Creating financial value for tropical forests by disentangling people from nature

Abstract

Efforts to address environmental problems have led to a rapid proliferation of mechanisms for creating financial value for nature. This paper argues that the creation of financial value for nature requires work to disentangle and frame the relation between people and nature so as to render this relation calculable, and that this work acts to alienate people from nature. To pursue and progress this argument, the paper analyses the work of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to establish a mechanism to create financial value for tropical forests based on their capacity to store carbon. The analysis finds that the UNFCCC’s work of disentanglement and framing, so as to render calculable the relation between people and forests, has created conditions that threaten to materially degrade the ecological value of tropical forest biodiversity and the cultural/spiritual value of forests to indigenous peoples. The findings support this paper’s argument that the alienation of people from nature is not simply a consequence of financial valuation, but rather is a necessary prerequisite for creating financial value for nature.

Keywords:

• Nature
• Forests
• Valuation
• Carbon
• Biodiversity
• Indigenous peoples

Acknowledgements

The author is very grateful for the advice and support of Ian Thomson, Bob Scapens, Kathryn Haynes and Stuart Cooper. This research was supported by the https://doi.org/10.13039/501100000269 Economic and Social Research Council [grant number ES/I024123/1].

Notes

1 The term material here, and throughout this paper, is used to denote that relations between actors and objects will always comprise some concrete, physical interaction between them (cf. MacKenzie, 2009a).

2 The countries named as being supporters of the UNFCCC submission were Bolivia, Central African Republic, Chile, Congo, Costa Rica, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, and Papua New Guinea (UN, 2005b).

3 There is a rich history of interpretive accounting research grounded in various philosophical and sociological traditions. See Hoque, Parker, Covaleski, and Haynes, (2017) for useful discussion.

4 To provide assurance that these represent key themes within the dataset, a simple exact match text search was conducted, within NVivo, of the documents comprising the non-governmental organisation written submissions. The term “biodiversity” is used 1042 times in 119 different submissions, and the term “indigenous” is used 2500 times in 117 different submissions. These simple word counts may be seen to provide some support for the interpretation of this case (set out in section 4) derived from close reading analysis of these documents.

5 The exact relationship between deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions is complicated by issues of timing of emissions (Houghton et al., 1983; Moore et al., 1981). Some emissions, such as from the burning of vegetation to clear land for agricultural use, or the burning of fuelwood, occur concurrently with deforestation. Some emissions, such as carbon released from soils following conversion to agricultural land, occur over several years following deforestation. Some emissions, such as the oxidation of paper and wood products, may occur several years (or even decades) after deforestation. Despite issues around timing of emissions, deforestation is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, estimated to account for approximately 25% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (Houghton, 2005). The REDD mechanism makes a simplifying assumption that all emissions occur concurrently with deforestation, such that emissions from deforestation and forest degradation can be inferred from measured changes in forest carbon stocks (Gibbs, Brown, Niles, & Foley, 2007).

6 It is beyond the scope of this paper to review debates about the merits and drawbacks of specific valuation approaches. For an insightful discussion of approaches to valuing environmental resources, see Milne (1991). For discussion and critique of the valuation approach implicit within the REDD mechanism, see Karsenty (2008); Neeff and Ascui (2009); Cuckston (2013), and Rakatama, Pandit, Ma, and Iftekhar, (2017).

7 The establishment of baseline levels of emissions from historical data is not straightforward. Indeed, the REDD mechanism also allows governments to adjust an observed historical deforestation rate for ‘relevant policies and plans’ (UN, 2014, p. 34) that could affect future deforestation. For a full discussion of the difficulties of establishing emissions baselines see Lohmann (2009).

8 The United Nations General Assembly has defined sustainable forest management as ‘a dynamic and evolving concept [that] aims to maintain and enhance the economic, social and environmental value of all types of forests, for the benefit of present and future generations’ (UN, 2007b, p. 9). Many conservation organisations argue that this definition is ‘so vague it can mean anything’ (Ecosystems Climate Alliance, 2009, p. 5).