NY State has a program called "480-A" that gives landowners a tax break for exercising proper stewardship of forest resources. To qualify you need not only to have the trees, but also document periodic maintenance like "TSI" (Timber Stand Improvement, where you're supposed to thin out some of the younger trees to give the remainder more space to grow), and harvesting of the large mature trees.

The thing about this program is that there's so much bureaucratic nonsense around it, with all kinds of reporting requirements and such, and that if you're not compliant they'll retroactively claw back 10 years worth of benefits if you mess up.

I've got 76 forested acres upstate that was enrolled in this program when I bought it. Despite the tax advantages I pulled the land out of the program as soon as I could. Between the hassle of the red tape, and the fear of the financial repercussions, I didn't want the risk. I still do the stuff they want you to do - it only makes sense, as it provides an income from harvesting the lumber - but my motivation is nothing to do with their program itself.

My point is that when government sets its bureaucracy on what might otherwise be a good idea, they can taint the benefit that it was supposed to carry, making it ineffective.

> My point is that when government sets its bureaucracy on what might otherwise be a good idea, they can taint the benefit that it was supposed to carry, making it ineffective.

Not always. Section 1603 of the 2008 ARRA created a program whereby the Treasury would cut you a check (not a tax credit) for 30% of the cost of any commercial renewable energy installation. There was minimal red tape. You basically had to provide a subset of the documents you as when you financed it. This significantly sped up solar and wind adoption in the US.

Edit: The Treasury would send said check within 30 days of you proving that the system was operational.

I also struggle with the same kind of angst for these situations where an incentive seems outweighed by opaque but probably infrequent liabilities. But as a disinterested observer, I'd say that you should participate and just buy CDs that mature as liabilities expire..

Another way to look at it is consider trees as "income producing assets", and the government pays so much per live tree per year.

Since the benefit of trees is a collective one, it makes sense for the government to tax people to pay the tree owners.

It's rather abstract, but in many ways perhaps similar to paying a groundskeeper to take care of the landscaping, or a contractor to maintain a road. Especially if "strings" are later added to the payments, for example if your payment is modulated by an evaluation of the health of your forest.

My great aunt received a check from the government for most of her life for growing trees on her land, and agreeing not to cut them down without permission.

I grew up on a dairy farm. We had a small creek running through some of the fields and I seem to remember my dad getting a check from the gov't for maintaining a buffer area (not planting crops) around the waterway - I'm guessing it was the "Farmable Wetlands Program" listed here: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-...

I would love to know more about her work! Where was that? Which species did they required her to plant, if any at all? Was it measured in any way possibly? Did she enjoy doing this (I presume she did)?

Does anyone know of any non-profits that use this approach, along with satellite/boots-on-the-ground verification? It seems like a perfectly logical way to curb deforestation. Having more trees is almost always objectively better, so we should be ready to pay for them. The best way to do it is to provide incentives for keeping them up, or planting more, that are better than the gains from cutting them down.

In the U.S. the term you're looking for is 'Conservation Easement' which is how private landowners can get a tax break for preserving forested lands.

I'm guessing that there will be more pressure to have similar programs in developing nations.

Sort of. I sought a conservation easement but it wouldn't actually provide much. Out of about 150 acres, of which probably about 30-40 is lightly forested with Oaks/Pines, the tax break would only be a few thousand dollars and only one time deal. It works off of the assessed value of the land which for raw land with no housing on it is usually quite low and thus the easement tax break is low.

I don't know about their verifcation strategy, but https://www.coolearth.org/ is along these lines.

Take a look at:

http://www.wildlifeworks.com/saveforests/when_a_tree_stands....

Frankly this is how I think we need to combat Amazon deforestation.

I totally agree with you — born and raised in the Amazon here —, but consider that a lot of people (even if indirectly) involved with logging are indigenous, to whom money makes little sense. Giving them back their land plus quality life would be a smarter move. Also, the ones doing the hardcore deforestation are farmers and livestock owners, so I bet we cannot match their financial incentives at the moment :-( on the other hand, most of the Atlantic rainforest is now gone but the land owners are usually families and small farmers and such so this idea would TOTALLY work to reforest it quickly (in fact there are a lot of people who already do that for free so an official help for them would be the last nail in the coffin of deforestation).

Well, I mean ultimately it'll ruin the quality of life in Brasil so the government not doing something about it is really shooting the country in its own foot. If you are Brasilian you shouldn't need some sort of incentive to preserve the rainforest, it should a moral and economic imperative

That applies for the Amazon rainforest only, but keep in mind the low level of education in the area and its remoteness for the rest of population, so absurd that they don't care anymore. The Atlantic rainforest, as I said, is a different matter. It was long gone way before the 20th century. So it is all about reforestation and not protection. But yeah, I agree with you :-)

I'm reasonably sure that cardboard is not made from rainforest trees.

Just as you'll never stop ordering them

Well, d'uh. Pay me a livable wage and I'll do rounds around a forest and shoot any trespassers. It's already in my blood :D

That sounds like a call to arms - A RAN field investigation has just unearthed new evidence of fresh bulldozing through critical elephant habitat in Indonesia’s Leuser Ecosystem. The links are crystal clear, from destroyed elephant habitat to mills supplying the world’s biggest palm oil supplier Wilmar, which sells its palm oil to the world’s biggest brands.

I think he/she is simply referring to 'paying people to do something you want' principle. Which has worked since money exists i guess. Therefor not so surprising this would work as reported.