Seeing the trees for the carbon: agroforestry for development and carbon mitigation

Land-use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) activities will play an important role in global climate change mitigation. Many carbon schemes require the delivery of both climate and rural development benefits by mitigation activities conducted in developing countries. Agroforestry is a LULUCF activity that is gaining attention because of its potential to deliver climate benefits as well as rural development benefits to smallholders. There is hope that agroforestry can deliver co-benefits for climate and development; however experience with early projects suggests co-benefits are difficult to achieve in practice. We review the literature on agroforestry, participatory rural development, tree-based carbon projects and co-benefit carbon projects to look at how recommended project characteristics align when trying to generate different types of benefits. We conclude that there is considerable tension inherent in designing co-benefit smallholder agroforestry projects. We suggest that designing projects to seek ancillary benefits rather than co-benefits may help to reduce this tension.     

The leaky sink: persistent obstacles to a forest carbon sequestration program based on individual projects

One strategy for mitigating the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is to expand the size of the terrestrial carbon sink, particularly forests, essentially using trees as biological scrubbers. Within relevant ranges of carbon abatement targets, augmenting carbon sequestration by protecting and expanding biomass sinks can potentially make large contributions at costs that are comparable or lower than for emission source controls. The Kyoto protocol to the framework convention on climate change includes many provisions for forest and land use carbon sequestration projects and activities in its signatories’ overall greenhouse gas mitigation plans. In particular, the protocol provides a joint implementation provision and a clean development mechanism that would allow nations to claim credit for carbon sequestration projects undertaken in cooperation with other countries. However, there are many obstacles for implementing an effective program of land use change and forestry carbon credits, especially measurement challenges. This paper explains the difficulty that even impartial analysts have in assessing the carbon offset benefits of projects. When these measurement challenges are combined with self-interest, asymmetries of information, and large numbers, it prevents to a project-based forest and land use carbon credit program may be insurmountable.     

The leaky sink: persistent obstacles to a forest carbon sequestration program based on individual projects

Abstract

One strategy for mitigating the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is to expand the size of the terrestrial carbon sink, particularly forests, essentially using trees as biological scrubbers. Within relevant ranges of carbon abatement targets, augmenting carbon sequestration by protecting and expanding biomass sinks can potentially make large contributions at costs that are comparable or lower than for emission source controls. The Kyoto protocol to the framework convention on climate change includes many provisions for forest and land use carbon sequestration projects and activities in its signatories' overall greenhouse gas mitigation plans. In particular, the protocol provides a joint implementation provision and a clean development mechanism that would allow nations to claim credit for carbon sequestration projects undertaken in cooperation with other countries. However, there are many obstacles for implementing an effective program of land use change and forestry carbon credits, especially measurement challenges. This paper explains the difficulty that even impartial analysts have in assessing the carbon offset benefits of projects. When these measurement challenges are combined with self-interest, asymmetries of information, and large numbers, it prevents to a project-based forest and land use carbon credit program may be insurmountable.     

Climate or development: is ODA diverted from its original purpose?

We analyze the interaction of climate and development policy that has taken place since the early 1990s. Increasing dissatisfaction about the results of traditional development cooperation and the appeal of climate policy as a new policy field led to a rapid reorientation of aid flows. At the turn of the century, over 7% of aid flows were spent on greenhouse gas emissions mitigation. However, the contribution of emissions mitigation projects to the central development objective of poverty reduction as specified in the Millennium Development Goals is limited and other project types are likely to be much more effective. Adaptation to climate change can be expected to have higher synergies with poverty alleviation than mitigation, primarily through its impact on health, the conservation of arable land and the protection against natural disasters. An analysis of the Clean Development Mechanism shows that projects addressing the poor directly are very rare; even small renewable energy projects in rural areas tend to benefit rich farmers and the urban population. Use of development aid for CDM projects and / or their preparation via capacity building is thus clearly not warranted. We further analyze whether the use of development aid for climate policy could be justified as a countermeasure against the emission increase related to successful development itself. However, countries that are achieving an improvement of human development from a low level are unlikely to increase their energy consumption substantially. Only at a level where the middle class expands rapidly, energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions soar. Thus targeting middle class energy consumption by appliance efficiency standards and public transport-friendly urban planning are the most effective measures to address developing country emissions. Rural renewable energy provision in poor countries has a much higher impact on poverty, but a much lower impact on greenhouse gas emissions. We conclude that while there are valid reasons for long-term collaboration with emerging economies on greenhouse gas mitigation, there should be a separate budget line for such activities to avoid “obfuscation” of a decline of resources aimed at poverty alleviation. Nevertheless, mitigation will remain attractive for donors because it ensures quick disbursements and relatively simple measures of success. Moreover, mitigation activities in developing countries provide politicians in industrialized countries with a welcome strategy to divert the attention of their constituencies from the lack of success in reducing greenhouse gas emissions domestically.     

