Advertisement
Policy Forum
Environmental Science

What Does Zero Deforestation Mean?

Science15 Nov 2013Vol 342, Issue 6160pp. 805-807DOI: 10.1126/science.1241277

Abstract

Since 2005, negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have focused considerable attention on the role that reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) can play in climate change mitigation. As global interest in reducing deforestation has grown, numerous governments, corporate groups, and civil society organizations have set time-bound targets for achieving “zero deforestation.” Some targets specify “net deforestation,” some “gross deforestation,” and some do not specify at all (see the table). Public- and private-sector policy-makers who commit to deforestation reduction targets, and those who advocate for them, are often unclear about their implications. This lack of clarity may lead to perverse outcomes, including governments celebrating reductions of deforestation when large areas of native forest have been cut down and “zero deforestation” certification of agricultural commodities produced on land recently cleared of native forest cover. Progress toward goals of forest conservation, climate change mitigation, and associated cobenefits would be better served and more readily monitored by setting separate time-bound targets for reductions in the clearing of native forests (gross deforestation) and increases in the establishment of new forests on previously cleared lands (reforestation). Net deforestation targets, inherently and erroneously, equate the value of protecting native forests with that of planting new ones.
Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

Already a Subscriber?

References and Notes

1
FAO-FRA, “Global forest resources assessment 2010” (FAO forestry paper 163, FAO, Rome, 2010); www.fao.org/forestry/fra/fra2010/en.
2
FAO-FRA, “On definitions of forest and forest change” (Working paper 33, FAO, Rome, 2000).
3
Grainger A., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105, 818 (2008).
5
GOFC-GOLD, “A sourcebook of methods and procedures for monitoring and reporting anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and removals associated with deforestation, gains and losses of carbon stocks in forests remaining forests, and forestation” (GOFC-GOLD Report version COP18-1, GOFC-GOLD Land Cover Project Office, Wageningen University, Netherlands, 2012).
6
Hansen M. C., et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105, 9439 (2008).
7
Baker D. J., et al., Environ. Sci. Policy 13, 249 (2010).
9
Saatchi S. S., et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108, 9899 (2011).
10
IPCC (11), reports an average rate of C sequestration in reforested natural tropical forests of 10 Mg biomass ha−1 year−1 during the first 20-year period, converted assuming 1 Mg biomass = 0.5 Mg C.
11
IPCC, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories vol. 4, Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use (IGES, Hayama, Japan, 2007), chapt. 4.
12
Hosonuma N., et al., Environ. Res. Lett. 7, 044009 (2012).
13
BBC News, Costa Rica bids to go carbon neutral, 12 August 2008; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/americas/7508107.stm.
14
Barreto P., da Silva D., How can one develop the rural economy without deforesting the Amazon? [Amazon Institute of People and Environment (IMAZON), Belém, Brazil 2013]; www.imazon.org.br/publications/books/how-can-one-develop-the-rural-economy-without-deforesting-the-amazon.
15
Sizer N., The False Choice Between Palm Oil and Indonesian Forests, WRI Insights, World Resource Institute (2013); http://insights.wri.org/news/2012/11/false-choice-between-palm-oil-and-indonesian-forests
16
OECD-FAO, “OECD-FAO agricultural outlook 2013” (OECD Publishing, Paris, 2013); http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/agr_outlook-2013-en.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Science
Volume 342 | Issue 6160
15 November 2013

Submission history

Published in print: 15 November 2013

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Acknowledgments

S.B. received a grant from the ClimateWorks Foundation, a member of the Climate and Land Use Alliance. D.Z. conceived the idea for the paper, S.B. undertook the analysis and review of the literature, and both prepared the manuscript. We thank E. Burrows and E. Swails of Winrock, as well as D. Lee.

Authors

Affiliations

Sandra Brown* [email protected]
Ecosystem Services Unit, Winrock International, Arlington, VA 22202, USA.
Daniel Zarin
Climate and Land Use Alliance, San Francisco, CA 94104, USA.

Notes

*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Article Usage
Altmetrics

Citations

Export citation

Select the format you want to export the citation of this publication.

Cited by
  1. Hidden destruction of older forests threatens Brazil’s Atlantic Forest and challenges restoration programs, Science Advances, 7, 4, (2021)./doi/10.1126/sciadv.abc4547
    Abstract
  2. The sound of a tropical forest, Science, 363, 6422, (28-29), (2021)./doi/10.1126/science.aav1902
    Abstract
  3. Capturing ephemeral forest dynamics with hybrid time-series and composite mapping in the Republic of Panama, International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 87, (102029), (2020).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2019.102029
    Crossref
  4. Conceptual Links between Landscape Diversity and Diet Diversity: A Roadmap for Transdisciplinary Research, BioScience, 70, 7, (563-575), (2020).https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaa048
    Crossref
  5. The Impact of Accounting for Future Wood Production in Global Vertebrate Biodiversity Assessments, Environmental Management, 66, 3, (460-475), (2020).https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01322-4
    Crossref
  6. Habitat loss, extinction predictability and conservation efforts in the terrestrial ecoregions, Biological Conservation, 246, (108579), (2020).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108579
    Crossref
  7. Rethinking zero deforestation beyond 2020 to more equitably and effectively conserve tropical forests, One Earth, 3, 6, (714-726), (2020).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.11.007
    Crossref
  8. Traceability matters, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 11, 7, (1159-1187), (2020).https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-04-2019-0145
    Crossref
  9. Similarities and Differences between International REDD+ and Transnational Deforestation-Free Supply Chain Initiatives—A Review, Sustainability, 12, 3, (896), (2020).https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030896
    Crossref
  10. Which forests could be protected by corporate zero deforestation commitments? A spatial assessment, Environmental Research Letters, 15, 6, (064021), (2020).https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab8158
    Crossref
Loading...

View Options

Get Access

Log in to view the full text

AAAS Log in

AAAS login provides access to Science for AAAS members, and access to other journals in the Science family to users who have purchased individual subscriptions.

Log in via OpenAthens.
Log in via Shibboleth.
More options

Purchase digital access to this article

Download and print this article for your personal scholarly, research, and educational use.

Purchase this issue in print

Buy a single issue of Science for just $15 USD.

View options

PDF format

Download this article as a PDF file

Download PDF

Media

Figures

Multimedia

Tables

Share

Share

Share article link

Share on social media

(0)eLetters

eLetters is an online forum for ongoing peer review. Submission of eLetters are open to all. eLetters are not edited, proofread, or indexed. Please read our Terms of Service before submitting your own eLetter.

Log In to Submit a Response

No eLetters have been published for this article yet.