ABSTRACT
Converting forest ecosystems to other land uses has major negative consequences for the climate, biodiversity and human well-being. Several international initiatives have emerged to address these issues. Initially focused on narrow technical dimensions of forest management and setting up protected areas, the perspective was extended to forest-related issues, such as agricultural practices, and policy responses were designed. The issue of economic incentives became central in the construction of an international regime for protecting forests. REDD+, an international results-based payment scheme, became emblematic of this incentive-based architecture currently being actively promoted by donors.
So far, none of these initiatives has succeeded in curbing deforestation and the conversion of natural ecosystems to artificialized areas. Diagnoses of the “forest crisis” are generally correct, but they often overlook major political economy issues, such as the fact that governments are not benevolent institutions acting for the common welfare of their people and that urban elites have little interest in the fate of forest-dependent people, who are not that numerous and often voiceless. Endeavours to tackle the forest crisis without questioning the unabated global demand for biomass, energy and agricultural land, and the rules of international trade, seem illusory. Results-based payments have to be rethought, without tying one’s hands with an automatic payment procedure based on an unverifiable level/reference scenario. The only meaningful criterion is the coherence of public policies that potentially have impacts on forests. Renewed results-based payments must therefore give priority to investment and to a joint agenda merging food security and forest protection.
