|
NEW DELHI and WASHINGTON, D.C. (18
October 2002)—As the next major meeting on
global climate change opens in New Delhi next week, a potentially
controversial report concludes that deals to counteract the carbon
emissions of the smokestack industry could benefit more than the
environment. It reveals that carbon-trading deals in forestry could
sharply reduce poverty among the rural poor, while also providing
businesses with an inexpensive way to "off-set" their carbon emissions.
The research counters the view that most carbon-trading deals between
industry and tree growers in developing countries will have negative
environmental and social consequences.
Carbon trading allows industries in
developed countries to off-set their emissions of carbon dioxide by
investing in reforestation and clean energy projects in developing
countries.
The report's authors are seeking
major changes to the carbon-trading rules to be debated in next week's
Eighth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the Climate Change
Convention under the Kyoto Protocol. In particular, the report
suggests these changes will ensure that poor countries become "real
players" in the climate change negotiations.
This is the first report to examine
whether community tree planting projects are viable contenders for the
emerging market in carbon trading. Released by two of the world's
leading forestry organizations, the research pools evidence from more
than 20 studies of actual forest carbon projects on the ground. The
report was authored by researchers at the Bogor, Indonesia-based
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), a Future Harvest
Center of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural
Research, and Washington, D.C.-based Forest Trends. Financial support
for this work was provided by the UK's Department for International
Development (DFID), the Rockefeller Foundation, Germany's Centre for
Technical Cooperation (GTZ), and the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID).
The report argues that carbon
projects could potentially recover habitat on millions of hectares of
heavily populated forest and farmlands. "This would bring social,
economic, and local environmental benefits to hundreds of thousands,
and potentially millions, of poor rural people in the developing world,"
said David Kaimowitz, Director General of CIFOR.
"Our report shows for the first time
that deals between industry and community tree growers may be one of
the least expensive ways for companies to off-set their carbon
emissions," said Sara Scherr, Senior Policy Analyst at the Washington,
D.C.-based Forest Trends and co-author of the report. "If companies
invested in such deals, this could mean a huge number of private
sector dollars being invested in poor rural areas."
For example, in the Handia Forest
range of Madhya Pradesh, India, 95 very poor rural villages would
jointly earn at least US$300,000 every year from carbon payments by
restoring 10,000 hectares (24,700 acres) of degraded community forests,
if their project succeeds. "Healthy forests bring all kinds of other
benefits too," said Scherr. "In this situation, they would help to
protect endangered leopards and monkeys and improve local water
supplies. At the same time, villagers—many of whom own no cropland—would
earn money from the sale of fuel wood, high-value timber, and tendu
leaves used for wrapping cigars."
"Community tree planting efforts
have always been thought of as too costly and risky for businesses,"
said Joyotee Smith, co-author of the report. "However, our report
shows that many community-based projects can sell carbon credits at
the expected global market price of US$15 to $20 per ton of
sequestered carbon."
Forests can reduce greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere by sequestering carbon, but many fear carbon-trading
deals will spawn vast tree plantations with monocultures of non-native
tree species on lands already claimed by local people. Forest
Carbon and Local Livelihoods: Assessment and Policy Recommendations
contends that community tree-planting projects can offer investors the
same carbon benefits as industrial tree plantations and at lower risk.
Many industries will prefer to buy "socially responsible" carbon
credits, as long as the cost is competitive.
"All these opportunities will be
lost unless villager-owned tree growing efforts are explicitly
supported in the international carbon-trading rules," said Scherr.
Industrial countries can only use
deals in lower-income countries to offset a limited portion of their
carbon obligations. This still represents a potential private
financial flow of US$300 million per year to some of the world's
poorest people, however. According to the researchers, this share of
investment could more than match current annual flows of official
overseas aid for forestry development in poor communities.
