Interview with The Forest Trust's Scott Poynton

by Duncan Gromko

I recently chatted with Scott Poynton, Founder and Executive Director of The Forest Trust (TFT), an NGO. TFT works with companies to make commodity production more responsible by working on environmental and social issues in their supply chains. TFT recently started working with Asia Pulp and Paper (APP) and Wilmar, two companies in the pulp and paper and palm oil sectors that have been responsible for significant deforestation across Southeast Asia. Can TFT help companies eliminate deforestation from their supply chains? Does Scott worry about green washing accusations, for working with companies that have had such a negative impact on the environment?

Duncan Gromko: You're from Australia, but a lot of TFT’s work is in Indonesia. What drew you to Indonesia?

Scott Poynton: I actually started my work in Vietnam and I lived there for six years on two occasions and have travelled extensively throughout Southeast Asia. With deforestation being such a huge issue in Indonesia, we've naturally been drawn here to try and work on that.

DG: What is TFT's mission?

SP: I always say our mission is to stick to our values. People expect us to say it's to save forests, but we have a fundamental set of values: truth, respect, humility, compassion, and courage. If we act according to those values, good things happen.

Scott Poynton, TFT Executive Director

DG: Why did you decide to work with companies?

SP: If you talk about putting your finger firmly on the problem of deforestation, the problem is global supply chains because they suck the deforestation through them. We work with companies to help them make their business operations more responsible.

DG: What does that work look like in practice?

SP: For example, with APP we helped them develop a policy to remove deforestation from their supply chain. The policy is about 10% of the work. 90% of the work is getting out into the bush, in their supply chains, looking at where they get their products, how they're doing their business, who they're buying from, and what those guys are doing. If the company is a retailer, they say, “We don't want our furniture to cause deforestation.” We help them make a policy and see where they get their wood from. And sometimes they don't know. So we help them work that out and find responsible suppliers. It's a very hands-on approach.

If you go and talk to a company with compassion and respect, with the courage to tell them the truth and the humility to act in a dignified way and not pretend you're the bloody expert, we find that we can help people move forward to find their own path to transformation because they're ready to talk to us. That's where those abstract values come into play.

DG: Why do companies want to work with you? What is the benefit to the companies?

SP: Some companies are getting beaten up by NGOs and turn to TFT. Nestle was an example. There was this Greenpeace video with an orangutan’s finger in the Kit Kat. I live just down the road from Nestle. They invited me to speak to them, they understood that the problem they had was they didn't have full visibility right out to what was happening in the plantations supplying their raw materials.

Palm Oil Plantation and Deforestation

Other companies are not being attacked, but just want to change their supply chain. They say, "We hear a lot about deforestation in palm oil supply chains, and we don't want to be a part of that. We want to be responsible." So they come to work with us to help them ensure that’s the case.

DG: It sounds like a good cop/bad cop relationship with Greenpeace. Is that an explicit relationship, where you put together a strategy or is it something that happens organically?

SP: It's organic. Greenpeace is so active in this space that they end up inadvertently pushing companies to us. It’s not a deliberate strategy. Over time we've built a lot of trust with each other. We have a good reputation for stepping into really complex situations where the company doesn't know what to do. Nestle was a good example. Greenpeace had asked them not to cause deforestation and Nestle had a policy not to. And yet you saw what happened [with the orangutan advertisement]. We said, "You're speaking Nestle-ese and Greenpeace is speaking Greenpeace-ese and you guys aren’t connecting." We act as translators, to help the company understand Greenpeace's demands and to translate those into a policy response for the company. We help the company convey its serious intentions to Greenpeace.

DG: A lot of the companies you work with, like APP and Wilmar, have done some terrible things in the past and now you come in and give them this stamp of approval. Are you worried that you're legitimizing companies that aren't squeaky-clean?

SP: I recognize that companies might have done some pretty grim things in the past. You run the risk of letting people off the hook, but we say to the company, "If you don't implement the policy, we will walk away.” It's our credibility at stake. We have walked away from companies. We walked away from a bank that asked to work with us. When I asked who they were doing business with, they wouldn't tell us. I told them I couldn't do my job without that information, but they said, "Don't worry about that, we just want to give you a big donation to say we're working with you." So we decided couldn't work like that and we walked away.

By getting Nestle, [Golden Agri-Resources (GAR) – a palm oil company], APP, and Wilmar, we've got some big companies looking seriously at how they can transform their processes. If these guys can change their operations, anyone can. Inevitably, some people will accuse us of green washing. But there's no company out there that has a stronger policy than a TFT member. And there's no company implementing their policy like a TFT member. There are NGOs who don't like us because we engage with companies. But those particular NGOs tend to complain a lot and like to criticize; it’s their role. My view is that complaining can make folk uncomfortable, and that’s good, it’s part of the change process, but alone it doesn’t do much to change things. I'm not interested in complaining, I'm interested in transformation.

DG: What are your thoughts on some of the agribusiness certification standards?

SP: The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil standard allows peat and secondary forests to be cleared. Their standard allows deforestation and it hasn’t slowed deforestation rates yet they claim RSPO certified means “sustainable.” I think that amounts to green washing.

DG: Wilmar and APP have recently made no deforestation commitments; does getting these huge companies on board represent a bigger change in business?

SP: I think so. More and more companies are looking at it and we're seeing the start of the tipping point. What's happening in consumer countries, led by Nestle, is that many more companies don't want to be linked to deforestation. They provide the pull of the supply chain, to say "listen, Wilmar and APP, we don't want to be linked to deforestation." So the companies have jumped and they're implementing their policies. In Wilmar's case, they're so big and dominating of the sector that everyone else is thinking of changing too. I think we've started something together with these companies and we're approaching a tipping point.

DG: What happened to make consumer goods companies want these changes?

SP: NGO campaigns have increased pressure. And there's been so much in the media about climate change and the links between deforestation and climate change. Sumatra [Indonesia] is almost bare. The Amazon has been devastated. The Congo Basin is in trouble. People in America, in Australia – mind you they just elected the most ridiculous government ever, that doesn't believe in climate change – and people in Europe are starting to be affected by climate change. When [the NGO community] was talking about saving the tiger or saving the panda, people agreed with it, but it wasn't really in their daily life. But look at what's happening now: the floods in the UK, the extreme weather events in the US, and Australia is cooking. So it’s affecting them and they’re responding by saying “We don’t want you to cause deforestation to supply us products. Stop it.”

DG: With the lack of government action around the environment and climate change, can groups like TFT and other civil society make a big difference?

