Jeremy Freund the Chief Technology Officer, Wildlife Works.
By Jeremy Freund…
The global citizenry has decided that climate change is an economic issue that requires systemic shifts in how we produce and consume energy, food, and resources.
We’ve also identified deforestation and degradation as major contributors, responsible for a significant share of global emissions.
And we’ve agreed that slowing or halting these emissions is essential to combating climate change.
This has led us to an inevitable conclusion: if we accept that climate change is an economic challenge, the response to deforestation and degradation must also be economic.
Conservation in Africa has traditionally been shaped by colonial-era models implemented by large non-profits and governments, which have had the funding, political influence, and institutional capacity to manage large-scale environmental efforts.
This model has typically operated from the top down, channeling conservation finance to other high-level actors and relying on legislation, enforcement, or large-scale donor programming, rather than investing in it as a livelihood opportunity to offset opportunity costs.
For millions of Africans living in and around forests, conservation has rarely been something they were resourced to lead, let alone benefit from economically.
Why Traditional Conservation Doesn’t Work for Those Deforesting Out of Need
Most deforestation in sub-Saharan Africa isn’t driven by greed but by economic survival.
Small-scale farmers, Indigenous communities, and rural populations clear forests to grow food, gather or sell fuelwood, or generate income in places where alternatives don’t exist.
In this way, they’re similar to poor people in richer countries who rely on fossil fuels to commute, not because they want to pollute or because they are complicit in a destructive system, but because they don’t have a viable alternative.
Large donor- and publicly funded conservation efforts are typically structured to channel resources through philanthropy, grants, or development aid.
However, funding structures are often indirect, as support tends to flow toward salaries for conservation professionals, international consultants, and headquarters operations, rather than direct financing for people on the ground.
These structures are often indirect, as support tends to flow toward salaries for conservation professionals, international consultants, and headquarters operations, rather than directly financing the efforts of people on the ground.
Additionally, resource allocation is often centralized, and the funds that do reach local communities are typically filtered through bureaucratic processes and external decision-makers who may not be fully attuned to local dynamics.
As such, scalability remains a challenge because even with the best intentions, donor-dependent funding cycles struggle to create lasting economic incentives for communities to protect their forests.
How Nature-Based Solutions Can Change This
Nature-based solutions like carbon markets and biodiversity credits shift conservation from a donor-based or public model to an economic one.
By tying conservation to revenue generation for those directly responsible for the land, the Voluntary Carbon Market (VCM) can make conservation a viable livelihood.
Instead of punishing or displacing those who deforest out of necessity, market-based solutions provide financial incentives to protect and restore forests.
The VCM can also bypass elite-driven funding models by ensuring money flows directly to local land stewards based on results, reducing the reliance on intermediaries.
Lastly, the VCM is poised to scale significantly. Unlike top-down models that rely on unpredictable donations or development aid, a scaled, robust VCM is built on continuous funding that finances land management by local actors over time.
The traditional conservation model was built for a world where governments and NGOs dictated how nature should be protected.
But if we want to address deforestation driven by necessity, we need to put funding and decision-making directly into the hands of those living on the land.
Nature-based solutions offer a way to do that by making conservation an economic opportunity rather than a charitable or public expense.
Successful African examples include the Mai Ndombe REDD+ project in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Located within the world’s second-largest forest estate, the project protects 300,000 hectares of intact rainforest, balancing climate action with social impacts.
Additionally, the Kasigau Corridor REDD+ Project in Taita Taveta County is one of Africa’s most successful market-based forest conservation initiatives.
Carbon credit sales directly benefit the local people by funding education, healthcare, and infrastructure.
Markets Aren’t the Enemy – They’re What Makes Conservation Work at Scale
Many well-intentioned people have been led to believe that donations and public funding are inherently good and markets are inherently bad.
But conservation, at its core, is an economic issue. People who depend on forests for survival will continue to use them unless a better financial alternative exists.
Market mechanisms are the only way to scale that alternative.
It’s encouraging to see a shift toward market-based approaches in the voluntary carbon market (VCM), but there’s a major challenge: many of the people designing the official rules lack market, financial, or on-the-ground practical experience.
Right now, the VCM is being shaped primarily through scientific and technical principles, which are essential, but without market integrity – meaning well-functioning incentives, risk management, and liquidity – there’s a real danger that we won’t end up with an effective market mechanism at all.
Designing a market while assuming that markets are bad, then structuring it based on donor-based or public funding principles, is an exercise in futility.
This doesn’t mean markets should operate without oversight.
A well-designed market requires robust rules and procedures that prioritize efficiency, scalability, and integrity.
But we must distinguish between poor market design and bad actors.
When loopholes or abuses inevitably emerge, they should be addressed through regulation, not by resetting the market entirely or, worse, capitulating to anti-market forces that want to dismantle it altogether.
A strong market can withstand scrutiny, adapt to challenges, and continuously improve.
If we get it right, markets can become one of the most powerful tools we have to drive meaningful climate action for Africa and beyond.
The writer is the Chief Technology Officer, Wildlife Works.
ABOUT WILDLIFE WORKS
Wildlife Works is a community-centred conservation company that implements market-based-
based solutions to protect Earth's threatened wilderness and wildlife. Recognized as a
leader in REDD+, our projects prevent millions of tons of emissions from entering the
atmosphere annually by driving direct financing to forest communities to fund their economic
development.
ABOUT THE KASIGAU CORRIDOR REDD+ PROJECT IN KENYA.
The Kasigau Corridor REDD+ Project in Taita Taveta County serves as a critical wildlife
corridor between the two halves of Kenya’s largest national park: Tsavo East and Tsavo
West is the world’s first and longest-standing certified REDD+ (Reducing Emissions
from Deforestation and Degradation) project.
