The ambitious announcement of the UN’s sustainable development goals (SDGs) have recently renewed focus on the potential, form and process of sustainable development (hereafter, SD). The SDGs are wide-ranging and mutually dependent, but given the central role of forests ecosystems in SD, this essay will focus on SDG-15, which aims to “protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss.” (UN, 2015). This essay will focus on sustainably managing forest resources in developing countries (LEDCs), where rates of forest loss are highest (FAO, 2010). I will first consider the scope of the problem and how SDG-15 can help promote SD, and next explain the trade-offs they necessitate. Then, the prospect and form of international assistance will be deliberated. It will be concluded that SDG-15 is crucial to SD, despite potential ‘trade-offs’. Due to institutional shortcomings and need for economic growth, LEDCs do require assistance to implement SDG-15, but the case studies used uncover a trend which signifies that this is not forthcoming.
To avoid ambiguity, there are some key terms to be defined. For the purposes of this essay, SD will be interpreted from a strong sustainability viewpoint (Ekins, 2014), which emphasises that SD should not allow for capital substitution and further ‘meet the needs of present generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (Brundtland, 1987). This lends itself to the ‘uneconomic growth’ argument put forth by Herman Daly (1999), which emphasizes that GDP growth that comes with environmental and social costs, is not beneficial and ‘uneconomic’ in the long-term. Therefore, GDP growth is not alone an indicator of SD. Secondly, LEDCs vary in level and substance of development and can hardly be described as a homogenous group, but this essay uses the UN (2012) definition of LEDCs. Subsequently, all other countries are MEDCs. Thirdly, the essay concerns how ‘actions’ in the name of SDG-15 can contribute to SD, and these actions can range from reforestation programmes, protecting forested areas by turning them into national parks and tightening regulation. These will be explored through case studies.
Forest conservation can contribute economically to SD, but it is primarily for economic reasons that it is exploited in the first place. The major drivers of deforestation are agriculture and live-stock, logging and biofuels and thus deforestation is typically linked to economic growth (Angelsen et al., 2012: 54). Forests are carbon stores when alive, but contribute to carbon emissions when logged and burned, rendering them important for climate change. Many forest ecosystems also constitute critical natural capital, which are processes and resources crucial to health and climate regulation (Ekins, 2014: 57). This awards forests particular importance in SD. Moreover, forests possess vital economic value to governments and the importance of conserving forests is thereby also linked to economic growth, which can be a part of SD. Moore and Rees (2013) describe that, “…no economy is possible without fully functional ecosystems,” highlighting the interdependency of environment and economy and bolstering the strong sustainability view.
SDSG-15 actions are also vital to ecological and social aspects of SD. Firstly, initiatives can contribute to SD by preserving biodiversity, limiting food chain disruption and preserving plants with medicinal property, all of which are integral to the ecosystem dynamics. Initiatives which reduce deforestation also helps mitigate climate change and build resilience by reducing carbon emissions, soil degradation, erosion and all their adverse effects, such as flooding and desertification (Smith and Walpole, 2005: 252) (Adams, 2009: 284). SD is intended to benefit human well-being, and indeed 1.5 billion livelihoods are at risk if the environment is degraded (Kashwan, 2013). Actions halting deforestation contribute to social sustainability, because indigenous heritage is preserved when traditional livelihoods are not vulnerable to climate change. Importantly, new livelihoods can be created through SD projects, by turning forests into eco-tourism areas. Moreover, forests provide resources for over 25% of the world’s population (FAO, n.d.), contribute to human welfare and will indirectly affect livelihoods because of all the other environmental processes already mentioned that it affects.
An example of SDG-15 action incorporates communities into conservation efforts (Ostrom, 1990, 90), as the Dayak people in Borneo have done. Such an approach is sustainable and harmonises well with target 15.2, which regards the management of natural resources. Often, locals are best suited to this job, despite national governments thinking otherwise (Adams, 2009: 256-57, 285). The forest is vital to the Dayak livelihoods, and they know from experience and have been taught that it is important to preserve their forest. They uphold old traditions, such as 10-year rotation cropping and do not tamper with forest outside of allocated plots. Local regulations specify the rates and means of collection of forest resources, and ban agro-chemicals, in order to minimize stress to the environment (WWF, n.d.). This is an example of successful conservation policies which do not bring harm to the local people, but is not the norm because efforts may simultaneously necessitate trade-offs with other development goals.
When evaluating SDG-15 efforts, it is important to consider how they can come at a cost to other development goals. Firstly, protected forest land could have accommodated growing populations or produced food and thus contradicts SDG-2 regarding hunger (UN, 2016) as well as SDG-11 regarding sustainable cities, because there is a risk of overcrowding in urban areas when new land is not available. Secondly, protecting forests poses significant risk to people living in the area, because their livelihoods are disrupted when using forest resources becomes illegal. For example, in the Congo basin, the results of 500 million USD of Western conservation efforts, have been human rights abuses, internal displacement, disruption to livelihoods and no real positive effect on biodiversity (Rainforest Foundation UK, 2016: 7). This implies that some conservation efforts may be misplaced, and the type of sustainable project is important to consider (Pearce et al, 200: 49). Perhaps most importantly, the main debate in the literature on conservation regards the effects of conservation on economic growth (SDG-1 and -8). Namely, by protecting forests, developing countries risk losing economic opportunities in logging or agriculture. Trauger argues that “there is a fundamental conflict between economic growth and wildlife conservation…” (2003:1) and this is often perceived by LEDC governments to be unjustifiable. Therefore, it should be considered whether international assistance is required to fulfil SDG-15, and whether this type of assistance is forthcoming.