SP: We can achieve a lot more, but I'm not sure exactly how much. Our theory of change is that governments are worried about making policy changes that put people out of jobs, which in democracy will cost them their job. We're trying to prove to governments that we can implement these commitments without losing jobs. We need cases like APP, Wilmar, and GAR to show to governments that No Deforestation commitments can actually increase business from consumer countries.

DG: Anything else to add?

SP: It's a really interesting time now with the big companies coming on board to provide the case study to government. The Wilmar announcement can really change the way food is grown and the way the world does business. If we can do it, there's no reason why there should be deforestation in soy, in any commodity. We're at a game-changing threshold. If we can cross it we'll be in a different place.

The Expanding Sahara: Desertification in Morocco

by Duncan Gromko

The following was cross-posted with the Public Education Center's D.C. Bureau, which you can find by clicking here.

In Morocco and elsewhere, growing environmental challenges are likely to decrease standards of living, particularly for the poor. Among the harmful impacts of climate change is increased desertification – the expansion of deserts. Globally, climate change will increase average precipitation, but in certain areas, rainfall will decrease. Because of changing precipitation patterns, the Sahara Desert is likely to expand into bordering countries, reducing their agricultural productivity. In many countries, this global change is in addition to local environmental pressures, quickening the growth of the Sahara.

The Sahara Desert (Source: Enviro-Map)

The Atlas Mountains of Morocco have always been a marginal environment, as poor soil quality has hindered productive agriculture. Living in those mountains for two years, I experienced the negative impact that desertification is having on people’s lives. Poor and rural people are more dependent on the environment for generating incomes; 47% of the “GDP of the poor” comes from natural resources. Since the environment is fragile, even small changes in climate or use of resources can result in noticeable declines in standards of living.

Industrial logging, expansion of agriculture, extension of grazing land, and collection of firewood put increasing pressure on the forests of the Atlas. Economic growth and growing populations mean that Moroccans are extracting more and more from the forests that support the country. As a whole, the country loses an average of 30,000 hectares of forest per year.  Fewer trees mean weaker root systems to protect soil. Erosion rates in both the Atlas and Rif mountains are among the highest in the world.

Erosion in the Atlas Mountains (Photo credit: author)

The people I lived with felt the immediate consequences of the creep of the Sahara in several ways. The most obvious impact was the decrease in supply of fuel wood. Although most of Morocco is warm, the Atlas Mountains are at high altitude, creating the need for wood to heat homes during the winter. Large snowstorms often hit my village, dumping more than a foot of snow at a time. In one nearby village, the small forest cover had been completely removed; people were reduced to burning scrub bushes to keep warm. In my village, the nearest remaining trees were over an hour away by donkey ride. Every week, my host father would go out to collect firewood to heat our home. He would ride his mule for an hour to the west, where the forest still grew, to find a tree and cut down its branches to bring back home. My host father was 73 years old and the weekly wood collections tested his health and physical abilities. One day he was several hours late coming home; my host mother and I went out into the darkness, yelling his name until we found him, limping and delirious with exhaustion.

Another obvious impact of desertification is the decline in productivity of agriculture and grazing. Many people in the Atlas Mountains rely on raising goats and sheep for income. Herders feed animals in the mountains and bring them to cities to sell to bigger markets. However, as the soil runs off the mountains and into the rivers, grass does not grow as quickly and the land cannot support large herds without further expanding grazing areas.

Reduced forest cover also increases the frequency and severity of floods since rainwater runs directly off of the soil into riverbeds instead of slowly percolating through ground cover. Even mild rainstorms lead to significant floods. Several times a year, floods would make roads impassable, isolating our mountain communities from the rest of the world. Floods would also wash out fields and damage farmers’ crops.

The people of the Atlas Mountains and Morocco can contribute little to mitigating climate change.Morocco ranked 71st in greenhouse gas emissions in 2010, responsible for about 0.1% of global emissions.

If Morocco is to adapt to climate change and the expansion of the Sahara, it must invest in natural ecosystems that can reduce its impact. Instead, a growing population and standards of living are putting increased pressure on the environment, escalating its degradation. For instance, the price of meat is high, creating an incentive for herders to increase the size of their flocks.

As a Peace Corps volunteer, I was tasked with finding solutions to my communities’ problems and environmental concerns. As much as people wanted to protect natural resources, they depended on activities that harmed the environment for their short-term well being. There were also significant problems organizing collective action. Even if my host family reduced the size of their flock or the amount of wood they harvested for fuel, these sacrifices would mean nothing if others did not make similar commitments. Without strong environmental institutions, it is nearly impossible to change behavior.

Another Peace Corps volunteer and I worked on reducing deforestation driven by local businesses. Public baths – hammams – were responsible for approximately 30% of deforestation as they used wood to heat their water. This may seem like a lot of wood just for public baths, but hammams are an important communal institution in Morocco.

We tried to appeal to the economic interests of the hammam owners. An ultra-efficient boiler developed by the Germany Agency for Technical Cooperation would reduce fuel wood consumption by up to 80% compared with existing hammam boilers. Since fuel wood was expensive relative to the cost of the boiler, we estimated that hammam owners would recoup their investment within 6-12 months. This seemed like a winning strategy for reducing pressure on forests, but we had a surprisingly hard time convincing hammam owners that they should invest in the efficient boilers. There was skepticism over the new technology and, as already successful businessmen, hammam owners had little incentive to upset a profitable business model. After a year of talking with owners, we convinced one hammam owner to purchase the boiler as a demonstration project for other owners.

It was a start, but hardly a solution. I am not optimistic about Morocco’s ability to improve environmental management and respond to desertification. With its already fragile environment, it is particularly vulnerable to the changing climate. Increasing local pressures will only exacerbate the problem. To really respond to this challenge, Morocco will need to increase the capacity of the institutions that manage natural resources; without collective action, private, short-term interests will continue to drive desertification and undermine the country’s long-term viability.

Brazil’s Atlantic Forest Faces Many Environmental Challenges

by Duncan Gromko


The following was cross-posted with the Public Education Center's D.C. Bureau, which you can find by clicking here.

Ask Americans to name a Brazilian forest and most would say, “the Amazon.” But the Atlantic Forest – or Mata Atlântica as it is known locally – stretches from southern Brazil up along the Atlantic coast as far as Rio Grande do Norte and Piauí. This southern Atlantic coast of Brazil is home to large population centers, including mega cities Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. Roughly 62% of the nation’s population lives in the Atlantic Forest biome, accounting for 80% of its GDP.

Rich in biological diversity, the Atlantic Forest is one of the world’s top four biodiversity hotspots. The forest has numerous endemic species – species that are found nowhere else – including the charismatic Golden Lion Tamarin. In addition to supporting flora and fauna, the forest has supplied key resources to Brazil’s growing economy.

