Sara Leal*
The new edition of the newsletter Um Grau e Meio (One and a Half Degrees) talks about financial incentives that value forests on private property in order to meet the challenges of climate change. To this end, it presents CONSERV, a mechanism that pays rural landowners and agricultural companies for protecting the surplus of native vegetation that they could, by law, deforest.
In an interview, André Guimarães, executive director of IPAM and one of the creators of CONSERV, explains how the project works, the challenges faced during its implementation and the results so far. Read the full article.
Sign up to receive IPAM’s newsletter free of charge in your e-mail.
What is the difference between CONSERV and other financial incentive initiatives that already exist, such as PES and REDD+?
There are two vital characteristics to CONSERV’s success. The first is that it was built from the bottom up: before we designed this financial mechanism, we went into the field and consulted producers to understand what would convince them to give up their right to deforest.
The second feature is that we have always fought for CONSERV to be simple. The money goes, the hectare of native vegetation stays. You don’t have to index it in tons of carbon, imagine the value of biodiversity, taxes on this, that, etc. This simplicity is one of the project’s greatest virtues.
There are other financial mechanisms that link the benefit to a different interest rate, a different type of investment, a more specific market opening. This is sometimes intangible for the producer.
How have producers received the project?
It’s never been easy to convince producers to give up a right, even in exchange for remuneration. Changing rights established by law is perhaps the most sensitive issue for a person or a company.
The project’s characteristic of thinking outside the box required a lot of sensitivity from the IPAM team and courage from the producers.
We are at a moment in history when there are still visions that carry an old model of production and relationship with nature. On the other hand, people, experts and even businesspeople already have a more contemporary view that we will have to maintain more native vegetation in the world if we want to continue living well on the planet.
In my opinion, we have to look at this moment in history in order to value dissent. It is from this dichotomy, seeking to understand those who think differently, that paths are built.
I believe that the beauty of a project like CONSERV, and even of our work as a scientific organization that sets out to qualify the debate, is to bring together the desires and expectations of those who think differently. CONSERV seeks to bring together apparently antagonistic views that can be harmonized around a common goal.
What have the results of the project been so far?
I think the first result is to prove the thesis that it is possible to conserve beyond the requirements of the law, as long as there are incentives. And today, in the global context, we have to go beyond what the Forest Code requires; we have to be more comprehensive and in the shortest time possible to avoid the effects of climate change, which are already intense.
One of the lessons learned is that, because of CONSERV, we now know how much it costs to pay to conserve in Brazil, which makes the initiative a milestone. In addition, the project has created a new way of thinking about conservation on private property.
We also learned subtle lessons, such as how to relate to a collective that thinks differently, incorporating different visions. This listening means that IPAM is one of the few civil society organizations in Brazil that has an open and frank dialogue with agribusiness, both in terms of agreement and disagreement.
How do you see CONSERV in the future?
We need to put CONSERV in a broader perspective, of humanity’s new relationship with nature. We won’t be able to survive in this country if we don’t maintain the rainforest, harmony between human beings and nature.
The way we are polluting the oceans, killing the rivers, degrading the forests and increasing the temperature of the planet, we are heading for collapse. This is expressed in climate catastrophes, rising temperatures and changes in local microclimates. There are various expressions of nature that are pointing to the fact that we are overstepping the mark.
Since the first Homo sapiens, 300,000 years ago, we haven’t stopped expanding and spreading to every corner of the planet, but this comes at a cost. We need to put in place a new way for the human species to relate to nature.
Not so long ago, value was seen in taking from nature. Today, the value lies in how you include nature in the process.
So the big question for humanity today is: are we an intelligent enough species to be able to neutralize the genetic trait of expanding all the time? The answer to this question will tell us whether we deserve to continue living on Earth.
*IPAM Communications Coordinator