The potential environmental benefits
of the deals discussed in the report are enormous. According to the
researchers, there are 126 million hectares (311 million acres) of low-yielding
crop and pastureland. Converting some of these areas to higher-yielding
agroforestry would sequester five to 50 tons of carbon per hectare per
year. Rehabilitating dry forests in India could double sequestration
from 27 to 55 tons of carbon yearly for every hectare of dry forest
improved. Using carbon finance to reforest critical wildlife habitat,
The Nature Conservancy's project in the unique Atlantic Forest of
Brazil, could sequester 60 tons of carbon yearly for every hectare of
land converted. In the process, this particular effort will secure
water supplies and generate local income from ecotourism as well.
"Problems with forest carbon arise
when trees are being grown solely for their carbon," said Scherr. If
there are other economic uses of the reforested land, such as
producing fuel wood, rubber, fruits, and food crops, then the cost of
carbon sequestration is lower. "Communities can use carbon payments to
finance sustainable tree-growing investments that produce these non-carbon
benefits," added Scherr.
Kyoto Protocol Clean Development
Mechanism Rule Changes Needed
The authors warn that community-friendly forest carbon projects are
unlikely to take root without proactive changes in the Kyoto
Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism rules, and in the approaches
that developing countries and project designers are taking. The report
seeks action in four main areas.
-
Make all types of forestry and
agroforestry projects with significant benefits for local
communities eligible for the Clean Development Mechanism
(as long as they also meet rigorous requirements for carbon benefits).
For example, draft rules omit forest rehabilitation as an approved
activity despite its enormous social benefits and significant carbon-sequestration
potential.
-
Reduce risks for local
communities. The rules should require
assessments of the social impact of projects to ascertain how local
people have benefited or been harmed. National governments will need
to protect and formalize land tenure rights of communities, or
carbon deals will be riddled with conflict, increasing their
financial risk for investors.
-
Reduce the cost of managing
community projects. Private businesses and
NGOs can act as intermediaries to combine the carbon offsets
produced by multiple farmers or communities and sell them jointly to
buyers. For example, in Mexico, a local environmental organization
helped to organize 400 small-scale farmers in 20 communities to
sequester carbon by planting trees around their crop fields. With
the NGO acting as the intermediary, the farmers sold carbon credits
equal to 17,000 tons of carbon to the International Federation of
Automobiles for between US$10 and $12 per ton of carbon. The CDM
rules should make all community-based forestry projects eligible for
the low-cost "fast-track" approval process.
-
Reduce risks and costs for
investors. The report notes that there are
new players in the carbon-trading field who can simplify deal making
and reduce the costs of organizing and marketing community tree-growing
projects. For example, industry buyers are now able to purchase
carbon offsets from investors who have portfolios of projects, which
spreads risk. The independent, non-profit Face Foundation has
developed a portfolio of five projects in five countries, affecting
135,000 hectares (333,450 acres) that sequester 21 million tons of
carbon.
The Eighth Session of the Conference
of the Parties (COP8) to the Climate Change Convention takes place
from 23 October through 1 November in New Delhi. The Kyoto Protocol of
the United Nations Treaty on Climate Changes legally commits countries
to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5.2 percent
relative to 1990 levels. It is expected to be ratified soon. The most
recent countries to commit to the treaty are Japan and Russia. They
announced their support at the United Nations World Summit on
Sustainable Development.
###
Future Harvest (http://www.futureharvest.org/)
is a foundation that builds awareness of global public issues related
to food security, health, poverty, and the environment. Future Harvest
promotes agricultural research through offices and partnerships
extending across the world. Future Harvest is an initiative of 16 food
and environmental research centers supported by the Consultative Group
on International Agricultural Research.
Forest Trends, a Washington, D.C.-based
nonprofit organization, (http://www.forest-trends.org/)
advocates market-based approaches to conserving forests outside of
protected areas, by moving beyond an exclusive focus on lumber and
fiber to a broader range of products and environmental services.
Headquartered in Indonesia, the
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) (http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/)
is a leading international forestry research organization established
in response to global concerns about the social, environmental, and
economic consequences of forest loss and degradation.
The Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) is a strategic alliance of
58 members and 16 Future Harvest Centers that mobilizes cutting-edge
science to promote sustainable development by reducing hunger and
poverty, improving human nutrition and health, and protecting the
environment. For more information visit:
www.cgiar.org/.
|