Extent of the Mata Atlantica
(Source: Encyclopedia of the Earth)

But Brazil’s economic growth has also almost decimated the forest. Exploitation of the forest began in the 16th and 17th centuries, with Portuguese colonization, and continues to this day. It once covered 120 million hectares, but is now reduced to fewer than 10 million hectares. Even more problematic for animals still living in the biome is that, of the remaining forest, more than 80% is contained in forest fragments smaller than 50 hectares. Animals have a difficult time surviving in such small habitats.

This degradation has taken place despite environmental regulations that prohibit deforestation. Brazil’s Forest Code – most often in the news for its impact on the Amazon – also governs the Atlantic Forest biome. The Code previously required that property owners maintain natural forest on all riparian areas and preserve an additional 20% of their land. Controversialchanges to the Code have reduced the amount of land that a landowner has to retain as natural forest, reforms seen by many as concessions to the country’s powerful farm lobby.

Obviously, if less than 10% of the original forest remains, the Code is not being strictly enforced. If it were, landowners would be forced to reforest their property to meet the minimum requirements.

By far the greatest use of land in the biome is cattle grazing, which occupies an estimated 30.5 million hectares – an area greater than the state of Nevada. The primary driver of deforestation has been the expansion of agriculture. Soy, sugarcane, coffee, bananas, cassava, and other crops have competed with the forest for land. Extraction of timber and plantations to support pulp and paper operations are other important contributors to deforestation.

While protecting the existing forest is a clear priority for Brazilian environmental officials, forest restoration has also emerged as a primary concern. The Pact for Restoration of the Atlantic Forest – or PACTO – was established to increase forest cover in the biome. PACTO is a group of nongovernmental organizations, academic institutions, private companies, and local governments committed to restoration of the Atlantic Forest.

In most cases, reforesting land used for productive agriculture provides the owner with much less financial return, making forest restoration costly. However, in the case of the Atlantic Forest, there are opportunities that would make the cost lower. Cattle grazing, as practiced in the Atlantic Forest and throughout much of Brazil, is inefficient, with an average of only 0.82 cattle per hectare. This represents a very low economic return: only $70-100 per hectare per year. Since forests provide a number of non-market benefits (water regulation, carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, etc.) there is a strong case for restoring forests, especially on land used so unproductively.

But there are other obstacles that add to the costs. In the Northeastern United States, forests have made a significant come back without active restoration. As the Midwest and the Great Plains became the bread basket of the United States, fields became fallow and the forest has naturally returned. In the Atlantic Forest, however, natural restoration is almost impossible. Several invasive species, in particular an African grass species of the Brachiaria family, has come to dominate the biome. These species were introduced to the Atlantic Forest because they provide cattle with a fast growing food. They spread like weeds and the grass grows high and crowds out native species

Golden Lion Tamarins (Source: stvehdc)

Ecologists trying to encourage restoration are forced to actively destroy the grasses using lawn mowers and herbicides. Herbicide is often applied several times throughout the restoration process. Local tree species are grown in nurseries and then transplanted to restoration sites. While this method has proven effective, it is also expensive. Restoration costs range from $3,000 to $20,000 per hectare. Under current incentives, these costs are prohibitively high for the widespread adoption of forest restoration. Without change, restoration will likely remain restricted to small areas.

Surprisingly, a conservation law may be discouraging forest restoration. The Atlantic Forest law, enacted in 2006, restricts harvest of native timber species. It was designed to halt deforestation. Many native Atlantic Forest species, such as the Pau Brasil, are extremely valuable for their timber. Without this law, one can imagine landowners planting native species with the intent of harvesting them in the future. But the law has also slowed forest restoration. Because of the law, only exotic species can be planted for timber harvest. As a result, much of the landscape is dominated by monoculture eucalyptus plantations. In a properly managed situation, the profit from harvest would lead to partial forest restoration.

Large companies are responsible for supporting the largest areas of forest restoration. While large businesses have played a role in deforestation in the past (and continue to do so in other parts of the countries), that is no longer the case in the Atlantic Forest. Pulp and paper companies, which harvest eucalyptus, are more visible than small to medium landowners. A higher profile brings both more scrutiny from regulators enforcing the Forest Code and the financial resources to respond. Companies like Veracel and Fibria have made significant investments in restoration in order to be incompliance with the Forest Code. Veracel has committed to restoring 400 hectares per year, while the larger Fibria has committed to restoring 23,000 hectares by 2023. In these cases, environmental regulations seem to be driving positive changes.

The Atlantic Forest is in need of continued protection and increased restoration. Under business as usual, it is difficult to imagine a significant comeback for the forest. Without restoration, there are continuing threats to biodiversity and important ecosystems that support Brazilian population centers. Floods and mudslides have recently demonstrated the dramatic human consequences of environmental degradation. However, by tweaking a few laws and enforcing others better, significant progress could be made in restoring this critical ecosystem.

Jaguars in the Pantanal

by Nick Cunningham

In the last post, Duncan wrote about the Pantanal, the largest wetlands in the world, which is located mostly in Brazil, but also in Bolivia and Paraguay. Not only does the Pantanal provide multiple ecosystem services with real economic value - flood and erosion control, filtering pollutants, and cleaning and provisioning water - but the Pantanal is home to a rich diversity of wildlife. 

The Pantanal (photo credit: Alicia Yo)

One phenomenon that I have been interested in lately is the role of "keystone species," - those species that play a critical role in maintaining a healthy ecosystem. Keystone species are often in the form of "top predators" or "Apex Predators," and as I discussed in a post about sharks, top predators exert enormous influence over how ecosystems operate. If their populations decline, it can have "trophic cascades," or ripple effects down the food chain. Sharks for example, eat weak and sick fish, allowing healthy individuals to survive and pass on healthy traits. Sharks also eat species that graze marine habitats, keeping overgrazing in check. These are essential functions for the ecosystem, and when the predators disappear, fish populations become less healthy and seabeds are overgrazed.

Just as sharks are important for marine ecosystems, top terrestrial predators are key for their habitats. In the Pantanal, for example, jaguars are considered to be a top predator. Jaguars range from Mexico down to Argentina, and live in dense vegetation and along riverbanks. They eat medium-sized animals like deer, foxes, and  animals in Brazil such as capybaras, tapirs and peccaries. Scientists believe the declining numbers of jaguars are an enormous concern - absent the top predator, negative effects can ripple downwards.

