Creating a new relationship with nature through a ‘stewardship economy’

Small forestry in the Peruvian Amazon. Photo by Juan Carlos Huayllapuma/CIFOR
Small forestry in the Peruvian Amazon. Photo by Juan Carlos Huayllapuma/CIFOR

New approach reshapes markets by putting stewards of nature at the center.

By Ravi Prabhu, Steven Lawry, John Colmey, Forests News (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).

“We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.”

—Aldo Leopold, American conservationist and forester

On the islands that lie between Alaska and Russia, ancient tradition mandates that the native Aleut people will not pick a blueberry without ceremony or prayer. In 18th century colonial India, 363 Bishnoi men and women died at the hands of foresters while clinging to their trees to save them from being turned into timber, inspiring the term ‘tree hugger.’

While perhaps not the first that comes to mind, one word to describe these acts is, by definition, ‘stewardship’: the conducting, supervising, or managing of something, especially the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one’s care.

Echoing Leopold and others who have come before, we at CIFOR-ICRAF, our partners, and the growing global community invested in re-examining the relationship between people and nature are ascribing a contemporary meaning to the concept of ‘stewardship.’ In this understanding, stewardship is the respect we exercise in using nature to produce the goods and services necessary to meet the needs of the world’s 8 billion people as well as those of the environment. It’s clear we must get away from our abusive and purely extractive relationship with nature, and stewardship embodies a responsible and caring relationship with the natural world to ensure collective, planetary well-being and health.

Who are the stewards?

Charles Hugh Stevenson , Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Drying Salmon at Unalaska, Alaska. Credit: Charles Hugh Stevenson, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

As illustrated in the examples at the beginning of this article, the notion of stewardship of nature is as old as human culture. Today, we think of environmental stewardship as inclusive, equitable, place-based, and focused on resilient, prosperous, and sustainable development.

We can think of stewardship of land in particular as a deliberate and informed combination of solicitude, foresight and skill – a marriage of practice and ethics – that has tangible impacts in landscapes. Present-day movements around regenerative agriculture, natural farming and agroecology, buoyed by attention to gender, ethnic and age equality, are examples of the modern embodiment of stewardship practices at forest, farm and community levels.

Land stewards, then, are not simply owners or producers of commodities (food, timber, fiber, etc.), as water stewards are not just those making use of water resources. Yes, stewards are engaged in their landscapes, but in ways that uphold a ‘duty of care’ – an ethos of responsibility for all the ecosystem services the land currently provides, as well as the integrity of its history and, importantly, its future. This, of course, takes hold best when stewards, as individuals or communities, hold rights to their land and waters, giving them the legal assurance to invest in the longevity of their natural resources.

Supporting these directly engaged stewards are larger players, such as governments, businesses, educational and research institutions, nonprofit organizations, and the slew of others that recognize the societal benefit of environmental stewardship, which fuels their relationship with landscapes and their caretakers with the same mindset and approach of stewardship – in whatever form that may be, from policy support and project implementation, to knowledge and site-specific research, to innovative finance. Establishment of national parks, climate negotiations and public awareness campaigns are all forms of stewardship when executed well, but ideally their missions ultimately tie back to advancing the efforts of the people spending their days working to sustainably benefit from and protect our natural resources.

Stewardship also involves fluid, productive dialogues between all these actors to improve the policies, consumption patterns and behavior change needed to realize sustainable benefits from nature for livelihoods.

Market influence

Botanic Garden Meise wild coffee nursery in Yangambi - DRC. Photo by Axel Fassio/CIFOR
Botanic Garden Meise wild coffee nursery in Yangambi – DRC. Photo by Axel Fassio/CIFOR

The market economy and balance sheets require land to be considered as a fixed asset, which in turn implies that market mechanisms can drive sustainable outcomes. But it is this strictly utilitarian view of land and nature that drives their commodification – and the crushing environmental crises that result.

A primary part of the problem is that markets have no realistic way of pricing agricultural commodities so that they bear the full cost of what it takes to ensure land and nature are resilient and able to heal themselves. (Embedded in this is the aforementioned challenge that, in many countries, and especially in forest-reliant communities, insecure or unclear property and tenure rights act as deterrents to investments in stewardship.)

It is no wonder that forests are being replaced by monoculture oil palm, cacao or plantation timber. Even where they exist, the niche markets for high-priced ‘fully costed’ products are far too thin to offer people decent livelihoods and the means to sustain their original landscapes. Farmers in these scenarios are reduced to agricultural factory workers, for lack of a better term.

Over time, the results of these powerful and unsustainable market pressures on direct land users – perhaps would-be stewards under different conditions – result in rapidly degrading land and the ensuing cascade of effects: massive increases in greenhouse gases, disappearing biodiversity, polluted and vanishing water resources, and ever intensifying forms of agriculture that are increasingly dependent on ecologically and economically expensive inputs. This is accelerated by the erosion of social externalities, such as democratic institutions, livelihoods, rights and nutrition.