The implications of ignoring smallholder agriculture in climate-financed forestry projects: empirical evidence from two REDD+ pilot projects

ABSTRACT

Changes in agricultural practices can play a pivotal role in climate change mitigation by reducing the need for land use change as one of the biggest sources of GHG emissions, and by enabling carbon sequestration in farmers’ fields. Expansion of smallholder and commercial agriculture is often one of the main driving forces behind deforestation and forest degradation. However, mitigation programmes such as REDD+ are geared towards conservation efforts in the forestry sector without prominently taking into account smallholder agricultural interests in project design and implementation. REDD+ projects often build on existing re- and afforestation projects without major changes in their principles, interests and assumptions. Informed by case study research and interviews with national and international experts, we illustrate with examples from Ethiopia and Indonesia how REDD+ projects are implemented, how they fail to adequately incorporate the demands of smallholder farmers and how this leads to a loss of livelihoods and diminishing interest in participating in REDD+ by local farming communities. The study shows how the conservation-based benefits and insecure funding base in REDD+ projects do not compensate for the contraction in livelihoods from agriculture. Combined with exclusive benefit-sharing mechanisms, this results in an increased pressure on forest resources, diverging from the principal objective of REDD+. We note a gap between the REDD+ narratives at international level (i.e. coupling development with a climate agenda) and the livelihood interests of farming communities on the ground. We argue that without incorporating agricultural interests and a review of financial incentives in the design of future climate finance mechanisms, objectives of both livelihood improvements and GHG emission reductions will be missed.

Key policy insights

• REDD+ is positioned as a promising tool to meet climate, conservation and development targets. However, these expectations are not being met in practice as the interests of smallholder farmers are poorly addressed.

• REDD+ policy developers and implementers need more focus on understanding the interests and dynamics of smallholder agriculturalists to enable inclusive, realistic and long-lasting projects.

• For REDD+ to succeed, funders need to consider how to better ensure long-term livelihood security for farming communities.

     

Multi-criteria spatialization of soil organic carbon sequestration potential from agricultural intensification in Senegal

On the eve of the 15th climate negotiations conference in Copenhagen, the pressure to assess all climate mitigation options is mounting. In this study, a bio-physic model and a socio-economic model were designed and coupled to assess the carbon sequestration potential of agricultural intensification in Senegal. The biophysical model is a multiple linear regression, calibrated and tested on a dataset of long-term agricultural trials established in West Africa. The socio-economic model integrates both financial and environmental costs related to considered practice changes. Both models are spatially explicit and the resulting spatial patterns were computed and displayed over Senegal with a geographic information system. The national potential from large-scale intensification was assessed at 0.65–0.83 MtC. With regards to local-scaled intensification as local projects, the most profitable areas were identified in agricultural expansion regions (especially Casamance), while the areas that meet the current financial additionality criteria of the Clean Development Mechanism were located in the northern part of the Peanut Basin. Using the current relevant mode of carbon valuation (Certified Emission Reductions), environmental benefits are small compared to financial benefits. This picture is radically changed if “avoided deforestation”, a likely consequence of agricultural intensification, is accounted for as the greenhouse gases sink capacity of projects increases by an average of a hundred-fold over Senegal.     

