Can We Pay People To Save The Rainforest?
4:35 minutes
Earth’s forests are crucial for controlling the rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and for maintaining biodiversity, so efforts are underway around the world to stop deforestation. But what happens when those same trees are also crucial to a family’s livelihood?
One solution being tried in countries like Costa Rica and Uganda is to pay landowners not to cut down their trees.
“A lot of the forest is in developing countries and a lot of where the deforestation is happening is by very poor people,” says Dr. Seema Jayachandran, associate professor of economics at Northwestern University and the lead author on a new research paper in the journal Science that explores how well these payments work.
[A scientist explores the tasty benefits of diversifying crops.]
“In Uganda, people are selling some trees to timber dealers or for charcoal just to make ends meet,” Jayachandran explains. “So, if we just ban them from cutting down their trees, we would be making poor people even worse off. The idea of paying them is that we can still get them to conserve, but we can offset the money they’re losing by not being able to sell their trees.”
“So, they’re a little bit better off and we got our conservation goal,” she continues. “It’s a lot of money to them, so we don’t want to deprive them of that money. But when we think about it in global terms, it’s not a lot of money — $50, $100. That could be a lot cheaper than some of our other options for reducing carbon emissions.”
But can these programs have the desired effect?
“One view is that this is a no-brainer,” Jayachandran says. “But there has been some skepticism about this approach, [for] a couple of reasons. One is that maybe a lot of the money…is really [being paid] to people who would have conserved their forests, anyway. For people who are going to conserve anyway, this program looks like a great deal. They’re going to conserve; we’re going to pay them. They didn’t change their behavior — [and] we’re not getting any extra forest cover.”
“The programs are only really making a dent in the problem if they attract people who would have been clearing their forests, but now, because of the reward, they change their behavior and they keep it intact,” Jayachandran explains. “We need to get a lot of [people in] that second category to really make this cost effective.”
A second concern is that some people will enroll and follow the rules of the program, but continue to cut down trees elsewhere, Jayachandran says.
“They’ll conserve the forest on their land, but then they’ll just go and take some trees from the government forest reserve. Or, if you and I were neighbors in a village, I might say, ‘OK, you sign up. I won’t. And then you can come cut your trees on my land and you’ll get the money for complying. And we’ll split that money.’”
Jayachandran’s research showed that this didn’t happen.
“We said, OK, let’s look at what happens on the ground,” Jayachandran explains. “So we ran a randomized experiment in Uganda and looked at what happened in the villages with the program and compared [that] with deforestation in the ones without [the program] — and we didn’t see either of those problems.”
“The program was successful in attracting people across the board — some of the people who were going to conserve anyway, but also people who would have been deforesting and now they conserved,” she concludes. “We didn’t see any of that shifting of deforestation to neighboring land.”
Segment Guests
Seema Jayachandran
Seema Jayachandran is an Associate Professor of Economics at Northwestern University. She’s based in Evanston, Illinois.
Segment Transcript
IRA FLATOW: And now it’s time to play Good Thing, Bad Thing.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
Because every story has a flip side. Earth’s forests are great carbon guzzlers and they are crucial for biodiversity. But what happens when the person who owns the land the forest is on needs the trees for firewood? One solution being tried in countries like Costa Rica and Uganda is to pay the land owner to not cut down the trees– sounds like agriculture. Can these programs work or are there loopholes?
Let me bring in my guest, Jayachandran. Dr. Seema Jayachandran, associate professor of economics at Northwestern University. She’s the lead author on a new research paper in the journal Science that explores how well these payments work. Welcome to Science Friday, Dr. Jayachandran.
DR. SEEMA JAYACHANDRAN: Hi, Ira. It’s great to be on your show.
IRA FLATOW: Let’s talk about it. What makes people– paying people such an attractive option here.
DR. SEEMA JAYACHANDRAN: Like you said, the forests are storing a lot of carbon. So it would be great to keep them intact, but a lot of the forest is in developing countries. And a lot of where the deforestation is happening is by very poor people. So, in Uganda, people are selling some trees to timber dealers or for charcoal just to make ends meet. And so if we just ban them from cutting down their trees we would be making poor people even worse off. And so the idea of paying them is that we can still get them to conserve, but we can offset that money they’re losing by not being able to sell their trees. And so they’re a little bit better off and we got our conservation goal. And it’s a lot of money to them, so we don’t want to deprive them of that money. But when we think about it in global terms, it’s not a lot of money $50, $100. And so that could be a lot cheaper than some of our other options for reducing carbon emissions.
IRA FLATOW: But Dr. Jayachandran, we shouldn’t take for granted that paying people actually means more trees automatically.
DR. SEEMA JAYACHANDRAN: One view is that this is a no-brainer. If you pay people they’ll do more of it. But there have been some skepticism about this approach. You mentioned Costa Rica, Mexico– some countries are doing it and we just haven’t known how well it works. And so the bad of this is less that it’s going to hurt the forest and more that it might not make a big dent in it.
And there are a couple of reasons people have been skeptical. One is that maybe a lot of the money we’re paying people is really to people who would have conserved their forests, anyway. Some people are going to conserve anyway, this program looks like a great deal to them. They’re going to conserve, we’re going to pay them. They didn’t change their behavior, we’re not getting any extra forest cover. So the programs are only really making a dent in the problem if they attract people who would have been clearing their forests, but now because of the reward they change their behavior and they keep it intact. And so that would be a case with we need to get a lot of that second category to really make this cost effective.
And then there’s a second concern people have had that’s, maybe, a little bit more pernicious which is that people will enroll, and they’ll follow the rules of the program, and they’ll conserve the forest on their land, but then they’ll just go and take some trees from the government forest reserve. Or, if you and I were neighbors in a village, Ira, I might say, OK, you sign up, I won’t. And then you can come cut your trees on my land and you’ll get the money for complying. And we’ll split that money.
IRA FLATOW: But your research showed that that didn’t happen, people were good about this.
DR. SEEMA JAYACHANDRAN: Exactly. So what we did is we said, OK, let’s look what happens on the ground. And so we ran a randomized experiment in Uganda and looked at what happened in the villages with the program. And compared what happened to deforestation in the ones without it and we didn’t see either of those problems. The program was successful in attracting people across the board– some of the people who are going to conserve anyway, but also people who would have been deforesting and now they conserved. And we didn’t see any of that shifting of deforestation in neighboring land.
IRA FLATOW: And it’s great. This is a very interesting study. Thank you for taking time to be with us today.
DR. SEEMA JAYACHANDRAN: Thank you.
IRA FLATOW: Dr. Seema Jayachandran, associate professor of economics at Northwestern University. We’re going to take a break. And when we come back, NASA’s first mission to test asteroid deflection. You heard it right, it is moving forward. Why this is a threat that we should be taking seriously. An asteroid hitting us, it’s got to be one with our name on it. Right? We’ll talk about it after the break. Stay with us.
Copyright © 2017 Science Friday Initiative. All rights reserved. Science Friday transcripts are produced on a tight deadline by 3Play Media. Fidelity to the original aired/published audio or video file might vary, and text might be updated or amended in the future. For the authoritative record of ScienceFriday’s programming, please visit the original aired/published recording. For terms of use and more information, visit our policies pages at http://www.sciencefriday.com/about/policies/
Meet the Producer
About Christie Taylor
@ctaylsaurusChristie Taylor was a producer for Science Friday. Her days involved diligent research, too many phone calls for an introvert, and asking scientists if they have any audio of that narwhal heartbeat.