Tag: Geographic Asia

Forest communities stand to benefit tremendously from REDD+, but only if tenure rights are incorporated into the decision-making process and benefits are shared across the community. That’s why Fauna & Flora International is piloting Community Carbon Pools across Asia. Here’s a look at how the program works in Vietnam.

This article was adapted from REDD+ In Vietnam: Integrating National and Subnational Approaches, which was published by Forest Trends and Climate Focus with support from several other organizations.

9 January 2013 | Despite having been identified as a Key Biodiversity Area (KBA) by the Vietnamese government, the Kon Plong district of Vietnam’s Kon Tum province continues to be categorized as a production forest, with unsustainable/illegal logging and conversion to other purposes. The district already contains several large dams and a large area of degraded forest has been lost to reservoir inundation.

It appears that without improved environmental governance in the area, this forest (and the link between existing protected areas and KBAs) will be further degraded and eventually lost.

For this reason, Fauna & Flora International (FFI) chose Kon Plong as the spot to pilot the Vietnam Component of our Developing Community Carbon Pools for REDD+ project. Other programs are being tested in the Philippines, Cambodia, and Indonesia as well.

The Region

Kon Tum Province in the Central Highlands region has 420,000 hectares of lowland and mountainous tropical forest, is rich in biodiversity and endemism, and has a mosaic of urban and peri‐urban settlements. The province has the highest percentage of ethnic minorities of any in the country and among the highest poverty rates.

The Kon Plong district is made up of 99% ethnic minorities, largely forest‐dependent peoples. Community forestry and REDD+ project activities target forest communities and the households with forestland the government allocated to them for a 50 year period as recipients. REDD+ carbon pools will be developed based on allocated forestland areas.

FFI aims to protect the High Conservation Value Forest (HCVF) found there while developing Community Forest Management (CFM).

The Project

Overall, the project has been designed to contribute to reducing deforestation and forest degradation through improved forest governance and the development of finance and incentive mechanisms that provide benefits to forest‐dependent local and indigenous people.

Specifically, the project is designed to connect with emerging national mechanisms around benefit sharing and MRV, as are being developed in Vietnam under UN‐REDD guidance. The project has been designed to build the capacity of local communities and governments to actively participate in REDD+ pilot projects and provide feedback on lessons learned for policy dialogues at sub‐national, national and regional levels.

The project will draw from practical local level experience and seek to influence national and regional policy responses to deforestation and forest degradation.

Integration Into A National System

In terms of policy, FFI and its partner, the Non Timber Forest Products ‐ Exchange Programme for South and Southeast Asia (NTFP‐EP) has conducted analytical studies on laws and policies related to community forestry and REDD+ in collaboration with environmental lawyers to provide on‐going legal advice on community carbon rights, permitting and licensing systems, and benefit/finance distribution mechanisms in Vietnam.

Supported by national lawyers, FFI will provide legal advice for the development of community forestry REDD+ policies and for the incorporation of social and environmental safeguards into the national and sub‐national REDD+ policy framework.

FFI will undertake socio‐economic studies to define opportunity costs and forest protection costs of local communities, and establish a socio‐economic baseline for the REDD+ pilot project at sub‐national level. Accordingly, an equitable benefit sharing distribution will be developed that will need to integrate into a national system. Mutual learning and sharing are expected to occur, as well as technical support among subnational and national projects through methodologies, training and short term consultancies.

As planned, national REDD+ Working Group and thematic REDD+ workshops are regarded as a platform for sharing important policy issues related to local stakeholder participation. At least two national policy workshops will be convened to introduce proposed REDD+ governance, benefit sharing, community rights and safeguard mechanisms. At a local level, several field visits to pilot projects will be held for national/subnational policy makers to engage local community groups.

Funding Sources

Based on VCS (Verified Carbon Standard) and CCB (Climate, Community and Biodiversity) market approach, FFI will facilitate REDD+ Payments for Ecosystem Services mechanisms for community forestry pilots through voluntary markets or fund‐based mechanisms to ensure the flow of financial resources to provide local benefits and sustainability. Based on existing relationships with potential high volume buyers and investors, FFI’s Environmental Markets team will provide site‐specific advice to facilitate engagement of appropriate third‐party carbon investors, brokers or buyers in the projects after the end of the EU‐funded action. This will facilitate community carbon pools’ access to markets or funds.

Approaches

R(E)L and project scenario models will be built from a range of data, including historical deforestation trends determined through a time‐series analysis using existing satellite imagery and predictive modeling of threats of human population expansion and present management zone designations. The analysis will generate statistically robust ‘avoided deforestation scenario forecasts’, based upon relevant social, environmental and economic data and trends, combined with carbon stock data from the forest.

