Person:

Rao, Nidhi

Does economic prosperity in the Colombian Amazon require sacrificing the forest? This research compendium of a series of studies on the Colombian Amazon finds the answer to this question is no: the perceived trade-off between economic growth and forest protection is a false dichotomy. The drivers of deforestation and prosperity are distinct – as they happen in different places. Deforestation occurs at the agricultural frontier, in destroying some of the world’s most complex biodiversity by some of the least economically complex activities, particularly cattle-ranching. By contrast, the economic drivers in the Amazon are its urban areas often located far from the forest edge, including in non-forested piedmont regions. These cities offer greater economic complexity by accessing a wider range of productive capabilities in higher-income activities with little presence of those activities driving deforestation. Perhaps the most underappreciated facet of life in each of the three Amazonian regions studied, Caquetá, Guaviare, and Putumayo, is that the majority of people live in urban areas. This is a telling fact of economic geography: that even in the remote parts of the Amazon, people want to come together to live in densely populated areas. This corroborates the findings of our global research over the past two decades that prosperity results from expanding the productive capabilities available locally to diversify production to do more, and more complex, activities.

The Colombian Amazon faces the dual challenge of low economic growth and high deforestation. High rates of deforestation in Colombia have led to a perceived trade-off between economic development and protecting the forest. However, we find little evidence of this trade-off: rising deforestation is not associated with higher economic growth. In fact, the forces of deforestation of some of the world’s most complex biodiversity are driven by some of the least complex economic activities, like cattle-ranching, whose subsistence-level incomes are unable to meet the economic ambitions for the region. All the while, the majority of the Amazonian departments’ population works in non-forested cities and towns, at a distance from the agriculture frontier that forms the “arc of deforestation.” The relative urbanization of the Amazonian departments, despite the vast land mass available, recognizes that prosperity is achieved through close social-economic interactions to expand the knowledge set available to be able to produce more, and more complex activities. Achieving economic goals therefore relies on creating new productive opportunities in non-forested, urban areas.

The risk of deforestation reduces incentives to improve the connectivity of Amazonian departments with major cities and export markets. The remoteness of these departments increases the cost of ‘exporting’ goods to markets outside the departments. Poor connectivity contributes to the low economic complexity of the departments. In turn, the low complexity reduces incentives to coordinate new investments that would generate returns to greater connectivity. Coordination failures, which occur when a group of economic actors (e.g., firms, workers) could achieve a better outcome but fail to do so because they do not coordinate their actions, are widespread in all three of the Amazonian departments studied. This limits the creation of new capabilities and productive diversification to generate new jobs and higher incomes.

We posit that economic growth in the Colombian Amazonian is limited by a “connectivity trap” whereby the lack of external market connectivity restricts economic complexity, and, in turn, the low complexity fosters the coordination failures that limit returns to new diversification. Ultimately, low returns to diversification further reduce incentives to improve connectivity. Underpinning the connectivity trap is the belief that limiting the connectivity of Amazonian departments with large Colombian cities and the broader global economy will limit incentives for deforestation. Yet, deforestation has accelerated in recent years, despite the continued poor connectivity. We argue that Colombia must create a new national law to curb deforestation by eliminating the financial incentives for land speculation. Reclassifying forested lands under the control of national protection systems with severe restrictions on economic activities and strengthened enforcement, as detailed in an accompanying report, provides the needed legal clarity regarding land formalization. Within the law to eliminate incentives for deforestation, the national government should create a new development approach for the Colombian Amazon. This approach must move beyond a natural resource-based approach to the region, to center on the productive potential of its urban areas, and the carbon markets and tourism potential of its forested areas. One pillar of this approach is to build new public sector capabilities to coordinate investments into new, targeted productive sectors to create new national-local mechanisms of investment promotion. A second pillar is to improve connectivity to external markets through road and air investments between Caquetá, Guaviare, and Putumayo and major cities and ports.

Can South Africa’s segregation policies explain, at least partially, its current poor employment outcomes? To explore this question, we study the long-term impact of the forced resettlement of around 3.5 million black South Africans from their communities to the so-called “homelands” or “Bantustans”, between 1960 and 1991. Our empirical strategy exploits the variability in the magnitude of resettlements between communities. Two main findings. First, the magnitude of outgoing internal migrations was largest for districts close to former homelands. Second, districts close to former homelands have higher rates of non-employed population in 2011. Together the evidence suggests that districts that experienced racial segregation policies most intensely, as measured by outgoing forced resettlements, have worse current employment outcomes.

Alarming rates of forest loss in the Colombian Amazon have created a perceived trade-off that the only means of achieving economic prosperity is by sacrificing the forest. This study finds little evidence of this trade-off; rather, we find that economic development and forest protection are not an either-or choice. Forest clearing is driven by extensive cattle-ranching as a means to secure land titles. In essence, the loss of some of the world’s richest biodiversity is the result of some of the least economically complex activities that fail to achieve economic prosperity in the region. If anything, the acceleration in deforestation has accompanied a period of economic stagnation.

The existing economic model in the Amazon – centered on agrarian colonization and mineral extraction – has not generated prosperity for the people, all while failing the forest. The exceptional diversity of the Amazon’s biome is not reflected in the region’s economy. The Amazonian economy is best characterized by its low diversity and low complexity. A significant proportion of employment is linked to public administration – more than in other departments of the country. Very little of the production in the departments is destined to be consumed outside the departments ("exported").

This study seeks to define an alternative economic model for the Colombian Amazon from the perspective of economic complexity with environmental sustainability. Economic complexity research finds that the productive potential of places depends not only on the soil or natural resources, but on the productive capabilities—or knowhow—held by its people. This research finds that the Colombian Amazon will not become rich by adding value to its raw materials or by specializing in one economic activity. Rather, economic development is best described as a process of expanding the set of capabilities present to be able to produce a more diverse set of goods, of increasingly greater complexity. This model starts from the base of understanding the existing productive capabilities in Caquetá, Guaviare, and Putumayo, to identify high-potential economic sectors that build off those capabilities to achieve new, sustainable pathways to shared prosperity.

Achieving shared prosperity in the Amazon depends on the connectivity and opportunity in its urban areas. The primary drivers of greater economic complexity – and prosperity – are the cities in the Amazon. Even in the remote areas of the Amazon, the majority of people in Caquetá, Guaviare, and Putumayo live in urban areas. The low prosperity in the Colombian Amazon is driven by the lack of prosperous cities. The report finds that Amazonian cities are affected by the lack of connectivity to major Colombian cities that limit their ability to ‘export’ things outside the department to then expand the capacity to ‘import’ the things that are not produced locally as a means to improve well-being.