The potential and risks of Forest-based carbon offsets: part 3 - REDD: how it can actually work?

On the first part on our series on forest-based carbon credits we talked of the potential of this concept as we saw on the example of Canopy Carbon. On the second part we discussed the risks of this mechanism following the report of Greenpeace on Noel Kempff Climate Action Project (NKCAP) in Bolivia. Today on our final article in this series we try to rap it all and find out if this option can actually work.

WWF wrote couple of days ago on their website that "failure by the world’s financial leaders to support responsible forest finance will allow rampant deforestation to continue and contribute to the disastrous effects of climate change." This logic is very clear and I definitely agree with it and think that REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) can be one of the implementations that follow this logic.

But no matter how tempting are the prospects of REDD both for the environment and the participants, there are some issues that remain a problem. A big problem. Just as a reminder, here are the main issues we need to deal with, as summarized by REDD-Monitor:

• monitoring the state of forests and the volumes of carbon either being emitted or stored;
• in preventing ‘avoided deforestation’ efforts in one location simply shifting the problem elsewhere; and
• finding ways that funding can be got to the people living in the forests – who should ultimately make the decisions about whether their forests stand or fall.

So what do we do? how we do it right? the answer I believe is a set of guiding rules that every REDD project will need to follow to be considered part of this mechanism. Now, it doesn't have to be necessary in a form of regulation - it can be a voluntary guidelines, just like the FSC or the Equator Principles. The only thing is that there should be only one benchmark - if every project will use its own set of guidelines, then it's worthless. Uniformity is a must here.

For example, Carbon Canopy will be using "the highest standards in the voluntary market will be used– the Voluntary Carbon Standard and Climate Action Reserve." Now, these two standards are great, but according to 'Review of Forestry Carbon Standards', a research of Paulo Lopes, a Carbon Management Consultant at Carbon Clear, when it comes to REDD, there are some couple of other standards that can be a good fit such as the Climate, Community & Biodiversity Standard (CCBS), Plan Vivo, or American Carbon Registry (ACR).

So what happens if another project choose to use one of these standards? it will have a similar reliability but we won't be able to effectively follow, evaluate and compare these projects. And therefore we need all projects to follow the same set of standards and rules, and it should address all the main issues, such as how to calculate the carbon savings, additionality, leakage, benefits for local communities and permanence.

And this can and should be part of the Copenhagen Conference in December. The REDD effort can succeed if it will be a global effort and hence Europe, U.S., China and other countries should unite in Copenhagen and promote one solution for all. This is the time to do it and no better place to start with than Copenhagen.

Other parts of this series:

Part 1 - the Carbon Canopy

Part 2 - Noel Kempff and the Greenpeace report

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Promoting sustainable reading!

The potential and risks of Forest-based carbon offsets: part 2 - Noel Kempff and the Greenpeace report

On the first part of our series about forest-based carbon credits we talked about the potential of this model and presented the example of Carbon Canopy. Today we talk about the risks and the lessons we can learn from the Noel Kempff Climate Action Project (NKCAP) in Bolivia.

Noel Kempff is probably the most known project of forest offset scheme under REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation). On October 15, Greenpeace released a detailed report calling this project a "Forest Carbon Scam".

The project began more than a decade ago, in 1996, where a group of three energy companies (American Electric Power(AEP), BP-Amoco (BP), and Pacificorp) and the Nature Conservancy and Fundación Amigos de la Naturaleza (FAN) joined forces with the Bolivian government in the first large-scale experiment to curb climate change with a strategy that promised to suit their competing interests: compensating for greenhouse gas emissions by preserving forests.

Together with the Bolivian government and three energy companies, the partners terminated logging rights in 4 areas just adjacent to a pre-existing national park and incorporated the land into the national park, creating the 3.9 million acre Noel Kempff Mercado National Park. The partners also initiated a comprehensive community development program to address the problem of small scale deforestation by local communities living just outside of the park.

There was also a financial aspect to the project: In return for millions of dollars of investment for the protection of an area of rainforest from logging for 30 years, they would be allocated the carbon offsets generated by keeping the trees standing. These offsets could then be bought and sold in carbon trading systems, in order to offset some of the CO2 pollution produced by these power companies.