Turning point

The women of Perigi Village travelled along 500 m of rubber gardens while carrying puruns to get to their place. Photo by Rifky/CIFOR
The women of Perigi Village travelled along 500 m of rubber gardens while carrying puruns to get to their place. Photo by Rifky/CIFOR

We clearly need a change in direction. We believe the answer lies in a shift to a stewardship economy, which would operate both within and outside markets as we know them, supporting, recruiting and connecting stewards, nature and the broader economy through an equitable and affordable system of incentives and rewards that would assure the future of life as we know it. It would aim to fairly reward farmers, forest users and other ‘landscape architects’ for the produce they deliver to markets. It would also see them profit from the services and values they conserve and restore – clean air, removal of greenhouse gases, clean water, biodiversity, and places of spirituality, worship and history.

As for pricing, commodities in a stewardship economy would bear their fair – but not necessarily full – share of the true costs of their production and trade. This means a kilo of rice, wheat or maize would not be priced out of the grasp of poor people. The difference between these fair and full prices would be paid outside market mechanisms, such as through ‘conditional cash transfers’ that are a recognized mechanism for performance-based payments, in this case used for the delivery of services beyond the produced commodities.

In this way, stewards are not forced to commodify their landscapes, as they are rewarded for allowing their lands to continue in health. The two core pillars of the stewardship economy, then, might well be the total income from fair commodity prices and stewardship dividends – delivered through conditional cash transfers, for instance – for service delivery.

A major task, then, is co-designing the mechanisms and building the institutional architecture that help determine both the fair and full costs, translate the fair costs into market prices, and ensure the equitable difference – what could be called the ‘stewardship dividend’ – is efficiently put into the pockets of stewards.

At the same time, the individual rights of stewards and their communities to land and natural resources would need to be taken into account. Innovative finance and investment arrangements, including peer-to-peer finance systems, would have to be mobilized to achieve this.

We believe almost all the tools and elements of a stewardship economy exist already, in one form or the other; what has been missing has been an effort to put the parts together into a greater whole. Our intention is to explore this assembling in the context of the stewardship of farms, forests and terrestrial landscapes.

Modern forms of agriculture, forest and land management have divorced people from nature. People have been turned into laborers and nature into commodities. ‘Stewardship economics’ is the turning point we propose for a more resilient, equitable and optimistic future. Nature is more than products; it also provides immeasurable services. People are not just producers; they are also caretakers. It is high time we recognize and reward this, and we will all benefit as a result.


Stewardship Economy

An equitable system of exchange that rewards those managing nature sustainably for the goods and services derived from those landscapes – which often feed into markets to meet the needs of the global population – while recognizing and promoting the rights of all people to food, water, nutrition, health, voice and a decent livelihood. Coupled with pillars of the landscape approach and democracy, it builds upon classic notions of ‘stewardship’ in a modern context: a deliberate and informed combination of solicitude, foresight and skill – a marriage of practice and ethics – that brings visible and tangible impacts in landscapes and ecosystems. It is underpinned by economic principles and financial mechanisms that will ensure fair and equal benefits and market inclusion of land managers, while meeting consumers’ pricing needs. Shifting fully to a stewardship economy, which exists today in facets and fragments, can swiftly unblock pathways to a more sustainable future for a planet in crisis.This research forms part of the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry, which is supported by CGIAR Fund Donors.

Products tied to legal and illegal deforestation may be banned in the European Union

Photo by Jace & Afsoon on Unsplash
Photo by Jace & Afsoon on Unsplash

By Maxwell Radwin, Mongabay (CC BY-ND 4.0).

  • Proposed legislation in the European Union would require suppliers to prove their products haven’t contributed to legal or illegal deforestation.

  • The law would focus on the industries with some of the most egregious environmental track records, including soy, beef, palm oil, wood, cocoa and coffee, as well as leather, chocolate and furniture.

  • Conservation groups have expressed satisfaction with the first-of-its kind legislation but are concerned about the lack of protections for Indigenous peoples, as well as carbon-rich ecosystems like savannas, wetlands and peatlands.

The European Union is considering an ambitious new proposal that would regulate imports of products linked to global forest loss.

The law would require suppliers to prove their products haven’t contributed to deforestation, whether legal or illegal. If passed, it would force producers to raise their environmental standards or risk losing out on a market of 27 countries and 450 million people.

“Europe is finally taking steps against the deforestation that it drives, and it is doing it not by placing the burden on consumers, but on the big companies that produce these products,” Nico Muzi, Europe director of environmental advocacy group Mighty Earth, told Mongabay. “If we want change, we need to regulate the industries that cause deforestation.”