In fact, the notion of "top-down" control in ecosystems, as opposed to "bottom-up" has only recently emerged as a leading theory on how ecological systems are governed. Up until now, many in the scientific community believed that life worked upwards, beginning with photosynthesis and and plant life. However, recent studies point to the belief that Apex Predators may in fact be more important, and their absence can cause ecosystems to breakdown. The science is still controversial. But, the role of predators is becoming better understood as they begin to disappear. Caroline Fraser wrote an excellent article  on Yale's E360 blog, which outlines this debate. Here is a quick quote:

"Beginning with aquatic experiments, they have amassed considerable evidence of damage done to food chains by predator removal and have extended such studies to land: Predation may be as consequential, if not more so, than bottom-up forces. With a comprehensive new book (Trophic Cascades) and a major Science review published this summer, these specialists present the case that our persecution of predators menaces the marine and terrestrial ecosystems that produce food, hold human and zoonotic diseases in abeyance, and stabilize climate.

Using such terms as “deep anxiety” and “grave concern” to signal their alarm, the authors contend that the loss of large animals, and apex predators in particular, constitutes humanity’s “most pervasive influence” on the environment. It amounts, they argue, to a “global decapitation” of the systems that support life on Earth."

Photo: Smithsonian

As I mentioned, jaguars play the role of Apex Predator in the Pantanal, keeping the population of a variety of smaller animals in check. However, the extent to which the ecosystem will suffer negative effects from its absence is unknown - scientists have much to learn about jaguars. They are elusive and solitary, and as such, much of the research on jaguars underway seeks to merely map out their basic behavior and understand how they interact with other species in their habitat.
But, scientists are racing against the clock as jaguar populations are already declining. The largest reason is because of habitat fragmentation (i.e. deforestation). In the Pantanal, jaguar's also face an additional threat - being hunted by ranchers who are concerned about jaguar's killing their cattle. Conservationists have been working to protect the jaguar, setting up a "Jaguar Conservation Fund," that compensates ranchers if jaguar's kill their cattle. In return, ranchers are prohibited from killing jaguars. Early results are promising.

Caroline Fraser also published a book, "Rewilding the World," and discusses efforts to expand the jaguar's habitat. The idea is to create corridors between the Pantanal and the Cerrado, a dry savanna-like biome in Brazil that borders the Pantanal. Much the Golden Lion Tamarins in the Atlantic Forest, jaguars need connected habitat in order to survive over the long-term. Reversing the trend of destroying ecosystems for agricultural development and cattle ranching, and then building back forests and wetlands to allow these species to survive, is a monumental challenge. But, in order for ecosystems like the Pantanal to remain healthy and productive, it must be done.

The Importance of Wetlands: The Pantanal

by Duncan Gromko

The Pantanal; Source: NASA WorldWind

Compared to other ecosystem services, the connection between ecosystems and water services can be difficult to understand. It is easy to see how forests provide timber and healthy marine areas provide fish. Even an abstract ecosystem service such as carbon sequestration is becoming more widely understood with the growing profile of forest carbon mechanisms like REDD+. The ways that ecosystems affect water, however, are often hidden, but researchers are making great strides in communicating the benefits of ecosystems to water supplies.

Wetlands play a critical, if under-appreciated  role in water supply. They act as a sort of sponge, soaking up excess water during rainy seasons and slowly releasing it throughout the year. As such, wetlands reduce the risk of flooding and provide continuous water flow during the dry season. They also play an important role in purifying water, by absorbing pollutants. Finally, wetlands reduce erosion and sedimentation in water. The total value of these and other services is estimated at $25,682 per hectare per year for inland wetlands and $193,845 per hectare per year for coastal wetlands. As an example of the value of wetlands, a restoration project invested €86,000 in the rehabilitation of the Manalana wetland in South Africa. The total benefits from restoration amounted to €182,000 and provided each household in the region an extra €297 per year.

Piranha; Source: Magnus Manske

For more reading on wetlands, I recommend the Water and Wetlands report by the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). The report is an excellent summary of the state of wetlands worldwide and the impact that wetlands have on water supply. TEEB Study Leader and UNEP Goodwill Ambassador Pavan Sukhdev emphasized the importance that wetlands have on development: “When we destroy wetlands, we disrupt nature’s water cycle and its ability to provide water of households and farms, so inadvertently we add to the suffering of the poor."

Located in Brazil, Paraguay and Brazil, the Pantanal is the largest wetland in the world at over 140,000 km2. If the Amazon is South America’s water pump, then the Pantanal is its cistern and filtering system. The Pantanal is a giant floodplain, similar to an inland delta. During the wet season of October to March, about 70-80 percent of the Pantanal is flooded. In the dry season, the water leaves via the Paraguay river and eventually into the Paraná river, leaving behind grasslands that support grazing animals.

Here's a cool video about the Pantanal, if a little over-focused on one species. And here's another (with David Attenborough), that I'm not able to embed.

In addition to supporting rich biodiversity, the variability of flooding in the Pantanal serves to protect downstream inhabitants from floods. The peak flood season for the lower Paraná river basin is two to three months earlier than the flood season for the upper Paraguay river. Without the Pantanal, the two flood seasons would be simultaneous, with severe consequences for downstream inhabitants. Conversely, during dry seasons, the Pantanal continuously releases water, meaning that there is more water available downstream when it is needed most. The Pantanal also removes sediments and pollutants, purifying the water for downstream users. The economic value of these services is significant; the Pantanal's water services alone amount to over $13 billion per year.

Here's another video on the Pantanal (half promotional video for WWF).


Climate change, conversion of habitat into agricultural use, and upstream uses of water are the greatest threats to the Pantanal. Agricultural and other development in particular will continue to put pressure on the Pantanal, especially since only 2.6% of the ecosystem is protected by law. As Brazil, Paraguay, and Bolivia make policy and investment decisions for the area, it will be important to protect areas of critical importance. Agricultural productivity is undeniably important, but if it expands into critical areas like the Pantanal, it will ultimately undermine the services that make South American agriculture productive. Water services, in particular, provide significant benefit to those living downstream of this vast ecosystem.

An abbreviated version of this post originally appeared in the IDB Agua Blog on March 22.

Sharks Gain More Protection Under CITES

by Nick Cunningham

An estimated 100 million sharks are killed each year, and for a species that lives long and reproduces slowly, that alarming kill rate threatens their very survival. Much of the slaughter is due to demand, particularly in China, for their fins. Shark fins are considered a delicacy in China and are served in expensive soups. Strange as it sounds, shark fins actually have almost no taste, but serving shark fin soup is apparently highbrow. Much like the slaughter of African elephants for ivory, which is just a status symbol, middle and upper class Chinese are putting many species of sharks on the path to extinction.

