Slash and burn deforestation in the Brazillian Amazon. A World Bank report suggests that standing forest would be more valuable to landowners if properly valued on global carbon markets.
Credit: GREENPEACE/Araquem Alcantara
WASHINGTON: Global warming caused by rapid deforestation could be curbed if developing countries were paid the proper rewards for maintaining their forests, according to a World Bank report.
The report released this week noted that the world's forests are disappearing at a rate of five percent a decade as woodland is cleared for timber and production of in-demand commodities like beef, coffee and soybeans.
But the land would have far more value if developing countries were paid to preserve their forests on global carbon markets, the report said. Such markets are an offshoot of the Kyoto agreement, and allow countries that struggle to meet targets for industrial emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) to pay other countries that keep their emissions down.
About a fifth of global CO2 emissions come from tropical deforestation, but these have not been harnessed into carbon markets such as the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme, the report said. It noted that in Latin America, dense jungle is often cleared to create pastures worth as little as US$300 a hectare while releasing 500 tonnes of CO2 per hectare.
This implies a "CO2 abatement cost" of less than US$1 per tonne. According to the report, tackling climate change requires paying about US$3 dollars per tonne, while European Union (EU) members are currently paying up to US$20.
In other words, deforesters are destroying a carbon storage asset theoretically worth US$1,500 to US$10,000 to create a pasture worth US$300 per hectare.
"Yet carbon markets, such as those under the Kyoto Protocol and EU Emissions Trading Scheme, do not reward forestholders for reduced emissions from avoided deforestation," the report said. Such rewards would require a "global commitment" against climate change, it said, noting that the United States and Australia have refused to ratify the Kyoto pact.
"Global carbon finance can be a powerful incentive to stop deforestation," said the World Bank's chief economist, Francois Bourguignon. "Compensation for avoiding deforestation could help developing countries to improve forest governance and boost rural incomes, while helping the world at large to mitigate climate change more vigorously."
The report also noted that global concern about the loss of rare species should be harnessed to compensate countries for not chopping down their forests.
This article is correct,
This article is correct, that economic incentives are needed to make environmentally-good actions an attractive choice for people. Governments and policy committees need to understand that people make decisions based on cost and reward. For example, it costs me $30 a week to catch the bus to work plus the hassle of walking in the rain, waiting for buses, etc, while if I use my car for everything my fuel bill is around $60-70 a month, and its more convenient. Therefore I use my car and forget the bus, despite caring about the environment.
For example, the US could spend some of the billions of the defense budget into purchasing the rights to areas of tropical forest.
Carbon offsets are a bandaid solution
Yah man, who gives a crap about those people who actually live in those areas of tropical forest! Let's just buy it up! Mind you, I do agree that the defense money could be spent a lot more wisely. However, you might want to consider our consumption patterns and think a little outside the box. You might also want to consider that we continuously try to solve our problems by making it someone elses (e.g. exporting pollution, land acquisition and displacement of local people) rather than tackling the underlying issues.