So far, so good. But in reality, according to the report, the model just didn't work. Here are the main claims of Greenpeace (from their website):

Since the project started in 1997 the estimated CO2 emission reductions have plummeted by more than 90 per cent, from about 55 million tonnes to "up to" 5.8 million tonnes. Had the original false estimates been used on carbon markets there could have been an INCREASE in greenhouse gas emissions. Companies could have claimed non-existent emission reductions while continuing to emit the amount supposedly offset. These serious errors in counting emissions are reason enough to avoid sub-national offsetting altogther – but as if we didn't have proof enough, here's more. The project has failed to protect against:

1. “Leakage” — the companies promised that they were effectively monitoring leakagage but in percentage terms overall deforestation rates have actually increased in Bolivia. In fact, leakage from the project could be as high as 42-60 per cent.

2. ““Additionality” — Changes in Bolivian law mean that Noel Kempff may have been protected anyway, without company involvement, and therefore any C02 savings may not be additional.

3. "Permanence" – The project is at risk from forest fires, pests, disease and political changes, all of which can undermine forest protection. This could mean that the carbon stored, and used to offset the company emissions, could still be released.

4. "Community benefits" – Industry claims the project has benefited local communities in many ways, but testimonies we captured tell a different story. "Well, the reality is that the Noel Kempff project has not delivered any benefits," says local Pastor Solís Pérez.

Now, these are serious accusations, and of course they generate a big question mark on the real value of the carbon credits from the project. The Nature Conservancy, NKCAP's main broker and one of the world's largest conservation groups, strongly disputes this notion (and so is FAN, the other organization involved in the project).

As reported on the New York Times, the Nature Conservancy doesn't dispute some of the specific figures on the report, but their interpretation. For example, the estimation of the CO2 that the project will save, which was at first about 55 million tonnes and was reduced over the years to only 5.8 million tonnes. Now, Greenpeace sees it as an indication that it's difficult if not impossible to provide an accurate calculation of the savings. The Nature Conservancy on the other hand, sees these adjustments as an indication of how much the science and on-the-ground measurements have improved over the last decade and how serious efforts are to ensure legitimate credits.

There are some lessons from this case that can more easily implemented. For example, the question whether forest-based carbon offsets should come from individual projects. As reported on the NYT, practically everyone involved in the debate agrees that countrywide programs that measure deforestation against a national baseline are better because they eliminate carbon leakage within a country's own boundaries - a fact that the NKCAP experience effectively demonstrated.

There can be some exceptions (such the ones on the House-passed climate bill, relating to small countries and states in Brazil and Indonesia to submit individual project credits into the market), but this can definitely be the guiding rule.

But that of course won't help when it comes to issues such as the reliability of the calculations of the CO2 reductions. How do you make sure you're providing a figure that is meaningful and reliable? And is the risk in making false estimations too high and therefore we should not get into this forest-based carbon offsetting concept in the first place? These are though questions and we'll try to answer them on our third and last part of the series this Sunday.

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: promoting sustainable reading!

The potential and risks of Forest-based carbon offsets: part 1 - the Carbon Canopy

This week we're issuing a 3-part series that will cover one of the most interesting issues in the green market.

It's getting more and more attention (also on this blog) as a promising way to deal with global warming under the cap and trade scheme. At the same time, it is also the center of a heated debate between organizations, companies and others on its legitimacy and effectiveness.

Yes, we're talking about forest-based carbon offsets. Or in other words, enabling landowners who keep their trees standing and not cut them down, or selectively log their forests to earn carbon credits they can trade on the open market. Such a trading system does not exist yet and it's part of legislation before Congress, as well as one of the issues to be discussed on global level in Copenhagen in December.

Today we'll talk about the Carbon Canopy, which according to their website, "seeks to establish a new model to support landowners who expand protection, restoration and conservation of their forests and certify management practices to the high standards of FSC certification. The Carbon Canopy is focused initially on building a credible carbon market model for landowners in the Southern US. "

The group includes timber and paper supply companies, such as Domtar Corporation, Columbia Forest Products and Staples, as well as environmental NGOs such as the Dogwood Alliance, Rainforest Alliance, the Forest Stewardship Council and our friends at the Green Press Initiative.

The coalition starts a pilot project in South U.S. offering what they see as a win-win model: "Private landowners receive revenue for the ecological benefits their forests provide. Forest product manufacturers receive a stable supply of FSC certified wood to use in their products. In turn, large paper and wood end-users and retailers are able to offer FSC certified products to reduce their environmental impacts. And all of us, including our future generations, will benefit from forests that not only support a more stable climate but also biodiversity and watershed protection."

I like this model. It does a good use in the cap and trade mechanism and everybody wins. It also deals with a severe issue - according to the Washington Post, "ninety percent of forests in the South, which ranks as the largest paper and wood-producing region in the world, is privately owned. Some farmers in the region still clear cut their forests, or convert them to pine plantations that are fast-growing but less environmentally beneficial."

