133
6
systemic change (such as degrowth). However, governments first of all tend to
design their climate mitigation measures in accordance with neoliberal frameworks.
A considerable part of climate mitigation today focuses on forest conservation
and afforestation. The idea is to reduce global greenhouse emissions caused by
deforestation, since trees absorb and store CO 2 from the air. There is, however,
scientific uncertainty about how much impact this may have. In addition, when
trees are cut down for energy purposes or when forests burn, CO 2 is again released.
Nevertheless, deforestation is a factor contributing to climate emissions, although
the estimated size of this contribution has changed.
In 2007, the IPCC’s fourth assessment report estimated that deforestation constituted 20% of total climate emissions, but in the fifth assessment report in 2014,
this estimate was reduced to about 12%. In addition, Winrock International and
Woods Hole Research Center (2013) have concluded that deforestation only represents around 10% of total CO 2 emissions and that this percentage continues to go
down, because global climate emissions increase, while deforestation decreases.
However, it has become clear that the efforts to arrest deforestation have had limited and often temporary effects of reducing carbon emissions. Over the last years,
large forest areas with climate mitigation projects have gone up in smoke in several
countries. Brazil is a case showing how vulnerable forests are as carbon storage,
when the election of a new president in 2018, Jair Bolsonaro, resulted in a forest
policy with focus on exploitation rather than protection.
A premise under the Paris Agreement on climate change from 2015 is that each
country makes its own decisions regarding its total contribution to climate mitigation and how to contribute to reduced emissions. Thus, it is up to the country’s government whether or not to establish climate mitigation policies in accordance with
the principles of temporal and spatial climate justice. In the following, we use Norway
as a case for discussing central aspects of a country’s climate mitigation policy.
6.3 Norway’s Climate Change Mitigation Through Forest
Conservation in Tropical Countries
One of us is in a meeting with a group of women in a village in Kondoa District in
Tanzania. The women are upset by our question about how they see an ongoing
project on conservation of the forest next to the village. They know that we are
from Norway, and that the project is funded by Norway. They tell us about how
they depend on the forest for daily activities such as collecting firewood for cooking
and grazing animals in the dry season. The project has resulted in major restrictions on such activities. One woman says: ‘My heart hurts when I hear the name of
that project. If you mention it again, I’ll leave!’
The project lasted from 2010 to 2014. Since 2011 we have visited the area and
conducted fieldwork there many times (Svarstad and Benjaminsen 2017). Each
time we have returned to the area, we have met many villagers who have subscribed
to a strong narrative of opposition to the project. But we have also met people who
have received benefits in the project period, and those who have trusted the prom6.3 · Norway’s Climate Change Mitigation Through Forest …
6
systemic change (such as degrowth). However, governments first of all tend to
design their climate mitigation measures in accordance with neoliberal frameworks.
A considerable part of climate mitigation today focuses on forest conservation
and afforestation. The idea is to reduce global greenhouse emissions caused by
deforestation, since trees absorb and store CO 2 from the air. There is, however,
scientific uncertainty about how much impact this may have. In addition, when
trees are cut down for energy purposes or when forests burn, CO 2 is again released.
Nevertheless, deforestation is a factor contributing to climate emissions, although
the estimated size of this contribution has changed.
In 2007, the IPCC’s fourth assessment report estimated that deforestation constituted 20% of total climate emissions, but in the fifth assessment report in 2014,
this estimate was reduced to about 12%. In addition, Winrock International and
Woods Hole Research Center (2013) have concluded that deforestation only represents around 10% of total CO 2 emissions and that this percentage continues to go
down, because global climate emissions increase, while deforestation decreases.
However, it has become clear that the efforts to arrest deforestation have had limited and often temporary effects of reducing carbon emissions. Over the last years,
large forest areas with climate mitigation projects have gone up in smoke in several
countries. Brazil is a case showing how vulnerable forests are as carbon storage,
when the election of a new president in 2018, Jair Bolsonaro, resulted in a forest
policy with focus on exploitation rather than protection.
A premise under the Paris Agreement on climate change from 2015 is that each
country makes its own decisions regarding its total contribution to climate mitigation and how to contribute to reduced emissions. Thus, it is up to the country’s government whether or not to establish climate mitigation policies in accordance with
the principles of temporal and spatial climate justice. In the following, we use Norway
as a case for discussing central aspects of a country’s climate mitigation policy.
6.3 Norway’s Climate Change Mitigation Through Forest
Conservation in Tropical Countries
One of us is in a meeting with a group of women in a village in Kondoa District in
Tanzania. The women are upset by our question about how they see an ongoing
project on conservation of the forest next to the village. They know that we are
from Norway, and that the project is funded by Norway. They tell us about how
they depend on the forest for daily activities such as collecting firewood for cooking
and grazing animals in the dry season. The project has resulted in major restrictions on such activities. One woman says: ‘My heart hurts when I hear the name of
that project. If you mention it again, I’ll leave!’
The project lasted from 2010 to 2014. Since 2011 we have visited the area and
conducted fieldwork there many times (Svarstad and Benjaminsen 2017). Each
time we have returned to the area, we have met many villagers who have subscribed
to a strong narrative of opposition to the project. But we have also met people who
have received benefits in the project period, and those who have trusted the prom6.3 · Norway’s Climate Change Mitigation Through Forest …