Characteristics of forest carbon credit transactions in the voluntary carbon market

The voluntary carbon market allows participants to go beyond regulatory carbon offsetting. Recent developments have improved the transparency and credibility of voluntary carbon trading, and forest carbon credit transactions constitute more than half of trade volume. Its workings, however, have not been sufficiently explored in the literature. This study analyses the characteristics of forest carbon credit transactions in the voluntary carbon market using frequency analysis and logistic regression analysis. The results reveal that the co-benefits of forest carbon projects are an important factor influencing carbon credit transactions. From the higher transaction ratio of credits from CCB Standards-labelled projects and projects using co-benefit-oriented standards, it can be inferred that credits with potential for co-benefits (e.g. fostered corporate social responsibility, social cohesion of local communities and voluntary leadership, and positive environmental impacts) are preferred to those focusing exclusively on emission reduction in the voluntary carbon market. The findings of this study suggest that developing co-benefits is important for strengthening the market competitiveness of forest carbon credits in the voluntary carbon market. Additionally, unlike the compliance carbon market, in the voluntary carbon market stringent carbon standards do not always guarantee credit transaction performance.

POLICY RELEVANCE

After UNFCCC COP-21, the global society agreed to acknowledge various forms of international carbon crediting mechanisms, and noted the significance of greenhouse gas emissions reduction for sustainable development and environmental integrity through the Paris Agreement. Moreover, the agreement encouraged both REDD+ activities in developing countries and supports from developed countries. Additionally, co-benefits of forest carbon projects are important for credit transaction in the global voluntary carbon market. Under the new climate regime, co-benefits of forest carbon projects are expected to gain attention in the carbon market. To promote the social, economic, and environmental co-benefits of forest carbon projects, the introduction of an objective co-benefit assessment and certification system should be reviewed at the national level.     

The potential of the CDM to deliver pro-poor benefits

The potential of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects to deliver pro-poor benefits at the community level is examined. Both regular CDM and premium add-on standard projects are evaluated, including the Gold Standard and Climate, Community and Biodiversity (CCB) Standard, through the use of seven poverty indicators. Some key characteristics associated with providing pro-poor benefits are also identified. Finally, the market potential of a revised or new premium add-on standard explicitly designed to deliver pro-poor benefits is assessed through the use of a survey. The results indicate that regular CDM projects are only moderately successful at delivering pro-poor benefits. Although the few projects registered that utilize the CCB Standard all performed well in delivering pro-poor benefits, those that used the Gold Standard performed only slightly better than regular CDM projects. Characteristics associated with providing pro-poor benefits include the use of add-on standards, a high level of stakeholder participation, and the development of projects by not-for-profit and government/intergovernmental organizations. The survey of carbon market participants indicated both an interest and desire for Certified Emission Reduction (CER) credits with pro-poor benefits attached and shows that the market potential for such a standard to be quite good.

Policy relevance

This analysis of the CDM goes beyond sustainable development to consider the potential of a project to deliver pro-poor benefits at the local community level. Specific characteristics associated with projects are identified that appear to deliver pro-poor benefits that may benefit future project design. Through this analysis and identifying these characteristics, actions may be taken to incorporate those into CDM project requirements or guidelines to advance the mechanism as a means to contribute to poverty alleviation.     

Experiences of host communities with carbon market projects: towards multi-level climate justice