FFI‐owned Standard Operational Procedure (SOP) for carbon accounting, already successfully tested in Indonesia and the Philippines, will be adapted consistently with emerging national guidelines. Local stakeholders will be provided with trainings and tools for developing participatory forest carbon inventory and monitoring techniques to qualify and quantify rates of deforestation and degradation.

A plan for ongoing monitoring of forest carbon stocks and land use change indicators will be developed, to demonstrate that the project is meeting deforestation reduction targets. Monitoring will include remote sensing and field sampling to measure forest recovery and the effectiveness of forest protection measures. Third party verification of MRV outputs will be undertaken of the monitored results.

Additional resources

Vietnam’sREDD+ National Action Plan gives it plenty of flexibility in designing a nested approach to REDD+, and a recent report looks at three pilot projects in Dien Bien Province, Kon Tum Province and Lam Dong Province. All demonstrate both the opportunities and complexities of REDD+.

This article was adapted from the report, REDD+ In Vietnam: Integrating National and Subnational Aproaches that was published by Forest Trends and Climate Focus with support from several other organizations.

7 January 2013 | The global community has landed on REDD as possibly one of the best strategies in halting deforestation and thus slowing global warming. But implementing this mechanism in individual countries has resulted in varying styles and approaches.

For instance, the small Southeast Asian nation of Vietnam is taking an aggressive stance in addressing climate change mitigation and adaptation, and has developed a REDD+ National Action Plan that set out key legal and institutional roles and priority actions.

Vietnam’s government supports a national framework for its ultimate domestic REDD+ approach, and is exploring the possibility of nested REDD+ approaches for establishing voluntary carbon markets, regulating REDD+ project‐based investments and maintaining environmental integrity.

A recently published paper from Forest Trends, Climate Focus, the Vietnam Administration of Forestry and Japan International Cooperation Agency, titled, “REDD+ in Vietnam: Integrating National and Subnational Approaches” provides background and preliminary information on applying a nested REDD+ approach in Vietnam. The report is based on the current understanding of how to integrate national and subnational approaches to REDD+.

The Nested Approach

Despite the significant progress made to date on reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD+) it is still unclear how a future REDD+ mechanism may be implemented in practice, and in particular how to design REDD+ to deliver ecosystem conservation and restoration in an economically efficient and socially sustainable way.

“Nested” approaches to REDD+ offer countries an opportunity to account for overall emission reductions and removals (ERRs) from REDD+ activities at the national level as well as at the level of nested subnational programs and/or projects within the national system. Nested approaches to REDD+ require consideration of approval, registration and review, substantive policy issues and carbon rights and crediting.

Although nesting can add considerable complexity in carbon accounting, risk‐sharing, and institutional arrangements, the advantages to nested approaches seem to outweigh this increased complexity. This is true especially as the UNFCCC discussions focus increasingly on accounting and performance at national levels and away from project‐level activities that have dominated voluntary carbon markets to date. Yet countries will benefit greatly by building on their project‐level capacity.

Issues and options like accounting, regulatory framework and incentives require special consideration in regard to nesting. In establishing incentives, governments will first need to figure out their options in terms of programs and project funding and what private and public sector finance sources are available. They will then have to decipher the best pathways for distributing this finance to appropriate recipients.

Accounting issues relevant to nested REDD+ can draw on the work of the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) and its Jurisdictional and Nested REDD+ Initiative, which has provided guidance on establishing jurisdictional and nested reference emissions levels (RELs); monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV); leakage; issuing credits and avoiding double counting; and accounting for reversals and forest loss.

Arguably the most complex of these issues is creating a jurisdiction‐wide R(E)L to incorporate smaller R(E)Ls such as those at project‐level, given the numerous factors that must be considered such as determining the boundary, scope and calculation of the R(E)L, creating rules on how to nest different scales and ensuring additionality.

While the UNFCCC has not established methodologies for setting R(E)Ls, Vietnam is working to adopt interim performance indicators in pilot provinces for each type of REDD+ activity to be implemented, which will be monitored and assessed at the provincial level. This includes calculation of “top‐down” jurisdiction‐wide R(E)Ls and smaller scale R(E)Ls- from a project or series of projects- or how it relates to projects developed after the jurisdiction‐wide R(E)L is set.

The Case in Vietnam

According to the report, the pilot subnational activities studied in Dien Bien Province, Kon Tum Province and Lam Dong Province demonstrate both the opportunities and complexities of REDD+. The study reads that Vietnam has considerable flexibility in designing a nested approach to REDD+ that can ensure integrity in environmental accounting and maximize financial flows for REDD+ activities and local stakeholder benefits.

Essential areas of work include the following:

• • Clarifying the legal and regulatory framework regarding carbon rights and pilot project activities;
• • Elaborating synergies between project and provincial‐level REDD+ activities;
• • Elaborating the National REDD+ Action Plan; • Creating guidelines on safeguards and benefit‐sharing for pilot projects;
• • Establishing principles for allocating ERRs; and
• • Integrating currently available bi‐ and multi‐lateral funding schemes.

