In the first part of our discussion about “trees” here we looked at issues around carbon offsets based on deforestation-related projects. Some investigations have questioned how much benefit really arises from such projects and whether they are anything more than a convenient method of “greenwashing” for big airlines and other carbon-emitting industries.
But we shouldn’t rule these activities out completely. The advice – as in so many cases – is that firms looking to use such offsets must do their due diligence properly. And that may well be a task for procurement, given this is fundamentally about buying – in this case, procuring offsets. So make sure that the money really is going into achieving the goals, not just enriching project managers or even funding corruption. Have clear measures so that the benefits can be verified and assessed. And really, buying such offsets should not be the only or even the major element of any organisation’s emission reduction or net zero strategy.
What about schemes that are based more simply on planting new trees rather than avoiding deforestation? Surely, they must be positive in all cases, less susceptible to challenge and it should be easier to measure the benefits?
Well, as usual, it is more complex than we might first think. Whilst many tree-planting schemes are positive, there are still a surprising number of issues to be considered here. So if you want to support such schemes, you (or your organisation) might want to ask;
· Would these trees have been planted anyway, without my contribution or intervention?
· How do I know those are my trees that are being planted i.e. they are not being “double counted” and offsetting carbon emissions for multiple users’?
· Are they the right sort of trees for their habitat, and what impact will they have on the local environment and communities – human, animal and physical?
· Will the trees be planted and maintained professionally? What percentage will survive to maturity?
· Can I physically see my trees – visit and photograph them?
Indeed, we are starting to see some conflicts between tree planting and the needs or desires of those who live in the areas in question. That is true not just in terms of the rainforest, but closer to home as well. There has been push-back recently in Wales around both government and private sector plans for tree planting. As Sky News reported this month:
Rural farming communities in Wales could be "decimated" if blanket afforestation is allowed, according to the president of the National Farmers Union in Wales. The warning comes amid large scale government plans to plant millions of trees across the country to create a new national forest. But there is concern from some communities about the number of Welsh farms being sold to large-scale investment firms, which plan to create woodland to offset carbon emissions.
Investment firms are buying up land from farmers who have eked out a not particularly profitable existence for decades or centuries on what is often poor agricultural land. Instead of “growing” sheep, the new owners will plant trees and potentially make money from both offset-type payments and commercial timber production.
But this will change the fundamental nature of the landscape and not for the better, in the views of some local people. It could destroy the centuries-old traditions of hill farming. And there are concerns about whether the trees will be appropriate for the area.
On a similar note, in Scotland, there have been complaints about the risk to native woodland from the newly planted species.
Environmental campaigners have criticised the Scottish government's tree-planting policy as "totally irresponsible". They say ancient woodland is being damaged by non-native species and that plans for large scale planting will make the problem worse. They have been supported by the TV naturalist Chris Packham, who says that harming native trees risks aggravating a "biodiversity crisis".
Farmers have also pointed out that this large-scale conversion of agricultural land to forest is reducing the capacity for local food production, hardly a good result in terms of national self-sufficiency and avoiding import-related “food miles”. Famers argue that it would be better to integrate planting and new woodland with existing agricultural land use, with farmers themselves taking the lead, rather than external organisations imposing the new approach on local communities.
It is all very complicated, as is so often the case with these purpose-related subjects, and even our two short articles here have demonstrated a number of complex issues. Whilst many initiatives are not clear-cut in terms of “good” or “bad”, there is good summary of the “golden rules” here, taken from a major research report. So for organisations looking to incorporate tree planting or deforestation initiatives into a “procurement with purpose” strategy, by all means proceed, but do so carefully. Clearly there will be good schemes you can support - and less good. We will only increase the former and decrease the latter if decision makers take the time to understand the issues, ask the right questions and take the appropriate actions.