Avoiding bio‐perversity from carbon sequestration solutions

Abstract

The development of a new carbon economy has the potential to offer win-win outcomes for environments and economies. Large-scale tree plantations are expected to play a major role in carbon economies but could have negative ecological and economic consequences when key environmental values such as biodiversity conservation are not considered. We discuss three potential "bio-perversities"-negative outcomes for biodiversity-that could result from inappropriate plantation tree programs aimed solely at reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide and mitigating rapid climate change effects. These are: (1) clearing native vegetation to establish tree plantations, (2) planting trees that become invasive taxa, and (3) tree plantations negatively affecting key ecosystem processes such as fire and hydrological regimes. These bio-perversities may result from common mistakes in environmental management: (1) too narrow a focus on a single environmental value, (2) failing to adequately quantify ecological uncertainty, and (3) failing to anticipate how different groups of people respond to an environmental problem. We highlight ways to prevent possible bio-perverse outcomes in large-scale plantation programs. These include requiring that risk assessments precede project establishment, full carbon accounting is undertaken, incentives used to stimulate tree plantation establishment are rigorously examined, and rigorous compliance and ecological monitoring is undertaken.Bio-perversity-negative biodiversity and environmental outcomes arising from a narrow policy and management focus on single environmental problems without consideration of the broader ecological context.

Short-rotation bioenergy stands as an alternative to spruce plantations: implications for bird biodiversity

“…For each tree species considered in production forestry, and especially regarding introduced tree species and hybrids, it is important for the landowner and society to weigh the relative advantages and disadvantages of each choice, and thereby limit potential conflicts between environmental objectives (Lindenmayer et al 2012). In the case of hybrid aspen there are potential adverse ecological outcomes, due to its partially non-native origin (Felton et al 2013).…”

Ecosystem Restoration for Mitigation of Natural Disasters

“…efforts and actions to capture and store carbon by forest plantations) have negative ecological and economic consequences as biodiversity conservation is not considered, and as a restoration measure can be in direct conflict with protecting biodiversity (see e.g. bio-perversity in Lindenmayer et al 2012).…”

Salvaguardar la biodiversidad en REDD+: Necesario pero no suficiente si este mecanismo busca desacelerar la pérdida de la biodiversidad global

“…Activities to enhance forest carbon stocks could encourage the expansion of carbon plantations at the expense of high-biodiversity non-forest ecosystems (Griscom and Cortez 2013;Parr et al 2014). Furthermore, improved forest management, even if under principles of sustainable forest management, could compromise old-growth forest and pristine natural forests (Huettner 2012;Lindenmayer et al 2012).…”