The literature on equity and justice in climate change mitigation has largely focused on North–South relations and equity between states. However, some initiatives (e.g. the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation programme (REDD), and voluntary carbon markets (VCMs)) are already establishing multi-level governance structures that involve communities from developing countries in global mitigation efforts. This poses new equity and justice dilemmas: how the burdens and benefits of mitigation are shared across various levels and how host communities are positioned in multi-level governance structures. A review of the existing literature is used to distill a framework for distinguishing between four axes of climate justice from the perspective of communities. Empirical evidence from African and Asian carbon market projects is used to assess the distributive and procedural justice implications for host communities. The evidence suggests that host communities often benefit little from carbon market projects and find it difficult to protect their interests. Capacity building, attention to local power relations, supervision of business practices, promotion of projects with primarily development aims and an active involvement of non-state actors as bridges between local communities and the national/international levels could potentially contribute towards addressing some of the key justice concerns.Policy relevance International negotiations on the institutional frameworks that are envisaged to govern carbon markets are proceeding at a rather slow pace. As a consequence, host countries and private-sector actors are making their own arrangements to safeguard the interests of local communities. While several standards have emerged to guide carbon market activity on the ground, distributive as well as procedural justice concerns nevertheless remain salient. Four empirical case studies across Asia and Africa show that within the multi-scale and multi-actor carbon market governance, local-level actors often lack sufficient agency to advance their claims and protect their interests. This evidence suggests that ameliorating policy reforms are needed to enhance the positioning of local communities. Doing so is important to ensure future acceptability of carbon market activity in potential host communities as well as for ensuring their broader legitimacy.     

Targeting areas for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) projects in Tanzania

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) has gained momentum as a climate mitigation strategy that can be implemented at multiple scales. Sub-nationally, REDD+ projects that aim to capture carbon funding are implemented throughout tropical countries. A spatial targeting approach for optimal REDD+ project landscape is demonstrated using Tanzania as an example. This study used GIS-based Multi-criteria Decision Analysis to identify potential areas for REDD+ projects development incorporating different combinations of criteria. The first approach, efficient targeting, focuses on areas with high forest carbon content, high deforestation risk and low opportunity cost. The second approach, co-benefits targeting, aims at areas with high biodiversity and high poverty rate on top of criteria in efficient targeting. The resulting suitability maps displays areas of high, medium and low suitability for future REDD+ projects development based on the targeting approaches. Locations of current REDD+ projects in Tanzania were also overlaid with suitability map to visually inspect how they match up. This approach allows decision-makers to prioritize preferences for various site-selection criteria and make informed decisions about REDD+ projects locations.     

The clean development mechanism’s contribution to sustainable development: a review of the literature

The challenges of how to respond to climate change and ensure sustainable development are currently high on the political agenda among the world’s leading nations. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is part of the global carbon market developing rapidly as part of the Kyoto response towards the mitigation of global warming. One of the aims of the CDM is to achieve sustainable development in developing countries, but uncertainty prevails as to whether the CDM is doing what it promises to do. Close to 200 studies on the CDM have been carried out since its birth in 1997 including peer-reviewed articles and reports from the grey literature. This review of the literature serves to assess the state of knowledge on how the CDM contributes to sustainable development (SD) including poverty alleviation. The main finding of the review is that, left to market forces, the CDM does not significantly contribute to sustainable development.     

CDM: Is it a ‘win–win’ strategy for rural poverty alleviation in India?

India is perceived to be one of the most attractive Non-Annex I countries for CDM project development. There are more than 350 projects in the CDM pipeline, largely in the areas of renewable energy, energy efficiency in industries and fossil fuel switching. This paper examines the socio-economic component of sustainable development commitments of the CDM projects to see if they can make any impact on rural poverty in India, since the goal of poverty alleviation lies at the core of the country’s development priorities. The study concludes that CDM is not contributing to rural poverty alleviation to any notable extent. Nearly all the projects have a business orientation and are not directed to the development of rural poor. Even the renewable energy projects will have limited role in up-liftment of the masses below poverty line due to their weak resource base. For CDM to emerge as a “win–win” strategy for poverty alleviation projects should be aimed at the rural communities and designed to accelerate agricultural growth in the rainfed regions of the country.     

