Political leaders have come around to saving the rainforests, now let business leaders figure out howEDITORIALAt a recent conference in Manaus, Brazil, several indigenous Latin American groups gathered in support of a new carbon-trading plan meant to preserve tropical rainforests in the international fight against climate change. The plan, which the United Nations has dubbed “Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation” (REDD), was a main topic at December's climate change talks in Bali, Indonesia, and has resulted in the creation of the International Alliance of Forest Peoples. And it marks a significant gathering of steam for market-driven concepts aimed at connecting the dots between business, conservation and the forest-dependent native people living amidst the biodiverse land crucial to the planet’s environmental health.
Scientists widely agree that tropical deforestation from logging, agriculture and development accounts for about a fifth of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. REDD combats this deforestation by making wealthy countries pay the native people of developing countries for every hectare (about 2.5 acres) of forest that are not cut down. Brazil is seen by many environmentalists as the ideal proving ground for such a concept, as native groups there have permanent rights to 21 percent of the Amazon, in contrast to other rainforest lands around the globe, which are mainly government-controlled.
While it’s difficult to determine the amount of carbon saved, the Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts estimated that the amount should be ten dollars per square kilometer. They calculate that the conservation of the Amazon rainforest in this "perimeter defense" plan would amount over $530 million annually by the program's tenth year. Research has shown that reducing Amazon deforestation by just ten percent could yield up to $13.5 billion in the international carbon emission trading market.
What makes REDD so striking is its multi-pronged attack. Not only will it combat global warming by saving the immense stores of carbon in the forests, but it will also help to maintain and improve native people’s traditional way of life. (In the Amazon, for example, the clearing of forests for logging, cattle farming or agriculture negatively impacts the lives of the indigenous rubber tappers and nut gatherers.) Additionally, the maintenance of tropical rainforests will help to ensure the survival of remarkable biodiversity: The habitats of many animals and useful, indigenous plants are destroyed by deforestation.
REDD is a good plan. Surprisingly, neither the Kyoto Protocol nor the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) contain provisions for the limiting of tropical deforestation. In this case, REDD is a first. Naturally, the UN is taking a lead in this effort. But for all the good things that the UN is, it’s nothing if not a slow-moving, bureaucratic behemoth. Case in point: The UN’s Kyoto successor -- which is to include REDD provisions -- will not come into effect until 2012.
What can step in to fill the void left by the UN’s sluggish response? Well, for one thing, the market. While the UN has to travel through the maze of NGO’s, federal and local governments to enact policy at the street level, small- to mid-sized businesses are nimble enough to quickly move cash and make things happen on the ground. A “perimeter defense” plan that involves domestic and foreign investment capital in the long-term financial and structural gain of local businesses and residents would be much stronger, more efficient, and ultimately, more effective than having that $10 per hectare trickle down through a federal government’s treasury.
And companies should focus their efforts on Brazil, which contains one-third of the world’s rainforest land. President Luiz Inácio da Silva’s increasing willingness to defend his country’s vital biodiversity and carbon stores has been most notably demonstrated in Operation Arc of Fire, a well-funded campaign to stop illegal rainforest destruction. Since the project began in February, authorities have issued almost $26 million in fines. But the carrot must be used with the stick: Economic incentives should exist alongside financial penalties.
Companies that invest in products that don’t harm the forest -- like rubber, palm fruits, nuts and medicinal plants -- should be able to bring these products to market easily, unfettered by tariffs. The rubber extracted from the Amazon comprises a mere 1.4 percent of the country’s entire rubber market. Also, Brazil’s exports to the United States represent only about 2.5 percent of its GDP. These kinds of imbalances must be addressed. (Hopefully, US President George Bush’s year-old effort to promote two-way trade with Brazil will soon bear fruit.)
Last year, American environmental economist Matthew Kahn conducted a survey of 141 nations in an effort to find the most eco-friendly ones. Using figures from the United Nations’ 2006 Human Development Index and the 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index, he found that Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Austria were the top five. While these European nations’ geographies differ vastly from Brazil’s, Mr. da Silva would do well to provide incentives to eco-savvy companies from these countries to come to the Amazon in an effort to make conservation a profitable enterprise.