Many sharks are caught, their fins cut off, and thrown back into the ocean. The video below by the Humane Society provides a quick overview for those who can stomach it (graphic content).

Grisly stuff. The decimation of sharks has ripple effects down the food chain. Sharks, as a top predator, play a pivotal role in maintaining a delicate balance across interwoven ecosystems. In fact, scientists consider sharks to be a "keystone" species - critical players that if removed, cause ecological functions to break down. For example, according to Shark Savers, sharks prey on sick and weak fish, which reduces the risk of disease among those species of fish. They also prevent other fish from overgrazing marine habitats, maintaining healthy seabeds. As shark populations decline, ecosystems and species that are seemingly unrelated to sharks will be affected in negative ways.  

Yet, this month, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) met in Bangkok, and passed some significant protections for five species of sharks. The porbeagle shark, oceanic whitetip shark, and three types of hammerheads were added to CITES Appendix II, an intermediate step of protection that limits the trade of endangered species. The measure was pushed by several Latin American nations (Brazil in particular), the United States, and the European Union and fiercely opposed by Japan and China.

Under Appendix II, countries that want to export listed species must issue a "no-detriment finding," indicating the shark in question was taken sustainably. Countries that import these species must ensure the proper permits accompany the trade. Failure to comply for either party can result in sanctions.

Hammerhead Sharks. Photo: Smithsonian

Many international meetings often predictably end with little to show for them, but the recent CITES meeting is a modest step forward. (However, they did stop short of putting these sharks on Appendix I, which would put a blanket ban on their trade, except for scientific purposes).

This has the potential to significantly limit the trade of these species of sharks. Yet, putting sharks on Appendix II does not automatically mean sharks will actually be protected. Many countries lack the ability, or the will, to enforce conservation laws. Key officials are often complicit in illegal wildlife trade. So, the true impact of listing sharks under CITES remains to be seen.

In the United States, shark finning was already illegal under the Shark Finning Prohibition Act, signed into law in 2000. But, the law left a serious loophole - shark finning was not allowed in U.S. waters by U.S. boats, but the trade of shark fins was allowed. In 2011, President Obama signed the Shark Conservation Act that ended this loophole, only allowing the trade of shark fins that are attached to bodies. States like California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington have gone further by passing a total ban on the trade of fins. Now, New York is the epicenter of the U.S. shark fin trade, due to the ban on the west coast. But, momentum in the state legislature to ban shark fin trade is gaining steam.

While the overall trend is gloomy - populations are declining as millions of sharks continue to be killed each year - the recent success at CITES should be celebrated. Still, with the appetite for shark fins coming almost entirely from China, more work is needed to reduce demand there.

Palm Oil and Deforestation

by Duncan Gromko

Palm Oil Plantation; Source Achmad Rabin Taim

French Nutella lovers breathed a huge sigh of relief when the French Senate voted down a budget that would have included a "Nutella Tax." The French have been proposing a lot of new taxes, but why would they tax something as delicious as Nutella? Palm oil is a major ingredient in Nutella, and the proposed tax would actually triple taxes on any food that uses palm oil as an ingredient. Palm oil is a driver of deforestation, particularly in Southeast Asia, and the tax would discourage consumption of the oil.

Before I started studying forestry issues, my assumption was that timber harvest caused deforestation. It seems obvious: cutting down trees leads to less forests. But, while timber harvest does play an important role, globally it has a much smaller impact than conversion of forests to agricultural uses. To oversimplify, there is only so much arable land on the earth and, as more food is needed to feed more mouths, the forests on good land are removed to make way for fields.

Drivers of Deforestation; Source UCS

The Union of Concerned Scientists has an excellent report on drivers of deforestation across the world. It's important to recognize the different pressures that lead to forest loss in different parts of the world. The chart on the left shows sources of carbon emissions from deforestation; this is different than directly measuring the acreage of forests, but it's a fine proxy.

The purple represents industrial timber harvest. You can see that it does cause some deforestation, but a relatively small amount. Looking at the Latin America bar, pasture is by far the greatest driver, with croplands coming in second. In Latin America, croplands mostly means soybeans and sugarcane. Deforestation in Africa looks much different. The yellow represents shifting cultivation, also known as slash and burn. Small-scale farmers burn down forest in a small area, plant on it for a few seasons, and then move onto another part of the forest.  I'm a little surprised that the blue - fuelwood harvest - doesn't play a larger role in deforestation in Africa.

Shifting cultivation, fuelwood harvest, and industrial harvest all play a role in deforestation in Asia, but croplands dominates the picture. There are other crops besides palm oil (rice, corn, sweet potato), but palm oil is the big story. It also receives more negative attention because of bad press about child labor violations and killing of orangutans.

If palm oil is so bad, why does Indonesia produce so much - 25 million metric tons in 2012? Palm oil is an incredibly productive crop. A hectare of a palm oil plantation produces almost 6,000 liters of crude palm oil compared to 450 liters and 170 liters for soybean and corn. In some respects, if increasing crop yield can reduce global pressure on forests, it makes more sense to get cooking oil from palm oil than from corn oil. Plus, the productivity means that converting forests to palm oil plantations is hugely profitable. It's tough to tell Indonesia, a fast-growing country, but still one with significant poverty, that they shouldn't take advantage of a crop their generates such great income. Palm oil exports amounted to $19.7 billion in 2011.

The consensus solution to this dilemma is to encourage palm oil expansion onto degraded land instead of forested land. WRI estimates that there are 14 million hectares of degraded land in Indonesian Borneo alone. They have developed a tool - the Suitability Mapper - that uses spatial data to identify land that is low in forests, but still productive enough for palm oil plantations. The idea is that companies that want to demonstrate their sustainability can shift expansion entirely to degraded lands. The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) allows members to certify their palm oil as sustainable. One criteria for certification is to not replace primary forest.

Of the many obstacles to this laudable vision is the lack of a price incentive for companies to get certified by RSPO. As of 2010, the premium for certified palm oil versus conventional palm oil was only 1% of the total cost. In strict dollars and cents, it might not be worth the cost of certification.

Which brings us back to the Nutella Tax. In order for the RSPO price premium to increase, Nutella consumers are going to have to be willing to pay more for sustainable palm oil. In Europe, it seems like awareness of palm oil is increasing, but the really tough sell is going to be in China, India, and Southeast Asia, where palm oil is used as a cooking oil by people without much disposable income. Are they going to be willing to pay more for sustainable palm oil? 