Assessment and Measurement Issues Related to Soil Carbon Sequestration in Land-Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry (LULUCF) Projects under the Kyoto Protocol

Mitigating the potential large negative impacts of a change in the earth's climate will require strong and definite actions in the different economic sectors, particularly within agriculture and forestry. Specifically, soils deserve a close examination due to their large carbon mitigation potential. The Kyoto protocol establishes the possibility for crediting greenhouse gas emission reductions from forestry and agriculture activities. In most circumstances, particularly those regarding developing countries, greenhouse gas mitigation activities will be carried out through projects. These projects will have to meet a series of criteria, for the carbon benefits to be measurable, transparent, verifiable and certified. These criteria include: establishing credible baselines (without-project or reference scenario), additionality, permanence, quantifying and reducing potential leakage of greenhouse gases across project borders, coping with natural or human induced risks, accurately measuring changes in carbon stocks using carbon accounting techniques, and – in the case of the Clean DevelopmentMechanism – resulting in sustainable development benefits. In this paper we describe the methods and approaches that have been developed to cope with the different criteria and discuss their implications for carbon sequestration in soils. Soil carbon represents the largest carbon pool of terrestrial ecosystems, and has been estimated to have one of the largest potentials to sequester carbon worldwide. However, getting credits from soil carbon sequestration through project activities presents several challenges: the need to monitor small incremental changes in soil carbon content relative to large carbon pools, long-time periods to accrue the full carbon benefits, high local variability of soil carbon content, and relatively costly soil carbon measurement procedures. Also, the responses of soil C stocks to forestry and agriculture activities are complex and need careful attention. Specifically, the time dynamics of soil C responses to land use changes, the diversity of soil types, soil-plant interactions, and the availability of accurate soil C inventories, should be considered to successfully implement LULUCF projects.     

Climate change mitigation on tropical peatlands: A triple burden for smallholder farmers in Indonesia

The agricultural use and conversion of tropical peatlands is considered a major source of land-based greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, the protection and restoration of tropical peatlands has recently turned into an important strategy to mitigate global climate change. Little research exists that has investigated the impacts and dynamics that such climate mitigation efforts evoke in local communities living in and around peatlands. We present insights on this from Sumatra, Indonesia and use a climate justice lens to evaluate local outcomes. We show how an increasingly transnational network of state and non-state actors has become involved in developing new laws, policy programs and land-use agreements on Sumatra’s coastal peatlands, aiming at supposedly win–win low-carbon development pathways. We argue that such efforts are open to much of the same criticism that has been raised regarding previous policies and projects aimed at reducing GHGE from deforestation and forest degradation. These projects disregard local perspectives on development, fail to deliver the promised benefits and, through a reconfiguration of local land-use rights, reduce the capabilities of smallholder farmers to benefit from their land. In sum, our analysis suggests that recent policies and projects aimed at mitigating GHGE from tropical peatlands contribute to a redistribution of the global climate mitigation burden onto smallholder farmers in Indonesia. This occurs through their threefold assignment to protect forests, prevent fires and help restore degraded peatlands.     

Challenges to the development of carbon markets in China

China has introduced several pilot emission trading schemes to build the basis for a national scheme. The potential scale of this initiative raises prospects for a regional carbon trading network as a way to further engage other major Asian economies. However, the Chinese carbon markets rest upon a unique political-economic context and institutional environment that are likely to limit their development and viability. This article offers an overview of such structural economic and political constraints. Four main challenges are identified, namely, inadequate domestic demand, limited financial involvement, incomplete regulatory infrastructure, and excessive government intervention. The first two challenges concern economic dimensions and may be partially addressed by the incentives created by the newly introduced emission trading schemes. The other two are more deeply entrenched in the dominant political system and governing practice. They require fundamental changes to the ways in which the state and the market interact. The success of China's carbon market reform depends crucially on the ability of the ongoing efforts to transform the distorted state–market relationship.

Policy relevance

The burgeoning carbon markets offer opportunities for emissions mitigation at lower costs and enable circulation of a new form of capital, i.e. carbon credits, across borders. China accounts for a gigantic share of global GHG emissions and has the potential to significantly scale up these opportunities. There are clear implications for market developers and participants worldwide, including climate policy makers who attempt to link their emission trading schemes to other schemes, firms who seek to take advantage of the inexpensive carbon offsets generated in developing countries, international financial institutions who endeavour to establish their business in an emerging major carbon market, etc. This article can inform their decisions by identifying key issues that may undermine their ability to achieve these goals. Policy makers and stakeholders will benefit from this analysis, which shows how the Chinese carbon markets operate in ways that may be different from their experience elsewhere.     