More importantly, Brazil must tap the insight of its neighbors, who have more similar physical and cultural landscapes -- and who have been successful in the maintenance of virgin lands. Costa Rica, for example, is ranked fifth in the world on Yale University’s 2008 Environmental Performance Index. Almost a quarter of the country is made up of protected reserves. And its government has made the commendable declaration to make it the first carbon-neutral nation by 2021. Peru is another neighbor with some pretty good ideas. With over 70 “eco-lodges” now in the Madre de Dios region, the country is enjoying an eco-tourism boom that actually helps to maintain the Amazon. In 1996, the region’s largest tourism operator, Rainforest Expeditions, began a 20-year joint venture with the area’s indigenous people, who receive 60 percent of the company’s profits and share in the company’s decision-making. Literacy rates and healthcare have greatly improved through this scheme, and the locals help to maintain the well-being of the forest to help keep eco-tourism alive.
Ultimately, ten dollars is a meager amount to protect an entire square kilometer. In order to maximize the monies from this compensation, it must be treated as an investment, not a payment. The investments should fuel the growth of local, sustainable businesses and also provide education to the “guardian residents” of the forest. Kahn’s study found that an “engaged, educated public” was a strong tool to combat the destruction of natural environments. But in Brazil, this must be complemented with a way for the lucrative -- and highly destructive -- cattle industry to survive. Currently, cattle farming accounts for 60 percent of the Amazon’s deforestation, the recent growth of which was spurred by a devaluation of the dollar-pegged real, which effectively doubled the price of beef in reals, gave farmers a strong incentive to clear forest for cattle-grazing. A revaluation of the currency may help maintain cattle farmer’s profit margin with fewer cows. Additionally, cattle farmers -- as well as the small-scale agricultural farmers who account for 30 percent of the deforestation -- should also be included in REDD’s carbon-trading scheme. Profit from selling credits to polluters around the world would help make up for lost cattle revenue.
Conservation must be approached as a profit-generating venture. But the United Nations is not the best leader for the implementation of such big ideas (a sentiment sadly proven by the oil-for-food scandal). But it can and should provide an international framework and some local oversight. And national governments must provide incentives for foreign investment and ease trade barriers on eco-friendly products. But ultimately, it’s the market forces that can successfully foster economies that benefit from healthy rainforests. And that would be healthy for all of us.
FURTHER READINGCarbon credits could help save Amazon, blunt warming: study (AFP):
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iKAI7X5qFNtiDzZHtvNwLFJrcLDQAmazon’s ‘Forest Peoples’ Seek a Role in Striking Global Climate Agreements (New York Times):
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/world/americas/06brazil.htmlBiodiversity and climate change: Forest options (United Nations):
http://www.unep-wcmc.org/climate/forest.aspxRacing to hug those trees (The Economist):
http://www.economist.co.uk/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=10519735&story_id=10926736Deforestation in the Amazon (Mongabay):
http://www.mongabay.com/brazil.htmlBritain’s low rank in eco-friendly countries list (Telegraph UK):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/10/05/eacity105.xmlProtect the world’s forests (Rainforest Action Network):
http://ran.org/issues/forests/Privatize the Amazon rainforest says UK minister (Mongabay):
http://news.mongabay.com/2006/1002-amazon.htmlSolutions for the Amazon Rainforest (Greenpeace):
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/the-amazon-rainforest-the-gre/solutions-for-the-amazon-rainfBrazil's GDP growth to moderate to 4.8 percent in 2008 (Forbes):
http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2008/04/24/afx4929495.htmlLocal Culture as Part of the Green Experience (New York Times):
http://travel.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/travel/15journeys.htmlBush to host Brazil business leaders (AFP):
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hw3xnn-a2tQVXGZ9IE1WLQidSgCwMORE EDITORIALS
The bison in Yellowstone Park now have some room to breathe, thanks to the recent purchase of a conservation easement from a church landowner. The easement, which creates a land preservation agreement between a landowner and the state, will give a small number of Yellowstone’s bison access to a protected range north of the park that is critical for their winter survival. The $2.8 million easement will be purchased from the Church Universal & Triumphant with funds from Yellowstone National Park ($1.5 million), Montana’s Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks ($300,000) and various conservation groups ($1 million).
Posts
