Commercializing nature?

By: Lykke E. Andersen*

The Bolivian government has taken a strong stance against the international REDD+ mechanism, mainly because it reduces forests to a simple commodity to be traded in international carbon emissions markets. This would not only imply trading an invisible product (CO₂ emissions), but – even more complicated – trading the lack of the invisible product (reduced CO₂ emissions). Keeping track of the lack of this invisible product is so obviously difficult that both transaction costs and corruption associated with an international REDD+ mechanism would likely be enormous, thus leaving few benefits for the forest, the forest communities, and the global climate.

However, as President Evo Morales expressed in his letter of October 2010 (see box), there are many other ways of empowering local communities to protect their forests. Bolivia is currently formulating an alternative proposal for reducing deforestation through a Joint Mechanism of Mitigation and Adaptation for the Integral and Sustainable Management of Forests.

Letter from President Evo Morales to the Indigenous Peoples

“Nature, forests, and indigenous peoples; we are not for sale” (October 2010).

“…it is crucial that all countries of the world work together to avoid deforestation and degradation of forests. It is an obligation of the developed countries, and part of their climatic and environmental debt, to contribute financially to the preservation of forests, but NOT through the commercialization of nature. There are many other ways to provide support to developing countries, indigenous peoples and local communities that contribute to the conservation of forests.”

This mechanism would not be financed through carbon emissions trading, but rather through an international Green Fund, which would receive funds from developed countries that recognize their climatic and environmental debt to the world, and wish to support an additional effort against deforestation rather than just shifting emissions from one country to another.

The mechanism would provide technical and financial assistance to help communities and individuals protect their natural heritage while improving their living standards. This involves the recognition of services that were previously provided for free (protection of forest and all its functions). However, it should not be considered “commercialization of nature.”

The phrase “commercialization of nature” has been somewhat abused in Bolivia lately, condemning all mechanisms that provide incentives for protecting forest instead of converting it into cropland or pasture. But, in reality, the ultimate commercialization of nature is to burn forests in order to allow foreigners to produce and export crops for a few years until the fertility of the soils are exhausted.

Empowering people to care for the forest is the exact opposite of “commercialization of nature”, so we should start discussing how we can construct a fair and effective mechanism, which will successfully reduce deforestation while simultaneously improving human well-being in Bolivia.

*Dr. Lykke E. Andersen is Director of the Center for Environmental-Economic Modeling and Analysis (CEEMA) at the Institute for Advanced Development Studies (INESAD) in La Paz, Bolivia. She can be reached by e-mail at: landersen@inesad.edu.bo.

This article was first published in the development communications magazine “Sociedad que Inspira” No. 17, August 2012.