The social and political complexities of learning in carbon capture and storage demonstration projects

Demonstration of a fully integrated power plant with carbon capture and storage (CCS) at scale has not yet been achieved, despite growing international political interest in the potential of the technology to contribute to climate change mitigation and calls from multiple constituents for more demonstration projects. Acknowledging the scale of learning that still must occur for the technology to advance towards deployment, multiple CCS demonstration projects of various scales are emerging globally. Current plans for learning and knowledge sharing associated with demonstration projects, however, seem to be limited and narrowly conceived, raising questions about whether the projects will deliver on the expectations raised. Through a comparison of the structure, framing and socio-political context of three very different CCS demonstration projects in different places and contexts, this paper explores the complexity of social learning associated with demonstration projects. Variety in expectations of the demonstration projects’ objectives, learning processes, information sharing mechanisms, public engagement initiatives, financing and collaborative partnerships are highlighted. The comparison shows that multiple factors including the process of building support for the project, the governance context and the framing of the project matter for the learning in demonstration projects. This analysis supports a broader conceptualization of learning than that currently found in CCS demonstration plans - a result with implications for both future research and practice.     

Supply of carbon sequestration and biodiversity services from Australia's agricultural land under global change

Global agroecosystems can contribute to both climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation, and market mechanisms provide a highly prospective means of achieving these outcomes. However, the ability of markets to motivate the supply of carbon sequestration and biodiversity services from agricultural land is uncertain, especially given the future changes in environmental, economic, and social drivers. We quantified the potential supply of these services from the intensive agricultural land of Australia from 2013 to 2050 under four global outlooks in response to a carbon price and biodiversity payment scheme. Each global outlook specified emissions pathways, climate, food demand, energy price, and carbon price modeled using the Global Integrated Assessment Model (GIAM). Using a simplified version of the Land Use Trade-Offs (LUTO) model, economic returns to agriculture, carbon plantings, and environmental plantings were calculated each year. The supply of carbon sequestration and biodiversity services was then quantified given potential land use change under each global outlook, and the sensitivity of the results to key parameters was assessed. We found that carbon supply curves were similar across global outlooks. Sharp increases in carbon sequestration supply occurred at carbon prices exceeding 50 $ tCO₂⁻¹ in 2015 and exceeding 65 $ tCO₂⁻¹ in 2050. Based on GIAM-modeled carbon prices, little carbon sequestration was expected at 2015 under any global outlook. However, at 2050 expected carbon supply under each outlook differed markedly, ranging from 0 to 189 MtCO₂ yr⁻¹. Biodiversity services of 3.32% of the maximum may be achieved in 2050 for a 1 $B investment under median scenario settings. We conclude that a carbon market can motivate supply of substantial carbon sequestration but only modest amounts of biodiversity services from agricultural land. A complementary biodiversity payment can synergistically increase the supply of biodiversity services but will not provide much additional carbon sequestration. The results were sensitive to global drivers, especially the carbon price, and the domestic drivers of adoption hurdle rate and agricultural productivity. The results can inform the design of an effective national policy and institutional portfolio addressing the dual objectives of climate change and biodiversity conservation that is robust to future uncertainty in both national and global drivers.     

The contribution of forest carbon credit projects to addressing the climate change challenge

This article addresses the question of how forestry projects, given the recently improved standards for the accounting of carbon sequestration, can benefit from existing and emerging carbon markets in the world. For a long time, forestry projects have been set up for the purpose of generating carbon credits. They were surrounded by uncertainties about the permanence of carbon sequestration in trees, potential replacement of deforestation due to projects (leakage), and how and what to measure as sequestered carbon. Through experience with Joint Implementation (JI) and Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) forestry projects, albeit limited, and with forestry projects in voluntary carbon markets, considerable improvements have been made with accounting of carbon sequestration in forests, resulting in a more solid basis for carbon credit trading. The scope of selling these credits exists both in compliance markets, although currently with strong limitations, and in voluntary markets for offsetting emissions with carbon credits. Improved carbon accounting methods for forestry investments can also enhance the scope for forestry in the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) that countries must prepare under the Paris Agreement.