Rebuilding Golden Lion Tamarin Populations

Photo: Smithsonian National Zoo

by Nick Cunningham

Last week, Duncan wrote about the Mata Atlantica, or Atlantic Forest, in Brazil. I wanted to follow up with a post on one of my favorite little critters in the Atlantic Forest, the Golden Lion Tamarin. The campaign to increase forest cover near Rio de Janeiro dovetailed with efforts to conserve the Golden Lion Tamarin, which was a small reminder of just how interconnected species are with their habitat.

The Atlantic Forest stretches up and down Brazil's southeastern coast. However, since 3/4 of Brazil's population lives in this area, including the enormous cities of Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paolo, an estimated 90% of the original forest has been degraded or destroyed. Indeed, people have been settling in the Atlantic Forest for centuries, and the steady toll of development has left the remaining forest cover in small fragments.

The fragmentation of forests present threats to many species even if the total forest cover seems sufficiently large. When we were doing research in Brazil, we visited the habitat of the Golden Lion Tamarin, a small charismatic species that resides in the state of Rio de Janeiro. The GLT is endangered because its habitat is being lost to deforestation, which in Brazil is often due to cattle ranching or agriculture (soy and sugarcane).

GLT's live among the trees, and depend on fruit for food. Like many animals, it covers a large amount of area relative to its size. Studies show that GLTs need habitats of about 100 hectares in order to thrive. However, the Atlantic Forest has been so fragmented, that an estimated 83% of the remaining forest cover is in fragments of only 50 hectares or less. Unlike animals that feed on vegetation instead of fruit, GLTs cannot adapt well when their habitat is degraded. As a result, GLT numbers steadily declined over the past several decades.

Due to a concerted effort by NGOs, National Zoos (including the Smithsonian National Zoo), and governments, GLT populations stabilized in the early 2000's. Now, there are high hopes of reversing the trend. And the obvious way to rebuild GLT populations is to restore the habitat. Since reforestation on a mass scale is a slow and expensive process, it can be more effective by targeting key areas to reforest. Creating "ecological corridors," - tracts of forest that connect two separate forest fragments - allows foresters to greatly expand forest habitat at low cost. GLTs could travel safely through a forest corridor to another fragment that had been previously disconnected.

While we were in Brazil, we visited a small NGO, the Associacao Mico-Leao-Dourado (AMLD, which translates to Golden Lion Tamarin Association), which is spearheading efforts to build ecological corridors to increase GLT habitat.

Our research team at AMLD in Rio de Janeiro (2012)

AMLD's approach was much different from the other forest restoration projects we visited. For example, timber companies doing reforestation were interested in restoring sheer volume - intensively replanting trees and using lots of pesticide in order to kill competing grasses and rapidly cover a large area. This would allow them to sell "sustainable" timber which fetches a higher price. The primary objective of AMLD, on the other hand, was to create habitats safe for the Golden Lion Tamarin. This required a different approach, one that seemed more ecologically sound, though it was a slower and more expensive process.

Learning about the Golden Lion Tamarin emphasized the multiple objectives of forest restoration, which sometimes gets lost. Not only are forests essential for carbon sequestration, and local benefits like erosion control and filtering water. But, forests are home to hundreds and thousands of species, and without intact habitats, these species cannot survive.

The campaign to rebuild GLT populations is ongoing. While we left Brazil with as many questions as answers, learning about the Golden Lion Tamarin was a particular highlight for me.

*update: I just wanted to thank all the people who helped us with our research: IBIO, Conservation International, The Nature Conservancy, Smithsonian National Zoo, and of course Associacao Mico-Leao-Dourado.

The Atlantic Forest

by Duncan Gromko

Atlantic Forest, Photo Credit: Ben Smith

Today is International Forest Day, so I thought I'd take the opportunity to write about my favorite forest. People that know me well know that I like trees. Don't get me wrong; other biomes like reefs, savannas, or deserts have their own appeal. But there is something about the immensity of trees and the way that being in a forest just swallows up.

Choosing my favorite forest is tough. Growing up in the midwest, the temperate deciduous forests of that region (at least the few that remain) have a special familiarity for me. Another possible favorite is the coastal forests of the Pacific Northwest, particularly those with redwood groves. Redwoods are the tallest trees on earth. Most any tree is tough to photograph, but redwoods are near impossible. How do you capture their size? But, although I love those two forest types and others, I think my favorite forest is the Brazilian Atlantic Forest.

Getting to spend a year researching the Atlantic forest - or Mata Atlantica in Portuguese - including a three week trip to Brazil has left me hopelessly biased. It's the first real tropical rainforest that I've been in and rainforests have a completely different feeling than the northern hemisphere forests I'm used to. A rainforest is just so much denser than the forests I was used to. It's hot. And humid. And it's noisy; it feels like there is so much going on all around you. The Atlantic Forest is a particularly rich, with over 20,000 plant species, 8,000 of which are endemic (meaning that they are only found in the Atlantic Forest). Conservation International has labeled the forest a "biodiversity hotspot" because of its species variety.

Pasture in Brazil, Photo Credit: Ben Smith

It's also easy to get sentimental about the Atlantic Forest because just how little of it is left. Most of the forest doesn't look like the picture above, but  more like the picture to the left: small forest fragments surrounded by various forms of agriculture. Some 90-95% of the original extent of the Atlantic Forest has been destroyed. Located along Brazil's Atlantic Coast, the Atlantic Forest has been under severe pressure since the 1600s when the Portuguese sought to extract more resources from their colony. Since, the Brazilian Atlantic Coast has become home to huge population centers, inevitably leading to destruction of the forest. 62% of Brazil's population lives in the Atlantic Forest ecosystem, including the megacities of Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. In addition to pasture for beef cattle, the other primary agricultural uses have been sugarcane and eucalyptus plantations.

In our research of the Atlantic Forest, John, Nick, Ben, and I were looking at efforts to restore the Atlantic Forest. There is a consortium of NGOs, government agencies, private companies, and academic institutions known as PACTO, which are all dedicated to increasing the extent of the Atlantic Forest. With such widespread deforestation and high population pressures, their goals are modest: restoring 15 million hectares (original extent was 120 million hectares). Doing so would reduce species extinction in the Atlantic Forest and provide critical ecosystem services, such as water supply, climate regulation, and flood regulation, to the population centers on the coast. For instance, there is a large protected forest near and around Rio de Janeiro that reduces the temperature in the city by an estimated 4-7 degrees Fahrenheit.