The proposal, introduced by the European Commission earlier this week, gives special focus to products with some of the most egregious environmental track records, including soy, beef, palm oil, wood, cocoa and coffee, as well as leather, chocolate and furniture. Should the proposal pass, importers will have to meet stricter traceability measures, such as sharing geographic coordinates of where their products originated.

It also establishes a benchmarking system to determine which countries are the most at risk of deforestation, and pledges 1 billion euros ($1.1 billion) to help them develop more sustainable forest management programs.

The EU predicts the proposal will cut at least 31.9 million metric tons of annual carbon emissions and save around 3.2 billion euros ($3.6 billion).

“We must protect biodiversity and fight climate change not only in the EU, but globally, and our consumption should not contribute to global deforestation, which is a major cause of biodiversity loss and greenhouse gas emissions,” said Virginijus Sinkevičius, the European commissioner for the environment, oceans and fisheries.

Between 1990 and 2020, an estimated 420 million trees were lost to deforestation worldwide, according to the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Agriculture is responsible for nearly 90% of that, with cattle ranching being the biggest contributor.

Globally, Europe is the second-largest importer of products associated with deforestation, according to a 2021 WWF report. In recent years, trade to the region has led to around 16% of global forest loss.

A herd of cattle on a ranch in Colombia. Image by Rhett Butler, Mongabay.com
A herd of cattle on a ranch in Colombia. Image by Rhett Butler, Mongabay.com

The deforestation proposal is part of a package of recently announced environmental initiatives that include more rigorous regulations for waste and waste trafficking, as well as improved soil protections to increase carbon storage in agricultural areas, fight desertification and restore degraded land, the European Commission said in a statement.

“If we expect more ambitious climate and environmental policies from partners, we should stop exporting pollution and supporting deforestation ourselves,” Sinkevičius said, adding, “With these proposals, we are taking our responsibility and walking the talk by lowering our global impact on pollution and biodiversity loss.”

Other countries, coming out of the U.N. climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland, have announced similar plans to clean up supply chains. Last week, the U.K. passed a law banning products linked to illegal deforestation. In October, U.S. lawmakers introduced a bill that holds importers accountable for forest loss.

However, unlike the European proposal, neither of those measures targets legal drivers of deforestation.

Loopholes and missed opportunities

While the EU’s proposal takes ambitious steps to protect forests, it falls short when it comes to other types of carbon-rich ecosystems, some environmental groups pointed out. For example, the proposal’s current language would exclude protection of many savannas, wetlands and peatlands.

In addition to storing massive amounts of carbon, these ecosystems prevent soil erosion and flooding, and help provide clean drinking water.

“There’s simply no need to destroy native ecosystems to make room for commercial crops,” Mighty Earth’s Muzi said. “There are more than 1 billion acres [400 million hectares] of previously degraded land where all future agricultural needs can easily be met without threatening the world’s last ecosystems.”

Mongabay has reported extensively on the rapid disappearance of wetlands and peatlands due to palm oiltimber and other agricultural commodities, as well as governments’ continued omission of these landscapes from legislation.

The EU’s proposal also fails to include special protections for Indigenous communities, which often serve as stewards of the environment. Instead, it relies on the local laws of the exporting countries despite the fact they’re often weak or ignored.

Muzi said he expects officials to close this loophole by including international human rights standards in the proposal’s language. And because proposals by the European Commission are often heavily revised, he expects many of the other loopholes to be addressed, too.

“Usually, Europe sets the standard for environmental regulations,” he said. “It is often at the forefront. We expect other regions will follow.”

Fight against fossil fuels gains new allies at COP26

Fossil fuels have barely been mentioned in previous climate talks. COP26 has seen a shift, and new movements are forming.

By Catherine Early, The Ecologist (CC BY-ND 4.0).

A fight for the future of fossil fuels is underway at COP26 in Glasgow. On one side, the fossil fuel industry, whose lobbyists have been found to be more numerous than any single country’s delegates.

On the other, progressive countries vowing to phase out oil and gas, and campaigners urging for a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty.

Draft texts of the final deal at Glasgow unveiled in the past couple of days have been interfered with by the hands of fossil fuel interests, who have “watered it down with weasel words,” said Cat Abreu, founder and executive of Canadian climate advisors Destination Zero.

Oil and gas

The first draft text released on Thursday morning called for governments to “accelerate the phasing-out of coal and subsidies for fossil fuels”, but this was amended in the second draft text to “accelerating the phaseout of unabated coal power and of inefficient subsidies for fossil fuels”.

This language has been used before, Abreu said, pointing to the example of the G20 group of nations, who pledged to phase out fossil fuel subsidies in 2009, but still have not done so.

“’Inefficient fossil fuel subsidies’ means nothing, and we’ve seen no progress on eliminating those subsidies since we’ve had that language,” she added.

Abreu noted that UN climate talks had never explicitly focused on fossil fuels up till now. “It’s as if we set up a system to deal with a pandemic and never mentioned what caused the virus!” she said.

However, other developments at COP26 have struck a blow at fossil fuels. On Thursday, Denmark and Costa Rica launched the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance – the first time governments have led a move away from oil and gas production.

Unabated

France, Greenland, Ireland, Sweden, Wales and Quebec have joined the founder countries to commit to an end date for their oil and gas exploration and extraction, and curtail new licensing of oil and gas production. New Zealand and California have also pledged to take steps such as subsidy reform.

Though noticeably lacking large gas producers such as Russia and COP26 host the UK, climate campaigners were jubilant, calling it a gamechanger. “The launch of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance is a turning point. For far too long, climate negotiations have ignored the basic reality that keeping 1.5°C alive requires an equitable global plan to keep fossil fuels in the ground,” said Romain Ioualalen, global policy campaign manager at Oil Change International.

Coal, oil and gas are this generation’s mass weapons of mass destruction. 

Speaking at the launch of BOGA at COP26, Danish climate minister Dan Jørgensen stressed that the launch was just the first step, and that it was urging other countries to join, with new signatories expected in the coming days. He also spoke of the need for a just transition, with retraining to be offered to workers in the sector.

The announcement on oil and gas followed a flurry of announcements at COP26 last week targeted at coal power. These included at least 23 new countries committing to phase out existing coal power, including Vietnam and Poland, who also committed to building no new coal plants.

Some 25 countries have signed up to ending international government funding for unabated fossil fuel energy by the end of 2022. Nearly 30 new countries signed up to the Powering Past Coal Alliance, including Chile and Singapore, bringing the total membership to 188 countries, sub-national governments and businesses.

Consumption

Analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) published on Friday found that pledges made at and in the run-up to COP26 have had an “unprecedentedly large and direct” impact on coal-fired power generation. This includes 370 more coal plants generating 290GW given a close-by date, the likely cancellation of 90 new coal power projects (totalling 88GW); and a further 130 new projects totally 165GW called into question.

Lauri Myllyvirta, lead analyst at CREA pointed out that 95% of the world’s coal power plants are now covered by carbon neutrality targets, which cannot be met without closing essentially all of the coal fired power plants.

However, Abreu pointed out that some governments had signed these initiatives while continuing to pour millions of dollars into coal power in their own countries. A report published November 13, 2021 by a group of NGOs including Stand.earth and Greenpeace pointed out that the UK, US, Canada, Norway and Australia are all planning to approve and subsidise new fossil fuel projects, undermining their recent claims of leadership in addressing the climate crisis.

Despite their net zero targets and climate pledges these five nations alone have provided over $150 billion in public support for the fossil fuel production and consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic, the report found. This level of support to fossil fuel production is more than the entire G7 put towards clean energy as part of the pandemic recovery ($147 billion).

Protagonists

During COP26, the European Commission proposed plans to subsidise new fossil gas pipelines, terminals and storage facilities which could import gas that would emit more carbon than Austria and Denmark combined, according to analysis by Global Witness.

Meanwhile, youth activists Fridays for the Future have called for governments to sign a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty, joining a movement that now includes more than 120 nationally-elected parliamentarians from 25 countries including Indonesia, the Philippines and Pakistan, more than 2000 scientists, over 700 civil society organisations and indigenous peoples.

Fossil fuel production must decline by roughly 50% by 2030 to keep average global temperature rise within 1.5C from pre-industrial times, according to a report by the UN Environment Programme, while the International Energy Agency has said that expansion of fossil fuels is incompatible with the target.

The campaign is based on other global campaigns including the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, the Anti-personnel Landmine Convention and the Montreal Protocol on ozone-depleting substances, all of which provide a model towards a treaty to abandon fossil fuels, its protagonists believe.

Burning

The treaty proposed by campaigners would bring about an immediate end to the expansion of all new coal, oil and gas production; a fair phase out of existing fossil fuel production and a just transition for workers and communities dependent on jobs in the industry so that they can diversify their economies.

A letter signed by young people from 20 countries in support of the treaty complained that their participation in climate conferences had been tokenised, while that of fossil fuel interests had been supported.

Speaking at a press conference with Fridays for the Future at COP26, Brenna Two Bears said: “Coal, oil and gas are this generation’s mass weapons of mass destruction.

“We are doing this because of the wilful ignorance of our leaders, and their predominant fixation on profit and economic growth. Young people are not just inheriting a burning, flooding, melting planet, we are already living in it,” she said.


Catherine Early is chief reporter for The Ecologist and a freelance environmental journalist. She tweets at @Cat_Early76.