Making Nature Pay?

On 19 January the New York Times published an op-ed piece on a new carbon offset programme entitled “Make Forests Pay”. As the authors make clear, tropical rainforests are being cut, burned and cleared at an astonishing rate, which shows no sign of slowing. Aside from the other obvious effects of this loss — species extinction and biodiversity loss — they highlight the role this plays in climate change: when tropical forests are cleared, carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide) is released into the atmosphere, accounting for 12-15 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions annually.

The op-ed outlines the economic forces driving this tropical deforestation, and provides an economic argument for the preservation of tropical forests: carbon offset markets. The rationale behind offsetting is straightforward. Forest owners are paid not to cut down trees, so the greenhouse gas emissions this would have caused are avoided, and polluting companies can “buy” these avoided emissions and offset them against their actual emissions more cheaply than making reductions themselves. A simple, economically efficient way of addressing global climate change? Hardly.

Developing and implementing markets for carbon offsetting is anything but simple; and even the presumption of the efficiency of environmental markets, outside of neoclassical economics, is in no way straightforward. On 19-20 March, the Centre for Global Political Economy at the University of Sussex and the IDS STEPS Centre hosted an international workshop highlighting precisely the complexity, problems, drivers and theories behind this kind of absorption of nature within an economic rationale.

The workshop — Critical Perspectives on the Financialisation of Nature: Theory, Politics and Practice — focused on the development of practical, political and theoretical innovations that will allow us to better understand these kinds of development, engage with them, and ultimately contest them. For example, the system proposed by the three Columbia University academics who wrote the “Make Forests Pay” article, which they call “The Rainforest Standard”, involves the complex commodification or proxy-commodification of carbon dioxide absorption and retention by trees, alongside biodiversity maintenance — what ecological economists would refer to as ecosystem services.

There are numerous, proliferating market forms of environmental governance being developed at the national, regional and global levels. These markets for ecosystem services have a history stretching back to the 1970s US, and early attempts at air pollution trading and wetland banking. They have exploded in political popularity in recent years, with the development of international initiatives such as the Millennium Assessment report. Released in 2005, this analysis of on ecosystems and human wellbeing was undertaken by a partnership of the World Resources Institute, the UN Environment Programme, the World Bank and the UN Development Programme. The rationale behind these developments is always the same: the problem with nature is that it’s not quite natural enough, it needs to be brought into, embedded in, what’s really natural — the market.

While their rationale remains consistent, the challenges, contradictions and limits that arise from the creation of these new forms of market-based environmental products and services, the new materialities and commodities of nature, and the ways we relate to, govern and live in nature, are all wildly divergent and must be critically investigated.

The Rainforest Standard provides an example. The development of the standard was funded at Columbia University in part by a $3 million grant from Cargill, the giant, privately owned commodities trading firm. From a critical political economy perspective, this immediately raises questions about the role of this offsetting mechanism in broader forms of accumulation within the wider global political economy. It also raises eyebrows among those with a sensitivity to both corporate greenwashing and the potential hypocrisy of accepting money from an organisation previously accused of encouraging rainforest destruction to make way for soybean and palm oil production, as well as the ethically questionable purchasing of land reserved for the poor in Columbia, through a series of front companies.

The development of this kind of market for forest conservation and the monetising of a forest’s carbon reserves is of course fraught with technical complexity. For example, ‘Business As Usual’ baselines must be assessed; carbon stocks in the form of forest biomass counted; leakage (tree cutting) accounted for; and the permanence of avoided carbon emissions assured. All of these are central to the production of the forest carbon commodity, and none of these technical, material and accounting steps are transparent or straightforward. They cannot be simply read off the economic theories that underpin the political legitimacy of markets in ecosystem services, and as Professor Kathy McAfee remarks, “Market-oriented PES [Payments for Ecosystem Services] schemes offer myriad examples of how living eco-social systems are recalcitrant to calculation.”

Alongside political economic and material-technical issues, the impacts on indigenous peoples and local communities must be taken into account. The “Rainforest Standard” authors maintain the project involves voluntary participation by de facto rights holders such as forest dwellers and users, as well as legal owners. Similarly, revenue streams generated by projects will be distributed according to plans established by de facto rightsholders; projects will involve rigorous consultation requirements, as well as detailed, informed and prior written consent protocols. These all appear straightforwardly laudable goals — if you’re willing to simply let slip the potential for a new carbon colonialism, and the neo-imperial imposition of a northern, capitalist, property-based relationship with nature. However, environmental markets have proven remarkably susceptible to fraud and manipulation, and have even been said to represent a case of regulation as corruption.

