising community ownership of such lands would lead to protection of forests that would then act as carbon sinks while also protecting biodiversity and food security for millions. Currently, only around 10% of the world’s lands are legally under community ownership.
Avoiding further loss and degradation of primary forests must be the first priority in combating the climate and biodiversity crises, CLARA says. For example, restoring peat lands and preventing further burning and draining of peat (now done mostly to grow oil palms) would avoid around 1.9 gigatonnes of carbon emissions per year.
Setting aside 600 million hectares of degraded natural forests (about a quarter of the total) will be a first step, say the scientists. That should be followed by restoration and protection of these forests. “Natural or assisted regeneration of native forests is the most effective intervention from climate and biodiversity perspectives,” says CLARA.
In areas where agroforestry is possible, the introduction of perennial species, orchard crops, and other mixed-use systems can also lead to large per-acre increases in carbon stocks, the scientists point out. Meat and dairy production should be integrated at the landscape level, they say, and should promote increased agro-biological diversity of cropping and livestock systems.
Assisting smallholder farmers to adapt to climate change is the most urgent priority that addresses both food security and leads to a transformative pathway for agriculture. “Other mitigation gains in agriculture can also come on the demand side through food system and diet change,” CLARA said. The scientists have also stressed the need to reduce the use of nitrogen in food production, because use of this fertiliser sometimes leads to greenhouse gas emission fluxes.
CLARA says changing the way meat and dairy are produced and consumed provides a large mitigation opportunity. Limiting feed production and relying on natural grasslands and food waste to feed livestock also means reducing the total number of livestock, and thus the amount of meat and dairy products consumed. These changes could reduce emissions by 4.5 gigatonnes of carbon per year.
Transforming agriculture and adding agroforestry can reduce farming emissions from 11 gigatonnes of carbon per year now to 3.5 gigatonnes by 2050, the scientists have calculated.