Although private sector actors have historically been primary culprits in deforestation, there is reason to think that they are starting to invest in restoration. The Brazilian Forest Code requires that 20% of any property be protected, natural forest. Although this law is loosely enforced, pulp and paper companies that we visited, like Veracel and Fibria, were spending large sums on restoring parts of their land to natural forest. In addition to legal compliance, another incentive for companies is that restoring other parts of their land allows them to certify their plantations through the FSC, increasing their profits.

Another reason for optimism is the parallels between the Atlantic Forest biome and the forests of the Eastern and Southern United States. Early colonials converted our forests to agricultural uses. But, as the economy has shifted and farming has become less profitable in the North and South, forests have come back. Given that about a quarter of the Atlantic Forest biome is used for low-density, low-profit cattle ranching, a similar scenario could play out in Brazil.

I sure hope so. It's a beautiful forest, but there's hardly any of it left. 

Forests and the Private Sector

by Duncan Gromko

An immature palm oil plantation; source: Energie-experten

There has been some good news recently from two different corporations that have historically done a lot of damage to forests. Golden Agri-Resources Limited (GAR) and Asian Pulp and Paper (APP) have made announcements that would significantly reduce their impact on forests in Southeast Asia. GAR, a palm oil conglomerate, has agreed to a "forest conservation policy," which would ban conversion of peatland forest and other forests with high conservation value. Similarly, APP, a company that produces pulp and paper products, has committed to a "no deforestation" policy, which would end the sourcing of tree fiber produced from the destruction of tropical rainforests.

A little background. In Indonesia, (and, in fact, most countries) the greatest threat to forests is not timber harvest, but the conversion of forests to agriculture. In Latin America, forests are often burned down to be replaced with soy fields or grazing land for beef production. In Southeast Asia, conversion of forests to palm oil is the primary driver of deforestation. The palm oil species is an incredibly productive and valuable crop; in strict economic terms, it is difficult to make the case that palm oil production shouldn't continue to expand. Conversion of forests to pulp and paper plantations is similarly profitable. Most typically, a palm oil or pulp and paper company leases forest land - a "concession" - from the government. Concessions give different rights to company and a palm oil concession allows the company to convert the forest on the land to palm oil.

So why would a company agree to not convert forest on land in a concession that is has paid for? Doing so is forgoing potential income.

There is a cynical answer and an optimistic answer.

The cynical answer is that the companies are doing this purely as a response to pressure from outside groups. Greenpeace and other advocacy groups deserve a lot of credit for calling attention to the conversion of forests to palm oil and pulp and paper plantations. Images of orangutans being burned to death (warning, disturbing video) make palm oil companies look like villains, which leads to actual financial risk for the companies, and ultimately a public relations campaign to improve their public image. APP has made similar commitments before, only to renege on them. Supporting the cynical perspective is the argument that APP has already destroyed nearly all of the natural forests in their concessions (meaning that this recent announcement has no cost to them). According to this argument, their only reason for the policy change is to stop Greenpeace from making them look so bad.

The optimistic answer is more nuanced. Concern over public image plays a role, but companies are ultimately interested in their long term sustainability. Most corporations are dependent on natural resources; therefore, their profitability depends on good management of resources. In Costa Rica, for example, hydropower producers have recognized that increasing forest cover upstream from their power plants improves power production. It is economical for them to pay to protect forests. Another example is the water bottling company Perrier in France, which likewise realized that improving water quality was most easily done by paying farmers to protect the watershed.

The World Business Council on Sustainable Development has developed a methodology (corporate ecosystem valuation - CEV) for identifying and valuing corporations' dependency on ecosystems. I recommend reading the report; there is a particularly interesting case study of Dow Chemical recognizing how dependent it is on water resources and making investments to protect those resources.

Ultimately, we need both the optimistic and pessimistic pressures. In some (optimistic) cases, better recognition of corporate dependency can improve management. In other (pessimistic) cases, however, the environmental costs of degradation are not borne by the company that profits from them. In such a case (like with APP and GAR), organizations like Greenpeace have an important role to play in calling attention to the damage that corporations are doing to other groups and shaming corporations into more responsible actions.

The combination of reputation risk from shaming and a better understanding of the private sector's dependence on natural resources has led to some very positive outcomes. The Consumer Goods Forum (which includes CEOs from Walmart, Unilever, Coca Cola, General Mills, and Cargill - the combined revenues of the group amount to 5% of global GDP) has announced that all the agricultural products in their supply chain will be sustainable and deforestation free by 2020. There is a lot of work to be done to get the companies of the CGF to no deforestation and even if they do accomplish their goal, there are still plenty of other barriers to overcome. But this is definitely a step in the right direction.

Response to Foreign Affairs REDD+ Article

by Duncan Gromko

Source: Catedral Verde

Foreign Affairs published an article on deforestation in the Amazon and REDD+ (reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation) in their most recent issue. I was torn. On the one hand, I was thrilled because a popular and respected journal was covering two issues that I believe are important and don't get enough attention. On the other hand, the article just isn't very good and doesn't seriously engage the issues. There are a lot of nuances to these two issues, but the article just glosses over them. I'll go over four problems I saw, from least to most important.

First, and most pettily, it's REDD+, not REDD as Jeff Tollefson, the author, writes. That "+" may seem small, but including it is a big deal as it means that carbon payments can flow for afforestation and reforestation (planting trees) and not just avoided deforestation. Writing "REDD" makes me think that Mr. Tollefson is not familiar with the topic.

Second, the article paints a slightly rosy picture of deforestation in the Amazon. Yes, there are great signs that the situation is improving and there are a lot of reasons to be optimistic. Huge strides have been made and a lot of credit goes to the Brazilian government. However, the latest deforestation data from the Amazon points to large increases in deforestation compared to last year. How could he not mention this fact?

Third, at times Mr. Tollefson conflates decreases in deforestation in the Amazon and REDD+ implementation:

"...good news has emerged from the Amazon. Brazil has dramatically slowed the destruction of its rain forests, reducing the rate of deforestation by 83 percent since 2004, primarily by enforcing land-use regulations, creating new protected areas, and working to maintain the rule of law in the Amazon. At the same time, Brazil has become a test case for a controversial international climate-change prevention strategy known as REDD...which places a monetary value on the carbon stored in forests."

Let's be clear here: REDD+ has not yet been implemented and is very unlikely to be implemented in the near to medium future. My best guess is it never will be implemented or at least not as originally conceived. Later in the article, Mr. Tollefson gets much closer to the truth:

"REDD remains a distant promise for most landowners and communities, and the precipitous drop in deforestation in Brazil is more a function of broader government policy than the result of any individual project."

OK, that's much better! But he also wrote:

"Brazil's preliminary experience with REDD suggests that, in addition to offering multiple benefits to forest dwellers (human and otherwise), the model can be cheap and fast: Brazil has done more to reduce emissions than any other country in the world in recent years, without breaking the bank."

