News: REDD+ Transaction Costs and Games for a New Climate

Climate Change Workshops For Policy MakersIn continuation with the SimPachamama launch month at INESAD, this week has seen a number of articles published around the topics of gaming, deforestation and climate change:

What would it cost to implement deforestation reduction policies in Bolivia?

By Ioulia Fenton

In conjunction with its partners, the Institute for Advanced Development Studies (INESAD) has designed statistical tools, using extensive real life data, to simulate what kinds of policies are likely to make a measurable impact on reducing deforestation while maximizing human wellbeing in Bolivia. As the “How to Live Well in Bolivia” infographic released by INESAD earlier this month illustrates, two policies working in tandem are predicted to have the best results. An internal US$450 tax on every hectare of cleared forest, structured in a way as to mainly affect large-scale commercial agriculture, could raise one billion dollars every four years and kick start deforestation reduction efforts. While laudable on its own, the policy would not be enough. A matching system of payments from rich countries to Bolivia for reducing deforestation that would raise an additional one billion dollars every two years is predicted to act as a catalyst. If the money is then spent on paying people to conserve their forests, on creating green jobs (such as within the eco-tourism sector), and financing anti-poverty initiatives, every year, together, the dual policy effort is forecast to engage 72 percent of the rural population, increase the income of the poor who participate by 29 percent, and achieve a 29 percent reduction in deforestation. (Play the SimPachamama simulation game to see if you can keep forests standing while making the community happy and wealthy).

This, of course, sounds fantastic. But it is worth bearing in mind that, like any simulation or prediction, the model that these results are based on is inevitably stylized. That is to say that it is simpler than the real world. One key issue that this scenario does not take into account is how much of the half billion dollars predicted to be raised every year by the tax and international transfer policies would be spent on actually administering conservation and poverty reduction strategies. Before money can be given by the government to its people, systems and processes—like identifying who deforests how much land and what they therefore need to pay—have to be put in place to collect and distribute taxes and all the people involved need to be paid. These and other similar expenditures are called transaction costsREAD MORE HERE.

Other Recent Articles:

Games for a New Climate: It’s time to take games more seriously!

The Negative Aspects of REDD and the Improvements Proposed by Bolivia

Guess Who’s Chopping Down the Amazon Now

Concussion Slayer and Four Other Games Making a Real Difference

Other Relevant Articles:

Communities need more than money to stop clearing their forests, new research shows.

Could REDD+ Revolutionize Policy to Conserve Forest?

Carbon Markets: How Not to Save the Planet

Exactly How Do Trees Fight Climate Change?

[contact-form to=’’ subject=’News – Transaction Costs’][contact-field label=’Like this post? Enter your email for weekly updates from INESAD’ type=’email’ required=’1’/][/contact-form]



Check Also

Are we inadvertently doing something good for the environment?

By: Lykke E. Andersen* To celebrate Earth Day 2017, which is tomorrow, I would like …


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers: