Protecting, conserving and restoring forests, also known as nature-based solutions (NbS) are really important if the world is going to tackle climate change. Despite well-meaning efforts, forest loss continues. In countries like Madagascar, we are losing forest quickly: forest that matters for its carbon, but also for its unique biodiversity.

While NbS may be new language, the underlying rationale is not new. So why is forest loss persisting despite three decades of efforts? My research suggests that it is because we often prefer simplistic win-win narratives, that forest conservation is good for people and the planet. We refuse to acknowledge that there are people who lose out from the restrictions imposed by conservation, that there are genuinely winners and losers from NbS. Where there are people who are really dependent on clearing forests for agriculture, then inevitably, if that forest is conserved, then there is a cost to these people.

More than 141 leaders in Glasgow announced they would end deforestation by 2030. But I am not sure we know the true cost of ending deforestation or restoring the degraded lands equitably, without making forest communities poorer or more food insecure. It is interesting to see how Indonesia has rowed back on their signature to the pledge citing the importance of development.

The renewed commitment on stopping deforestation is certainly a good news, as well as the many mentions of support for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs), However, if the money is being spent on bureaucracy, or paying consultants and big international organisations, then we should not expect much.

How do we turn that pledge into reality?

First, implementation will depend on whether local communities have secure and clear rights to lands and other benefits from NbS such as the carbon revenue. Currently, the implementers of these schemes are governments who are the de jure owners (often inherited from colonial regimes) of lots of forest. In much of Africa, local people’s traditional claims to lands and to the forests are not recognised by governments and this means that there is therefore, a risk that the benefits of forest conservation such as carbon revenues do not reach forest communities.

Second, recognizing local land rights is not enough. We need to make it worthwhile for local communities to maintain the forest, which implies adequate and long-term funding for local livelihoods. Transitioning to more sustainable farming techniques, market access and combatting the multiple causes of food insecurity in remote areas will play a key role in this but it is not easy and needs genuine investment.  We must pay the real costs; we cannot do it on the cheap. The history of conservation is littered by mismatches between the stated goal, and the funding allocated to it. The end result is usually failure, with local communities often bearing the costs.

In the United Kingdom, conservationists and government are very comfortable with paying rich country landowners (e.g., owners of Scottish estates) to lock up carbon. It sometimes feels like if you are relatively rich your costs are paid, but if you are the poorest in the world, you just get displaced without compensation.

Warm words about IPLCs will not change this fundamental injustice. It is those people at the forest frontier holding an axe that have the biggest influence over what happens. We can have endless discussions at places like Glasgow, but unless these people making decisions about how they farm are properly empowered, and their rights are formally recognized and secured, I am not sure a solution based on nature is possible.

Disclosure: The views in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of the ESSA/Forets or the University of Antananarivo