Central to this discussion is the notion of climate justice and whether LEDCs require assistance to off-set economic losses, as they rely heavily on natural capital for national wealth (UNU-IHDP & UNEP, 2014: 29). Main debate regards whether responsibility to mitigate climate change lies with MEDCs through historical responsibility or current polluters, including LEDCs. Chatterton describes climate justice as “…principles of democratic accountability and participation… and their combined ability to provide solutions to climate change,” which arguably implies that MEDCs have a moral, and perhaps historical, duty to participate in solving climate change, particularly because they have the financial means to do so (2013: 606). Eventually this assistance will benefit MEDC populations too, who are also vulnerable to climate change, which emphasizes the interdependency of climate change. Importantly, assistance does not have to be direct financial transfers between governments, but can in fact be quite helpful in form of human expertise, micro-loaning, technology or, indirectly, reducing consumption of forest goods in MEDCs. Regardless of the validity of the moral or historical duty claim that MEDCs should aid LEDCs, some may not able to implement SDG-15 without assistance.
Some LEDCs are characterised by weak institutions and corruption, all of which complicate conserving and preserving forest ecosystems without external assistance (Brunnschweiler and Bulte, 2008: 616). Firstly, agreement on ownership of the forests is a precondition for good forest governance. There are often disagreements between national governments, TNCs and the local population on who has rights to the land (Kashwan, 2013)(Agrawal et al., 2008: 1460-2). This indicates the difficulty in applying one broad solution, and highlights the importance of including actors at all scales. Institutional incapacity may also hinder efficient enforcement of projects or initiatives. Secondly, some LEDCs are marred by corrupt governments, who are neither transparent nor held accountable by the international community, which invites misappropriation of assistance funding. Corrupt practices often do not end up being revealed because the donor would lose credibility and support (Smith and Walpole, 2005: 252-3). These characteristics mar some LEDCs ability to implement SDG-15 satisfactorily, if at all. Financial assistance is therefore only useful when the process is transparent and accountable. Having established that international assistance is required for multiple reasons, it is relevant to consider whether such assistance is likely to be forthcoming.
AFR-100, a reforestation initiative agreed to at COP21 is an example of international assistance materialising. 21 countries have committed to reforesting just over 60 million hectares, supported by institutions like the World Bank and World Resources Institute (Jungcurt, 2016). Restoring forests will contribute “to improved soil fertility and food security, improved availability and quality of water resources, reduced desertification, increased biodiversity, creation of green jobs, economic growth, and increased capacity for climate change resilience, adaptation and mitigation” (WRI, n.d.). AFR100 is also within the mainstream promotion of green growth, a term which includes resource efficiency, social inclusion and low carbon, and therefore has support from large institutions and donors. However, since the project is yet in its early stages, it is not yet known whether assistance will continue to materialise. A similar project by the UN, REDD+, struggles with long-term financial aid, relying instead on short-term donations (Angelsen et al., 2012: xiv). These examples give reason to be sceptical about the commitment to assistance.
There are also cases where political will lacked and caused conservation efforts to fail. Often, politicians are willing to verbally support conservation efforts, but do not realise their promises. This is well exemplified by the 2007 Yasuni Initiative, a proposal by the Ecuadorian government to not drill for newly-discovered oil in the biodiverse Yasuni National Park. The effort would have preserved biodiversity, reduced emissions and protected two isolated indigenous peoples, at the expense of oil revenues. In exchange for conserving this hotspot, the government asked the international community to contribute half of the opportunity cost (Larrea and Warnars, 2009: 219). By 2013 the plan was abandoned, as the international community failed to compensate Ecuador, raising less than 1% of the target (Puig, 2013). This indicates that realistically, international assistance is unlikely to be forthcoming, especially on the scale required, due to a lack of political will. I contend that this trend appears to be continuing, as right-wing populist parties with little interest in conservation gain power across the globe. This is evidenced by the defunding of the EPA by President Trump, and signals that assistance is less likely to be forthcoming in the future.
In conclusion, forest conservation efforts contribute to SD and mitigates climate change through positive impacts on environmental, social and economic sustainability. Oftentimes projects beneficial to SDG-15 will include trade-offs with other SDGs, and particularly controversial is the cost to economic growth. I stand by the uneconomic growth theory, because critical natural capital is non-substitutable and SDG-15 contributes to this. The problem transgresses borders and scales though, because of the multitude of players and interests involved. LEDCs require economic incentive to off-set losses, and MEDC’s historical emissions add an element of climate justice to this argument. However, financial assistance is only beneficial when correct and transparently administered. Case studies evidence that while there is widespread support for these projects, and occasionally financial support from large institutions, assistance is unlikely to be forthcoming on the required scale, because of a lack of political will. A weakness that appears in many case studies relates to the relative novelty of the conservation projects. SDG-15 was formulated in 2015, and it is hard to evaluate the implications of new projects. Furthermore, there is much uncertainty about the short-term and long-term trade-offs of SDG-15 projects, which complicates conclusion on their value.