POLICY RELEVANCE

This article identifies how forestry projects can contribute to climate change mitigation. Forestry projects have addressed a number of challenges, like reforestation, afforestation on degraded lands, and long-term sustainable forest management. An interesting new option for forestry carbon projects could be the NDCs under the Paris Agreement in December 2015. Initially, under CDM and JI, the number of forestry projects was far below that for renewable energy projects. With the adoption of the Paris Agreement, both developed and developing countries have agreed on NDCs for country-specific measures on climate change mitigation, and increased the need for investing in new measures. Over the years, considerable experience has been built up with forestry projects that fix CO₂ over a long-term period. Accounting rules are nowadays at a sufficient level for the large potential of forestry projects to deliver a reliable, additional contribution towards reducing or halting emissions from deforestation and forest degradation activities worldwide.     

An analysis of cropland carbon sequestration estimates for North Central Monana

A pilot cropland carbon sequestration program within north central Montana has allowed farmers to receive carbon credit for management adjustments associated with changing from tillage-based agricultural systems to no-till. Carbon credit can also be obtained by adopting conservation reserve, where cropland is planted into perennial vegetation. Summer fallowing is also considered within the crediting process as credit is not given in years that a field is left un-vegetated. The carbon sequestration program has been advocated as a means to mitigate climate change while providing an added source of income for Montana farmers. There is lack of data, however, pertaining to the percentage of lands within this region that have not converted to no-till management, lands under certain crop intensities (e.g. those that are cropped every growing season vs. those that use a fallow-crop-fallow system), or cropland that have converted to perennial vegetation outside of the popular Conservation Reserve Program. Data is also sparse concerning the amount of soil organic carbon that might be sequestered given a conversion to no-till or conservation reserve. This study established regional percentage estimates of cropland under no-till, various degrees of crop intensity, and conservation reserve within north central Montana. Literature-based carbon sequestration estimates were used to generate carbon gain data associated with the conversation to no-till and to conservation reserve. These estimates were then applied to the area-based cropland statistics to estimate potential regional carbon sequestration associated with these management changes.     

Linking the CDM with domestic carbon markets

Certified emission reductions (CERs) from Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects have traditionally served as an indirect link between cap and trade systems around the world. However, since 2010, import restrictions have increased. Reasons for import limitations include the supplementarity principle, genuine concerns about the environmental integrity of CERs and social benefits of CDM projects, pressure from domestic emissions mitigation industries, concerns about competition in the industries in which reductions take place, as well as the attempt to pressure advanced developing countries to accept national emissions commitments under a future international climate policy regime. It is shown that import limitations lead to a decrease in CER prices and a race to generate CERs as quickly as possible. Such effects are visible in the CDM market after the EU announced its import limitations. The exclusion of CERs from specific project types will distort the CDM supply curve and increase the CER price unless the marginal abatement costs of the excluded project type are above the CER world market price. Similarly, exclusion of CERs from specific host countries will increase the price. Substantial differences are found in CER access to national carbon markets around the world.Policy relevanceCDM regulators could try to improve access of CERs to cap and trade schemes through improvements to additionality testing, standardizing baseline and monitoring methodologies and stakeholder consultation. However, regulators should be aware that standardization is no panacea, and controversies may resurface if standardized additionality determination (e.g. through benchmarks or positive lists) are applied for a certain period and found to be problematic. However, domestic policy concerns such as an unwillingness to send money abroad to buy credits, an inability to control market prices, and competitiveness impacts cannot be resolved by CDM reforms. If, despite such reforms of the CDM, blatant protectionism continues, a challenge before the World Trade Organisation (WTO) could be launched to stop discrimination of service exports from specific countries.