How to stop deforestation

Embed from Getty Images

A recent webinar discussed policy, a market intervention and monitoring technology to help stop deforestation

The Liberal International British Group together with the Paddy Ashdown Forum organised a webinar on 27 April 2020 hosted by BrightTALK on how to stop deforestation. 428 people registered for the event from around the world. The aim of the discussion was to learn how to stop deforestation in a socially just manner, given that the largest rainforests exist in parts of the world that are economically lagging developed nations that have already denuded their natural environments of tree cover.

Jon Shepard, a director at Global Development Incubator, explained why we should care about deforestation: forests absorb a third of global carbon dioxide emissions. A quarter of CO2 emissions are absorbed by oceans. The rest goes into the atmosphere, acting as a greenhouse gas, causing global warming and the climate crisis.

The destruction of forests has also been associated with a rise in zoonotic pandemics. Olivero et al (2017) showed in Nature Scientific Reports that destroyed forests with closed canopies in Africa resulted in outbreaks of Ebola, with a lag of two years. The Ebola virus has been associated with increased interaction between bats and humans when bats lose their natural habitats. The COVID-19 virus has also been associated with bats.

Duncan Brack, an advisor to the UK government’s Global Resource Initiative Task Force, explained that agriculture is the main driver of forest loss in the tropics. Consumer-country demand for commodities such as tropical timber, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber, cocoa and coffee, wood pulp all drive deforestation; for most of these, the Asia-Pacific region accounts for the bulk of consumption, but Europe and the US are both important sources of demand.

Duncan and Yulia Stange, a manager at ClientEarth, offered law-based solutions to curb consumer-based deforestation.  These included

  • the EU Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Action Plan to stop the import of illegal timber and address governance weaknesses;
  • Voluntary Partnership Agreements between the EU and timber-exporting developing countries to create timber legality assurance and export licensing systems designed to exclude illegal timber from consume markets, improve forest governance and support local populations; this same model could potentially be applied to other commodities such as cocoa;
  • social agreements between communities local to forests and logging companies;
  • due diligence regulation for businesses, either through a commodity-specific approach such as the EU Timber Regulation, or a broader corporate approach, applying to a company’s entire  operations and supply chains such as the French Devoir de Vigilance law of 2017;
  • public procurement policy to include sustainability criteria.

There is a mechanism within the EU Withdrawal Agreement for the UK to transpose EU FLEGT into UK Timber Regulation. There is also movement for the UK entering Voluntary Partnership Agreements that it had initially entered as a Member of the EU.

Complementing government-to-government agreements and domestic policy in consumer countries are market interventions to correctly value standing forests and disincentivise their destruction for quick and little profit. Jon Shepard talked about how non-profit organisations such as Emergent monetise the difference in CO2 emissions that would have been produced had a forest been burned and then used for agriculture and the emissions that would been naturally sequestered into the soil had a forest been left unharmed. After verifying the counterfactual emissions, they create “carbon credits” – a function of a dollar value and reduced carbon dioxide by square metre – and then sell those to large corporations which want to offset their emissions and become carbon neutral. This allows corporations such as Microsoft to offset their historic emissions. The proceeds of the sale are then transferred to the forest nations to compensate them for not using the land for short-term economic gains. Emergent’s scheme has been underwritten by the Government of Norway as a buyer of last resort.

Both government and market interventions require monitoring. Paola Despretz, an economist at Vivid Economics, shared her experience on the UK Space Agency-funded programme to tackle deforestation in Côte d’Ivoire using satellite images to detect forest loss on a fortnightly basis. Deforestation alerts are used to identify and destroy illegal incursions of cocoa farming in protected areas. Thanks to the online forest monitoring platform, IMAGES, the rate of deforestation in certain areas of Côte d’Ivoire has reduced substantially since 2017.

* Imad tweets @ImadAhmed. He is economist on the Academic Board of the Paddy Ashdown Forum and an Executive Member of Liberal International British Group. Views expressed are his own.

Read more by or more about .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.


  • Forests are being cut down to feed biomass furnaces all over the US in the deluded belief that it constitutes “renewable ” energy. The same is happening at Drax in this country where they burn wood chips which are transported from forests in the US. Drax gets subsidies of £789 million for destroying trees.

    Find out about the billionaires who profit from this “green” initiative by watching “Planet of the humans” on youtube (currently free).

  • Green intiatives in scotland have resulted in 13.9 million trees being cut down to make way for wind turbines.

  • Peter Hirst 8th May '20 - 10:54am

    We need to put a value on trees that is beyond their timber. So if a tree is cut down that amount goes into a pot. This would mean it would not be economic sense to cut down some trees. Detailed monitoring by satellite is essential. We could also devise a system where if the origin of a tree is not verifiable, it cannot be sold for profit. Illegal felling should face a substantial fine similar to stealing wild animals.

  • Sue Sutherland 8th May '20 - 2:41pm

    I was pleased to see the inclusion of social justice in the conference aims but I couldn’t find much evidence of it in the conclusion. Surely these countries don’t just need compensation for not destroying their forests, but also financial help to grow their economies in a more environmentally friendly way by greening capitalism.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • Tom Harney
    My response to Justin. I have no idea what Hollywood films have to do with anything. My points were in fact very serious. Climate change is only one of the pro...
  • expats
    Justin 20th Sep '21 - 9:27pm...................Perhaps he should have stayed with what,at one point he tried to say, something along the lines of, it’s a comp...
  • Justin
    Housing First is not the silver bullet to people sleeping rough and they are the first to state this, they are one part of the solution. Their model, highly int...
  • Justin
    In answer to the question, no it won't ,neither will any other international meeting, grouping or agreement, as a species we are too selfish to self absorbed an...
  • Laurence Cox
    It does seem strange to me that Trudeau's Liberals and the New Democratic Party don't form a coalition Government, which would have given them a comfortable maj...