lars' presentation

Lars Løvold Rainforest Foundation Norway

New willingness to pay: Catalyst for green development?

Rainforest Foundation Norway

LESSONS FROM THE PAST


Deforestation mainly from large scale actors


The ”normal” development:

• Undermines the life support systems of the Earth – undermines ecosystem services

• ”Normal” = non-sustainable Must be avoided


WHY DOES THIS HAPPEN?

• Chopped down trees = money


How much must we pay to keep the trees standing?

• Main answer today: Pay for lost income – the lost opportunity to make money.

• ”Opportunity cost” =– $$$$$ per hectare for the soy cultivator or oil

palm plantation owner– $$$ per hectare for the cattle rancher– $ per hectare for the poor forest dweller– 0 per ha for those too far off to make money


International community wants:

• Efficiency: Maximum reduced emissions for minimum cost

• Additionality: Only pay for what gives extra reductions of GHGs (not pay for what would happen anyway)


Problems:

1. Who to pay?

• Only paying those with deforestation capacity = rewarding the villains, not the guardians = creating a perverse incentive: you must

destroy, in order to be paid not to destroy


Problems:

2. Oil palm cultivator receives all the income for his product, but doesn’t pay a cent for polluting (GHG) & reducing ecosystem services. Income opportunity is skewed and unfair.

3. Opportunity cost approach doesn’t change the system – the right to destroy without paying for the damage – only reduces the consequences.


THE ECONOMIST APPROACH IS TOO LIMITED: WE NEED A

NEW GREEN DEVELOPMENT APPROACH


New development model:

• Must maintain life support systems – climate, biodiversity, disaster protection, water …

• Must provide social and economic benefits and opportunities to those who maintain the system


THE ESSENCE:

Standing forest must become =

• Social development (health, education, ..)

• Income– Local, district and national level

Requires mental revolution. But inspiring and logical!


Elements of a new model:

• Entrust the forest to people who are attached to the forest – recognize forest peoples’ rights

• Reward the maintenance of ecosystem services

• Give higher rewards for more services– Storing carbon in trees = $– Carbon + biodiversity = $$– Carbon + biodiv. + livelihood options = $$$



Change the rules, to stimulate maintenance of multiple benefits of intact forests:

• Secure tenure to forest peoples = stimulus for wise resource management (your children can eat the fruit)

• Secure tenure = cost-efficient protection


Forest peoples with recognized rights defend territories

Deforestation around

Xingu Indigenous Territory,

Brazil

1994


Deforestation around

Xingu Indigenous Territory,

Brazil

2005




Participation of all stakeholders in planning and implementation of national REDD plans = improved chances for

• Better systems for forest protection and distribution of benefits

• Avoiding corruption

• Avoiding elite capture of benefits



Legal reform and law enforcement:

• Abolish the right to destroy without paying– (burning a house vs. burning a forest)

• Introduce environmental and social impact assessments

• Punish environmental crimes

• Make the polluter pay the real costs



”Make the polluter pay” - but

• It is OK to pay the one with a legal right to deforest - to stop him from doing that– But only for a while!

• Cannot pay indefinitely, and when soy prices raise above the carbon price, the forest is lost


We must use the new willingness to pay to reform legal

frameworks, policies and financial stimuli.

MAKE A RATIONAL, TRULY SUSTAINABLE SYSTEM.


Deforestation by 2003

Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon 2003


Deforestation and Indian territories Brazil 2005

Deforestation until 2003

Indian territories 2005

lars' presentation

Business

new model

forest protection

new development model

standing forest

forest peoples rights

deforestation capacity

poor forest dweller

income opportunity