In an issue of Revue<\/em> Projet <\/em>(France) exploring our diverse relationships to forests, Alain Karsenty writes on the \u2018mirage of offsetting\u2019: the idea that planting or protecting forests can compensate for carbon emissions. Companies like talking about \u2018carbon neutrality\u2019 because it allows them \u2018to avoid fundamentally questioning their economic model\u2019. But such projects do not deliver on their promises.<\/p>\n One issue is time: trees need decades to lock away the carbon they are planted to offset. Attempts to resolve this by planting fast-growing species make things worse in the long run, because such species have shorter lifespans \u2013 and so store carbon for less time. Unfortunately, \u2018more than half of the world\u2019s current or planned forest \u201crestoration\u201d projects are of this type\u2019, writes Karsenty.<\/p>\n Other drawbacks to offsetting include carbon leakage due to tensions with local stakeholders over land use, and the increasing vulnerability of forests to wildfires, droughts, and pests. Financial incentives to encourage governments to implement sustainable forestry policies are also problematic. To work, they must account for the \u2018composite nature of states, where political decisions are not the product of rational cost-benefit assessment, but subject to vested interests and corruption\u2019. A consistent framework for independent experts to evaluate projects is also essential.<\/p>\n Ultimately, says Karsenty, offsetting will not be enough to stop deforestation. Policies such as lower taxes on certified \u2018zero deforestation\u2019 products will be needed to encourage consumers to change their habits.<\/p>\n In Europe, this kind of political will is shaky. Kelsey Perlman looks at the problems besetting the European Green Deal, launched in 2019 as an ambitious roadmap to make the EU the first carbon-neutral continent by 2050. Its objectives are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the EU\u2019s natural land. But its pillars are being undermined by \u2018economic pressures, geopolitical tensions and anti-regulation rhetoric,\u2019 all of which are exacerbated by the far-right gains in the 2024 European elections.<\/p>\n For example, despite the widespread popularity of the EU Deforestation Regulation among EU citizens, an \u2018alliance between far-right groups and the EPP\u2019 is attempting to force the European Parliament to water it down to the point of \u2018stripping it of its substance\u2019. The future of the Regulation remains undecided.<\/p>\n Conservative and far-right MEPs, in cahoots with the European forestry industry, are also trying to torpedo a law that would improve the collection of forestry data in Europe. Industry lobbies, Perlman claims, \u2018do not want the debate on industrial forest management to be informed by more accurate data\u2019.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, attempts to adopt legislation obliging Member States to restore degraded ecosystems \u2013 rather than simply preserving them \u2013 faced fierce resistance from the EPP as well as Sweden, Finland, Estonia and other countries with large forestry sectors. Fuelled by the anti-environmentalism of the far right, this \u2018creeping deregulation\u2019 poses a serious threat to the \u2018ambition of ensuring Europe\u2019s environmental policies are commensurate with the current climate and biodiversity emergencies\u2019.<\/p>\n At the grassroots level, writes Perlman, citizens are mobilizing to protect Europe\u2019s forests. One such initiative is Green-Forest, which aims to improve forestry management and protect woodland in the Vercors massif in France. Its founder, Beno\u00eet Coul\u00e9e, explains that one of the obstacles to implementing sustainable practices in France is the fragmented nature of land ownership \u2013 with forests often divided into numerous small plots (four hectares on average). The long lifespan of forestry projects, which can take decades to yield results, makes it difficult to coordinate with owners given that land may have changed hands multiple times during that time.<\/p>\n One way to prevent sustainable projects becoming bogged down in disputes, and to cut down on onerous administrative work for forest managers \u2013 \u2018who must maintain relationships with thousands of different owners\u2019 \u2013 is the creation of groupements forestiers<\/em>. These are run by a legal representative with sole responsibility for making decisions.<\/p>\n Originally created several decades ago by families \u2018to avoid the pitfalls of joint ownership and inextricable deadlocks\u2019, groupements forestiers<\/em> have been adopted by Green-Forest and other citizens\u2019 groups, who use them to manage forests in an environmentally friendly way. Green-Forest buys woodland from private owners in the Vercors to create an area of several hundred hectares that can be sustainably managed in an efficient and streamlined manner, so that \u2018forestry and ecological interests take precedence over economic ones\u2019.<\/p>\n Another association working to encourage a more sustainable approach to forestry management is Pro Silva. Its director, Antoine Cadoret, describes its goal as \u2018to promote mixed-species, continuous-cover forestry (MCCF) based on an irregular approach that respects the natural processes of forest ecosystems\u2019. MCCF is already enshrined in the forestry code in the Walloon region of Belgium, as well as in Slovenia and Switzerland. But its adoption in France has again been hampered by the fact that 75 percent of France\u2019s forests are owned by small landowners.<\/p>\n The goal of MCCF is to maintain the forest as an irregularly structured, diverse, and \u2018highly functional ecosystem\u2019 by cutting down small numbers of carefully selected trees on a rolling basis instead of clearcutting whole areas and replanting a single species. The benefits are both environmental, in terms of increased biodiversity, and commercial, because mixed forests produce higher-quality timber and become more resilient to natural disasters and pests.<\/p>\n With demand for wood as a sustainable resource rising, the current timber production model has reached its limits. As Cadoret says, \u2018in intensive forestry, there\u2019s a belief that the forest must adapt to industry\u2019s needs. But we believe that it is industry that must adapt to what the forest is capable of providing.\u2019<\/p>\n Published in cooperation with CAIRN International Edition<\/a>, written by Cadenza Academic Translations<\/em>.<\/i><\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.eurozine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Mockup_Revue-Projet-1024x768.jpg\")
<\/p>\nMobilizing for the Green Deal<\/h2>\n
Mixed forests, sustainable timber<\/h2>\n
![\"CAIRN](\"https:\/\/www.eurozine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/03\/logo_Cairn.jpg\"){kind=logo}
<\/p>\n