 |
| Protecting mangroves and forest projects |
Forests, Water, and the Green Mirage
Why “green” can go wrong
Reforestation drives, mangrove plantings, and watershed protection programs are often highlighted in national climate plans. On paper, they promise carbon storage, coastal protection, cooler microclimates, and resilient water supplies. In practice, many become green mirages—projects that appear promising in photos but fail to survive a single dry season, storm surge, or budget cycle. The reasons are clear: sapling scams, inflated survival rates, species planted in the wrong places, and contracts that pay for “number of trees planted” rather than for ecosystems restored. Land-tenure conflicts and weak law enforcement widen the gap between spending and real protection. UNDP’s work on corruption risks in adaptation and REDD+ warned of this dynamic over a decade ago, and the risks remain current (UNDP, 2010/2015).
This chapter focuses on three fronts where integrity failures are common: (1) reforestation and mangrove projects, (2) watershed governance (illegal logging and mining encroachment), and (3) carbon projects (baseline gaming and benefit-sharing opacity). We then present country cases—the Philippines, India, Bangladesh—and close with community-led alternatives that actually work.
Reforestation and mangrove projects: how sapling scams and survival-rate games hollow out protection
The incentives problem
Most tree-planting contracts reward inputs (seedlings purchased and planted hectares) instead of outcomes (survival after 1–3 years, canopy closure, and coastal protection). When payments clear at planting, contractors have little incentive to ensure aftercare, fencing, watering, or species-site matching. Decades of evaluation in the Philippines have shown that survival is often just 10–20% when the wrong species are planted, or tenure is unresolved (Primavera, 2000s). These are not just ecological errors; they are governance errors—contracts designed to pay for photogenic failure (Primavera, 2009/2012).
What the literature says. Reviews of mangrove rehabilitation across Southeast Asia and the Philippines report mixed outcomes, with inappropriate species and poor management being the most common reasons for mass mortality (Barnuevo et al., 2017; FAO, 2007/2020; UNEP/FAO global assessments). The FAO’s long-term mapping shows heavy historical losses and a slow recovery: from roughly 16.9 million ha in 1990 to 15.2 million ha in 2005, with protection/restoration still lagging pressures in many deltas.
Where “survival rates” get inflated
Common tricks include (a) counting replanted seedlings as “survivors,” (b) measuring immediately after the rainy season rather than at the end of the dry season, and (c) sampling only sheltered plots, excluding wave-exposed segments. Integrity fixes are straightforward: define survival at 12 and 36 months, require independent audits, and utilize satellite/drone imagery to validate canopy growth (UNDP, 2010/2015; CoST/OC4IDS logic applied to green projects).
Land tenure and the “who owns the trees” problem
Plantations fail when communities fear displacement or receive no share of the benefits. Land conflicts are not a side note; they are the driver of attrition and sabotage. Transparency International’s work on land corruption and climate justice highlights “green grabs,” benefit exclusion, and corruption in land allocation—exactly the risks that derail reforestation and mangrove programs (TI/Transparency International, 2023).
In summary, ensure payments are based on verified survival rates, guarantee secure land tenure and genuine community involvement before planting, make survival audit data publicly accessible in machine-readable formats, and use remote sensing to independently verify project claims.
Watershed governance: illegal logging, mining encroachment, and enforcement capture
Watersheds supply the water that rivers carry and that cities drink, and they also anchor upstream flood mitigation. Yet upland forests remain vulnerable to illegal logging, charcoal extraction, and encroachment by mining. Where permits, patrols, and prosecutions are weak—and where local officials are captured by powerful interests—forest cover erodes, sediment loads rise, and downstream communities flood more often. The UNDP and TI’s climate-governance analyses emphasize how elite capture, opaque concessions, and weak enforcement hinder conservation goals (UNDP, 2010/2015; TI, 2011/2023).
For river basins, the separation between environment, mines, local government, and police is often paper-thin. When trucks move at night, and cases stall, regulations are “performative”—posted but not enforced. The costs manifest as clogged reservoirs, silted channels, and eroded riverbanks that fail prematurely under heavier rainfall (see Chapter 5). Governance reforms here are not glamorous—transparent timber-chain data, real-time truck permits, prosecutorial follow-through—but they are the plumbing of resilience.
Comments
Post a Comment