Jackson Hewett ’11Journal #1
I am one month into my internship at the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Environment and Energy Group (EEG), Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD).
While the name is certainly a mouthful, the program’s aims are relatively simple. In a nutshell, REDD tries to bring about behavioral change among forest users by paying them to either a) not cut down their existing forests, or b) replant or restore degraded forest on their lands. Deforestation accounts for 15 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions annually, and many think that preventing deforestation is the “low hanging fruit” toward achieving global emissions reductions and has the added benefit of transferring development funds to some of the world’s poorest people.
Following sideline talks in Copenhagen, UN-REDD programs have received almost $4 billion, with the bulk of funding thus far coming from the Norwegian government who is financing pilot projects in Indonesia.
It is a potentially huge business opportunity for project developers, particularly following the failure of an agreement on cap and trade. But UN-REDD is in its infancy and there are many governance issues to hammer out including the rights of indigenous peoples to forests that they may have lived on for years but own no title to, the best way to monitor, report and verify carbon savings from preventing deforestation, and how to prevent corrupt practices. As a former journalist used to turning up once a project is up and running, it is quite a process to see how much thorough preparation must be undertaken before any actual work is commenced. I also have to adjust my expectations from the B-school notion that first mover advantage outranks an obsession with planning to the finest detail. These projects wouldn’t work without the UN acting as a global facilitator for carbon prices, monitoring, anti-corruption issues etc., which means that stakeholders must be consulted at every turn. This slows down the process enormously. Hopefully, once projects start really moving, they will be sustainable and relatively free from criticism.
My job is to look into how these economic incentives affect behavioral change. It might seem obvious that if you pay someone to not cut down their forest, they will do so. But every country is different and may have different economic and social structures that create layers of complexities. Should the funds be transferred to state, regional, or local actors? Who owns the land? Does the money go to a farmer who understands property rights or to a community that uses the forest as a shared resource? What impact does monetizing forests have on indigenous peoples who have traditionally understood the intrinsic cultural value of a forest? How will payments be used, and how do you prevent a recipient from using the money to invest in a more carbon intensive activity?
After reading 150 articles and talking to field workers in Mozambique, Bolivia, Vietnam, and Costa Rica, I’m still looking for the special elixir that not only effects behavioral change but also lifts these communities out of poverty. It can at times be an arduous process, but I am inspired by the dedication of the people here. They may have to deal with a lot in the way of international diplomacy and internal bureaucracy, but they are committed to the cause.