Overall, while the goal of market-based initiatives such as “The Rainforest Standard” is to make forests, and indeed nature, pay. For the Critical Perspectives on the Financialisation of Nature: Theory, Politics and Practice workshop, the questions are rather different. Make nature pay for whom, how, and with what consequences?

Richard Lane is based at Centre for Global Political Economy, University of Sussex; he is co-author, with Benjamin Stephan, of The Politics of Carbon Markets, Routledge, 2015.

This article appears in the excellent Le Monde Diplomatique, whose English language edition can be found at mondediplo.com. This full text appears by agreement with Le Monde Diplomatique. CounterPunch features two or three articles from LMD every month.

More articles by:


June 19, 2019
Matthew Stevenson
Requiem for a Lightweight: the Mayor Pete Factor
Kenneth Surin
In China Again
Stephen Cooper
Abolishing the Death Penalty Requires Morality
George Ochenski
The DNC Can’t Be Allowed to Ignore the Climate Crisis
John W. Whitehead
The Omnipresent Surveillance State
William Camacaro - Frederick B. Mills
Guaidó’s Star Fades as His Envoys to Colombia Allegedly Commit Fraud With Humanitarian Funds for Venezuela
Dave Lindorff
What About Venezuela’s Hacked Power Grid?
Howard Lisnoff
Try Not to Look Away
Binoy Kampmark
Matters of Water: Dubious Approvals and the Adani Carmichael Mine
Karl Grossman
The Battle to Stop the Shoreham Nuclear Plant, Revisited
Kani Xulam
Farting in a Turkish Mosque
Dean Baker
New Manufacturing Jobs are Not Union Jobs
Elizabeth Keyes
“I Can’t Believe Alcohol Is Stronger Than Love”
June 18, 2019
John McMurtry
Koch-Oil Big Lies and Ecocide Writ Large in Canada
Robert Fisk
Trump’s Evidence About Iran is “Dodgy” at Best
Yoav Litvin
Catch 2020 – Trump’s Authoritarian Endgame
Thomas Knapp
Opposition Research: It’s Not Trump’s Fault That Politics is a “Dirty” Game
Medea Benjamin - Nicolas J. S. Davies
U.S. Sanctions: Economic Sabotage that is Deadly, Illegal and Ineffective
Gary Leupp
Marx and Walking Zen
Thomas Hon Wing Polin
Color Revolution In Hong Kong: USA Vs. China
Howard Lisnoff
The False Prophets Cometh
Michael T. Klare
Bolton Wants to Fight Iran, But the Pentagon Has Its Sights on China
Steve Early
The Global Movement Against Gentrification
Dean Baker
The Wall Street Journal Doesn’t Like Rent Control
Tom Engelhardt
If Trump’s the Symptom, Then What’s the Disease?
June 17, 2019
Patrick Cockburn
The Dark Side of Brexit: Britain’s Ethnic Minorities Are Facing More and More Violence
Linn Washington Jr.
Remember the Vincennes? The US’s Long History of Provoking Iran
Geoff Dutton
Where the Wild Things Were: Abbey’s Road Revisited
Nick Licata
Did a Coverup of Who Caused Flint Michigan’s Contaminated Water Continue During Its Investigation? 
Binoy Kampmark
Julian Assange and the Scales of Justice: Exceptions, Extraditions and Politics
John Feffer
Democracy Faces a Global Crisis
Louisa Willcox
Revamping Grizzly Bear Recovery
Stephen Cooper
“Wheel! Of! Fortune!” (A Vegas Story)
Daniel Warner
Let Us Laugh Together, On Principle
Brian Cloughley
Trump Washington Detests the Belt and Road Initiative
Weekend Edition
June 14, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Michael Hudson
Trump’s Trade Threats are Really Cold War 2.0
Bruce E. Levine
Tom Paine, Christianity, and Modern Psychiatry
Jason Hirthler
Mainstream 101: Supporting Imperialism, Suppressing Socialism
T.J. Coles
How Much Do Humans Pollute? A Breakdown of Industrial, Vehicular and Household C02 Emissions
Andrew Levine
Whither The Trump Paradox?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: In the Land of 10,000 Talkers, All With Broken Tongues
Pete Dolack
Look to U.S. Executive Suites, Not Beijing, For Why Production is Moved
Paul Street
It Can’t Happen Here: From Buzz Windrip and Doremus Jessup to Donald Trump and MSNBC
Rob Urie
Capitalism Versus Democracy
Richard Moser
The Climate Counter-Offensive: Secrecy, Deception and Disarming the Green New Deal