The financial incentives of destroying forested lands are well known. There is easy money to be made, after all, in the main industries that drive deforestation: beef, cocoa, soy, palm oil, and timber. In the most basic sense, it is obvious that there is more financial incentive in clearing a forest than there is in leaving it untouched. That’s why, in 2019, the world witnessed the loss of a soccer field’s worth of rainforest every six seconds.
But forests have value beyond the land they occupy. Each year, the world’s forests absorb 7.6 billion metric tonnes of CO2—150 percent of yearly U.S. carbon emissions. Forests conserve biodiversity, clean our water, prevent floods and erosion, and more.
Seeing Ecosystems for What They’re Really Worth
Nations ignore these issues at their peril. Forests are worth more to us alive than they are dead. Commodities are valuable, but not as valuable as the survival of our ecosystems. These services are essential to our existence.
Besides, there is money in sustainability—money not simply for short term gain—but for long term benefit. Recent research makes it clear that environmental degradation brings disastrous economic consequences. Scientists estimate that the American states of Missouri and Illinois, for example, will experience a 70 percent decline in annual crop yields due to rising temperatures brought on by climate change.
It’s difficult to put a price on the ecosystem services provided by our planet’s forests, but scientists have aimed to do just that, coming up with a conservative estimated value of $33 trillion dollars each year on average.
Incentives for Change
In spite of this knowledge, we have continued to destroy vital ecosystems for short-term profits. What if, instead, landowners and communities could make money on the crucial resources the land provides?
Forests may always be viewed as a commodity, but this could be used in their favor.
This is the idea behind the framework for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, or REDD+. These initiatives aim to help developing countries build capacity to prevent deforestation and manage forests sustainably through results-based financial incentives from developed countries and corporations, and even have a place in Article 5 of the Paris Agreement.
There is money in sustainability—money not simply for short term gain—but for long term benefit.
One form of REDD+ is forest carbon offsets, where a government, landowner, or community earns money for committing to keep carbon stored on their land. Similar to carbon credits, where companies or countries that emit large amounts of greenhouse gases buy credits from those that are low emitters, major emitters purchase forest carbon offsets in order to cancel out their own contributions.
Another system that creates positive financial incentives is payment for ecosystem services (PES). Under this model, the beneficiary of an ecosystem service pays the owner of the land for providing that service. China, Mexico, and Costa Rica have already initiated large scale PES practices to pay landowners for using their land in a way that conserves biodiversity, purifies water, prevents erosion, or sequesters carbon. The United States’s Conservation Reserve Program pays farmers yearly rent to plant species that are beneficial to the ecosystem and to refrain from using environmentally critical areas for agriculture.
Good in Theory, Controversial in Practice
Most people seem to agree that the idea of shifting economic incentives is important for climate protection. Even so, REDD+ in practice has been controversial. One main objection concerns equitability, with critics asserting that REDD+ allows developed countries to shift the burden of climate change to less developed countries. Forest communities have unique concerns, worrying that policies will undermine their land and resource rights.
There are also concerns about leakage. Leakage happens when projects meant to prevent deforestation instead simply displace it. Say, for example, a timber company wants to cut down a specific forest and is denied due to REDD+ policies. That company might then simply cut down a different forest.
Leakage is a commonly brought up issue when talking about carbon offsets. Unfortunately, it is an issue inherent to many conservation initiatives and is difficult to avoid. When a corporation cannot do business in one area, it is likely that they will transfer to another. Leakage is a problem both in PES programs as well as forest carbon offsets.
That is why most quality REDD+ initiatives focus on supporting communities to adopt sustainable practices while also receiving financial incentives.
In Peru’s Tambopata National Reserve, for example, local farmers are shifting to sustainable methods of harvesting cocoa. As a result, degraded land is recovering and locals have income both from sustainable cocoa farms and from the sale of carbon credits. The area is now more attractive to investors and the people there have a more secure livelihood. When organizations implement REDD+ in this way, there can even be beneficial leakage. This is when sustainability knowledge spreads throughout the area and successful programs foster a more friendly attitude towards conservation efforts.
Boosting the Economy and the Environment
The idea of putting a price tag on something that seems priceless might sound odd, but there is logic behind it.
In decades past, environmentalists have fought to protect nature by arguing that it is more important than the economy. It is true that if we continue to degrade ecosystems, there will be no economy, yet time and again short-sighted economic interests drive deforestation. We cannot continue to position forests and the economy as if they are dichotomously opposed. Big money and near-term economic interests always win out. REDD+ has the potential to address this by merging those economic interests with environmental protection.
Not all REDD+ initiatives are equal, and what works in one area may not work in another. Negative outcomes are possible if we do not implement projects and policies carefully. Nevertheless, REDD+ has the potential to change economic incentives in a way that drives sustainability. Further, REDD+ can do this while also lifting communities out of poverty.
When discussing REDD+, we must always keep equitability in mind. Programs should remain transparent, with equal access to enrollment and fair compensation. Many environmentally critical areas are home to indigenous communities, and initiatives in these areas should ensure that these communities are at the forefront of decision making. If leaders are sensitive to these concerns, then REDD+ has the potential to benefit everyone involved. In order to combat leakage, requirements should be in place for project developers to utilize methods that prevent leakage.
If we implement REDD+ with all of this in mind, it could be a major step in paving the way forward for a sustainable future.
Feel free to reach out to me at cscarlettkennedy@outlook.com
- Gene Editing for Crops with Environmental Superpowers - July 14, 2021
- Environment or Economy: Why Not Both? - June 30, 2021
- Unpacking the Humanitarian Crisis in Tigray, Ethiopia - June 16, 2021