Now, there are some that question the concept like Greenpeace. Daniel Kessler, a spokesman for Greenpeace, praised on the Washington Post the idea of managing forests according to the Forest Stewardship Council's standards, but added, "We also believe that forest offsets should not be used in a compliance carbon market."

Still, I think that there's something right in providing incentives to keep trees alive. We discussed it many times in the past and we always get to the same conclusion: no matter how many flows this system has, it's the most realistic way to fight deforestation.

The Carbon Canopy explains it very clearly on their website: "Currently, forest landowners do not have access to viable roadmaps or sufficient economic incentives to help them conserve, restore and/or manage working forests to a high environmental standard. The potential of earning income from forest carbon sequestration could provide incentive for private landowners to enhance forest protection, restoration and conservation."

There are of course issues that shouldn't be ignored like the validity of carbon offsetting in general and forest-based ones specifically (how do you measure them? are they sustainable? what happens in a case of a fire where the whole forest is burned?) as well as their ability to actually reduce emissions.

The later issue is a very important one, as not matter how good you do carbon offsetting, if you eventually didn't reduce emissions then it's just not the right way. The Carbon Canopy doesn't ignore this question and I actually liked what they had to say about it:

"Carbon offsets are often criticized as serving as a crutch for polluters who prefer to buy their way out of having to implement true carbon emission reductions. Because the Carbon Canopy’s members strongly believe in the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions before and alongside of purchasing and retiring offsets to compensate for emissions that can’t be reduce, we seek to work with corporations that are committed to transparency in reporting and demonstrate real leadership in developing sustainable conservation models to significantly reduce their operational and supply chain climate impacts."

I don't know what the results of this pilot will be and neither the Carbon Canopy, but it looks like they know what they're doing, dealing openly with difficult questions and issues and moving forward to find the right model that will both save our forests, fight global warming and will be worthwhile to all sides involved.

On the second part of our series we'll discuss some of the problems that were found in another pilot of forest-based carbon offsets, this time in Bolivia.

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: promoting sustainable reading!

Green Options - Is Wal-Mart Trying to Undermine Carbon Offset Guidelines?

As part of Eco-Libris' ongoing content partnership with Green Options Media, we feature a post that was originally published by Jeff McIntire-Strasburg on August 18 on The Inspired Economist. Today's post is about an interesting debate that is going on lately about Wal-Mart and whether they do or do not try to block an effort to have clearer guidelines of carbon offsets.

Though much of my time over the past couple of weeks has been devoted to the behind-the-scenes work of bringing The Inspired Economist into the Green Options Media blog network, I've also made sure to follow the discussion regarding Wal-Mart's comments to the FTC regarding carbon offsets and renewable energy credits. In a post titled "Wal-Mart Lobbies Against Carbon Offset Guidelines," Tony Calero at Wal-Mart Watch got this discussion started by pointing to the company's comments filed in response to an FTC request:

Herein lays the scandal: Despite the company’s “green” initiatives, Wal-Mart is actively lobbying against the clarification of offset guidelines. The company’s hypocritical stance on the issue came to light last week in a hearing of the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC is attempting to modernize the “Green Guides,” guidelines issued for corporations defining acceptable marketing claims regarding environmental products and initiatives. In response to the FTC’s solicitation of retailer comment to guide the process, Wal-Mart’s Director of Energy Regulation, Angela Beehler, expressed Wal-Mart’s firm opposition towards the clarified scope and definition of carbon offsets...

As you might imagine, other media outlets picked up on this pretty quickly: Grist, for instance, noted that Consumers Union and other groups have "been advocating for clear, specific definitions to avoid misleading green claims, " and that "the FTC's definition of carbon offsets could most affect the retailer's ultra-ambitious goal to someday run on 100 percent renewable energy -- a huge amount of which would likely have to come from offsets or renewable-energy certificates." US News and World Report's "Fresh Greens" blog asked "Is Wal-Mart being hypocritical, or are its green efforts in good faith?" Eoin O'Carroll of the Christian Science Monitor's "Bright Green Blog" not only expressed a reaction similar to my own (essentially head-scratching), but also took a step further than the rest of us: he gave Wal-Mart a call. Much of the response he received followed the typical MO of a corporate communications department: the company restated its broad sustainability goals, and offered some more specific ones related to greenhouse gas emissions and energy efficiency. It addressed offsets and renewable energy credits in the last paragraph: