This the text of my article in the latest EU magazine 'Forest Matters'. Magazine can be ordered from the EU FLEGT site (I think).
‘REDD plus’ can work, but only if the ‘plus’ means People
Dominic Elson
5th August 2011
Deforestation, particularly from forests in developing countries, accounts for around 17% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, more than the global transportation sector and second only to the energy sector. The forestry sector was thus always going to be an important component of any global deal to constrain emissions, but in the event it has become the most prominent sector. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meeting at Cancun in December 2010 established an incentive mechanism to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, conserve and enhance forest carbon stocks, and promote sustainable forest management. This scheme is known as ‘REDD+’.
Forests were already useful for many things before their role in climate control became an issue. Forests support the livelihoods of 1.2 billion of the world's poorest people and are home to more than 50% of the world's species diversity. They provide a vast range of foods, animal fodder, fuel, building materials and medicines for the largely rural population, while protecting watersheds replenishing soil nutrients. Besides timber, many of the world’s most valuable commodities come from forests: including major crops such as coffee and cocoa as well as specialist resins and aromatic roots.
If forests are so useful, one may wonder why they are under threat at all. So understanding the dynamics behind forest clearance and degradation is essential if REDD+ is to succeed. A simplified answer is that forest clearance is correlated with economic progress - as was the case in Europe and USA. As we recall from our history lessons: forests are cleared, timber sold, and the wealth used to ‘improve’ the land so that it may support crops or pasture. But analysis has shown that this correlation does not mean causation. There are many factors that drive economic growth and the formation of capital, and clearing forests may not always be the straight line route to riches. One does not have to look too hard to find evidence: Haiti is almost completely deforested yet unremittingly poor, meanwhile Vietnam has been growing its forest estate throughout its period of rapid economic growth. Indeed, in the 20 years to 2010, 59 countries actually expanded their forest estate, many of them developing countries.
Where deforestation is occurring, it is often because the political economy of that country is bound up in the capture of ‘rents’ from high value timber and the release of cheap land for plantations. In some cases, sudden rises in deforestation can be predicted based on election cycles, as politicians reward financial backers with forest clearance permits. Tackling this system when it is so institutionalized in certain countries will be a daunting challenge for REDD+. Perhaps the only sure way to succeed is to link payments to results (so a country will only get the payments if the forest estate has improved), but this is complicated to administer and delivers the cash only after the event. For many of the target countries, the money is needed up front if there is to be any chance of changing the system.
REDD+ is an unprecedented attempt to deliver ‘payments for performance', combining carbon, biodiversity and poverty alleviation goals. Some are skeptical that any project that relies for its success on the intricate workings of social and political processes in developing countries can be wholly successful without having some unintended consequences along the way. There is a danger that in attempting to control the system, REDD+ will centralize power and threaten the recent progress that has been made in recognizing the rights of local people over the forests they inhabit. This would be unfortunate, for it is now clear to some experts that for REDD+ to succeed at all, it must be structured around the needs of rural communities and forest dwellers.
Look after the people that look after the trees
When we talk of 'virgin forest' we imply the land is somehow unsullied, pure, a stranger to the human stain. But this is misleading. Forests - especially tropical forests - are human landscapes. They contain communities, boundaries, tribes, clans and households. They may not look like our fields and hedgerows, fences and walls, but most forests are in fact delineated in complex ways.
In the mosaic landscapes that encompass forests, people are engaged in a range of activities - such as agroforestry - that rely on a diverse and delicately balanced ecosystem. Some of these lands are deemed to be 'primary forest', and some are not thought to be forest at all, despite the presence of various types of trees and palms. The only way that REDD+ can be successful in regulating carbon emissions is by encompassing all these landscapes, and this requires an understanding of how people currently use them.
When we look at the forest - and landscapes with trees - as a place for people, we see abundant opportunities for improving livelihoods. For instance by building a viable enterprise sector, that allows rights-holders to exercise command over the natural resources in their domain in an equal partnership with capital investors, rather than as subordinate to outside interests. This approach will still satisfy our needs to constrain emissions. In fact, an extensive survey found that when local people were granted greater autonomy over forest areas, combined with sustainable economic options, the carbon performance of those landscapes was greater than in areas controlled by governments, NGOs or donor projects.
The key factor that determines this success is land tenure reform. China and Vietnam have both experienced a significant expansion of their forest estates through granting property rights to local people, stimulating investment in tree planting and helping to restore local ecosystems. The evidence shows that where people obtain unambiguous, exercisable rights over forests, within the context of clear responsibilities, they feel empowered to invest their own labour, time and capital in improving the landscape to achieve long term goals. In most cases, this leads to land management that is more 'climate smart'; achieving multiple goals of economic, social and environmental sustainability.
Starting with the people, and the enterprises that they can form, is not only more satisfactory from a rights point of view, it is also a superior method in pragmatic economic terms. In short, it is more efficient. Investment in the holistic economy of forest landscapes could set the conditions for low carbon growth, for instance using renewable energy and low-carbon infrastructure. Investment in agricultural technology and addressing value chain constraints could raise yields, boost smallholder incomes and thus alleviate pressure on the forest frontier.
Many governments already see the benefits of tenure reform and a rights-based approach to the economics of landscape management. For instance, at a conference on tenure reform held in Indonesia in July 2011, Kuntoro Mangkusubroto, a senior government figure, declared that:
'At the utmost land and forest tenure reform is about increasing people’s welfare and living standard, reducing poverty by providing jobs, and living in harmony with the environment'
The result of this people-based approach to REDD+ will be more equitable economic growth, whereby previously marginalized people become active citizens, with autonomy to conduct their own process of transition to the modern world at their own pace and on their own terms. Land reform has been proven to be the defining condition of countries that seek to become modern, wealthy, liberal democracies. Of course social and economic development is difficult, expensive and often has unforeseen outcomes. One should not underestimate the costs and complexity of managing the kind of political and institutional development that would be required for effective tenure reform. But REDD+ is going to involve significant expense on building institutions in any case, so why not build those institutions in a manner that most benefits human welfare, rather than becoming too fixated on technocratic projects that rely upon the counting of trees, carbon and money.
- END -
Further reading
Gregersen, H., El Lakany, H., Bailey, L. and White, A. (2011) The Greener Side of REDD+, Rights and Resources Initiative, Washington DC
Elson, D. (2011) The Economic case for Tenure Reform in Indonesia’s Forestry Sector, Rights and Resources Initiative, Washington DC