Call me crazy, but Mr. Tollefson is contradicting himself. At the very least, he is seriously muddling the waters. Why did he choose to write about REDD+ and the Amazon? Many countries (that have not experienced declines in deforestation) have similar early engagement on REDD+ so it doesn't make much sense to focus on Brazil. I wish the article was about deforestation in the Amazon or REDD+, but not both.

Finally, Mr Tollefson fails to critically assess REDD+. From his largest section that brings up issues with REDD+:

"Some environmentalists and social activists worry about the validity and longevity of such credits, as well as the prospect of banks and traders entering the conservation business. One fear is that 'carbon cowboys,' a new class of entrepreneurs specializing in the development of carbon-offset projects, would sweep through forests, trampling the rights of indigenous and poor people by taking control of their lands and walking away with the profits. This concern is valid, as there is always a danger of bad actors. But civil-society groups and governments, including Brazil's, are aware of the problem and are working on safeguards. Brazilian officials have also expressed worries that the ability to simply purchase unlimited offsets would allow wealthy countries to delay the work that needs to be done to reduce their own emissions."

Saying that some environmentalists worry about REDD+ is an intentionally dismissive and misleading way of brushing aside real concerns about REDD+. You could also say that "some scientists believe in the theory of evolution" or "some tables have four legs." There are very few, if any, environmentalists or social activists who are actively engaged in REDD+ that don't have any concerns. Many may believe that these issues can be overcome or that possible problems are offset by the gains. But everyone working on this issue is critically engaged in identifying and trying to address problems! If Foreign Affairs wants to make a positive contribution to the REDD+ discussion, they would too. 

I've already written about REDD+ obstacles, so I'm not going to get deep into that again. I'd recommend this Munden Project report and this Rainforest Foundation report for anyone interested in learning about issues with REDD+. 

So...thanks Foreign Affairs, for at least publishing something on forests, but I really hope your next attempt is better.

REDD+ and People

by Duncan Gromko

The head of the World Bank's forest carbon division, Benoit Bosquet, recently wrote about the organization's efforts to include indigenous people in REDD+. REDD+ has gotten a lot of criticism for favoring governments and big corporations at the expense of local, forest-dependent people. To their credit, the World Bank has made a concerted effort to include these people in the decision-making process. According to Bosquet: "Indigenous Peoples have turned from critics of REDD+ to critical actors for REDD+."

Source: Σ64

REDD+ is an environmental economist's dream. The idea is to pay people for protecting forests and the ecosystem services they provide. Deforestation represents around 12% of global greenhouse gas emissions, so avoiding that deforestation provides a climate regulatory service. If trees are not cut down, climate change will be less severe. The original idea was that REDD+ would fit into a global climate change agreement, where rich countries with high emissions could pay developing countries to help reduce their emissions. Buying forest carbon credits was meant to generate an annual $40 billion for forest protection.

Hearing about this policy idea was one of the reasons that I chose to study environmental economics. It's a market solution to the environmental externalities that I wrote about in an earlier post. It solves a bunch of problems at once. Developing countries receive cash transfers. Local people can afford to protect their forests. And the whole world gets climate benefits at a price cheaper than other greenhouse gas reduction strategies. Win-win-win! In a time where there has been a lot of pessimism about climate change negotiations, this was one bright spot.

Unfortunately, there are several potential problems with REDD+ implementation:

1)The biggest problem is that land tenure is much less secure in developing countries; in some countries, such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), the state technically owns 100 percent of the forests. And now that the international community is putting a price on forests, there is an incentive for the state to take away land from people that don't have a legal document.

A story from Uganda offers a troubling example of the problems with a forest carbon price. More than 20,000 farmers from the Mubende and Kiboga districts of central Uganda were violently evicted from their land in 2010 by the Ugandan government. The land is now being leased to New Forests Company, a UK-based company that plants and harvests timber. The Ugandan government will profit from both the carbon credits generated by the timber plantations and from the sale of timber from the land. Ironically, REDD+ could create a policy environment where land occupied by local people is sold or leased to large corporations just as it was once granted to large timber corporations.

2) Even if land tenure wasn't a problem, the Munden Project points out another problem. The complex financial instruments involved in forest carbon trading would be difficult for the small land owners selling forest carbon credits to understand. On the other hand, finance institutions have significant experience in derivative trading. This information asymmetry will enable the buyers of carbon assets to capture most of the revenues from carbon trading.

3) There will be many sellers of forest carbon and fewer buyers – the market is a monopsony. Since there are fewer buyers of carbon credits, they might be able to collude and will likely have a stronger bargaining position. As REDD+ is meant to mobilize capital for forest investment (the sellers of carbon credits), this is potentially disastrous.

4) Paying for carbon means that other important forest benefits will be undervalued - not all forests are created equal. A eucalyptus plantation, for instance, sequesters a lot of carbon and provides the owner with revenue from sale of the wood. However, the plantation will require lots of fertilizer, thus it may be a negative for water supply. And a monoculture provides no habitat for species. If the profits generated from carbon credits and timber sale are the only incentives for land owners, we might end up with more forest monocultures because the other benefits of forests are not monetized.

5) It's really hard to measure and predict forest cover change. REDD+ is mostly paying people NOT to deforest. For instance, you make a deal with a country to reduce its deforestation by 50% by 2020. But how do you know what its deforestation rate would have been in 2020 without the payments? Using historical deforestation rates provides some clue, but data are unreliable and deforestation rates vary year to year. Should your estimate be based on 10 years of deforestation data or 5 years? The answer changes your prediction about 2020...and thus the amount of money being transferred to countries. There is also a perverse incentive at work here, where countries might want to have a higher deforestation rate before REDD+ is implemented in order to be able to sell more carbon credits.

6) Leakage. If some countries are covered by REDD+, but not all, maybe the deforestation and pressure on forests will just shift. If, for instance, Indonesian and Malaysian forests are protected under REDD+, what will this mean for Burmese forests?

So getting back to Mr. Bosquet's blog, I'm really glad that the World Bank and the rest of REDD+ community is engaging indigenous people and other vulnerable groups. I don't think the World Bank deserves all the criticism it has gotten; the people working there genuinely want to make a positive difference. But they're working in a tremendously difficult environment that is complicated by many factors, the least of which is some corrupt partner governments. Can REDD+ succeed in protecting forests and the people who depend on them? Everyone at the World Bank and other organizations working on REDD+ are well aware of these problems, but I'm not confident that some of them have been addressed.