Vietnam is also working to establish a REDD+ National Forest Monitoring System (NFMS), to provide MRV for both REDD+ activity outcomes and mitigation performance, with the aim to reach an accuracy assessment that will bring Vietnam to report at the higher Tier 3 level, which will reduce uncertainty but increase the complexity and resources needed. Policy and regulatory considerations for nested REDD+ will depend on how nesting is designed and developed within Vietnam. If a national scheme is chosen, provinces could fall under the authority of the national system, or the national government could create institutions or systems tailored to that province.

Fortunately for Vietnam, the National REDD+ Action Plan supports the formation of carbon credit markets and encourages private sector participation in REDD+. The Constitution and laws in force in Vietnam appear to support legal land users owning carbon rights.

As Vietnam moves into Phase II, they will build provincial MRV capacities, implementation strategies and benefit distribution systems. Further Phase II work is focused on creating conditions for results‐based finance to flow into such provinces “nested” within the national framework.

More work, however, is needed on how accounting for results at different scales will be carried out and any different approaches or inconsistent findings reconciled.

In order to measure the impact and success of climate change mitigation actions in terms of forestry and agriculture, researchers at CIFOR first weigh three options- the potential of emissions reductions, economic risks and implementation expenses. They find the best mitigation action is an integrated approach between land-use, land-use change and forestry.

This article was originally published on the CIFOR (Center for International Forestry Research) website. Click here to read the original.

31 December 2012 BOGOR Indonesia | Making informed decisions on how to reduce carbon emissions from forestry and agriculture requires some solid knowledge about potential tradeoffs between development and conservation objectives: what you manage to win through avoided deforestation or reduced cropping emissions has to be weighed against possible farm income losses when first-best farming strategies have to be sacrificed.

Forest conservation climate mitigation strategies typically involve creating areas where trees are protected. Activities in these areas, such as crop expansion or logging, are restricted or prohibited, so trees are left standing.

Making sure there are trees in the landscape is a definite game changer when it comes to assessing the costs and benefits of different types of land-use strategies for reducing emissions and mitigating climate change. On a per-hectare basis, preserving threatened Amazonian forests provides an exceptionally high mitigation benefit according to a recent CIFOR study.

However, this does not mean that agriculture has no mitigation potential.

Low-cost technological alternatives to conventional agriculture and extensive cattle ranching do exist in the Amazon. For instance, no-till farming, a way of growing crops without mechanically overturning the soil is a now widespread alternative to conventional farming. No-till farming can help maintaining soil fertility and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from biological processes in agricultural soils.

However, while avoiding deforestation and conserving forests can result in substantial emissions reduction, such benefits must be weighed against the possible economic losses of sacrificing income from agriculture. Finding the optimal tradeoff of conserving forests versus developing land for agriculture will therefore be instrumental in ensuring the best use of scarce resources.

Yet, adopting new technologies often requires new skill sets, and improved access to credit or markets, and may expose farmers to risks. That is unattractive for many Amazon smallholders, and explains why they are often hesitant to adopt these techniques, even if research suggests that the profits, on average, are increasing.

Ideal Features of Climate Change Mitigation Options

There are several criteria we considered when looking to invest in different climate mitigation options.

First, the potential for emissions reduction should be high. Second, the risks of economic failure to the land user should preferably be low. Third, implementing the option should be cheap. And finally, any negative knock-on effects have to be contained.

In practice, none of the available options for mitigating climate change scores highly on all four features. A compromise has to be struck that takes into account the pros and cons of both forestry and agriculture to achieve an integrated reduction in emissions from land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF).

This can only be achieved if land-use mitigation strategies take into account the different local environmental, social and political contexts. The aforementioned study has shown how different factors can hamper forest conservation and agriculture mitigation efforts, respectively, reducing the kind of benefits that can be achieved.

For instance, while forest-based mitigation strategies can be implemented more easily than getting farmers to adopt new farming practices, in some contexts poor governance and conflicting claims over land as a result of unclear tenure can reduce the effectiveness of forest conservation in lowering carbon emissions. Here, agricultural reforms could eventually be more interesting.

When choosing between forest conservation and agriculture, the hidden costs associated with forest conservation must be weighed against the potentially high operational and transaction costs of promoting agricultural change through extension programs and infrastructure investments, at often relatively low mitigation benefits per unit of land.

Moreover, promoting agricultural change bears the risk of undesired “spillover effects” such as crop or pasture expansion into forest areas, thus neutralizing the potential mitigation benefits from adopting such technologies.

CIFOR’s and others’ research on deforestation, REDD, and agricultural technologies has shown that these side effects are not only possible, but probable – and thus, at the very least, need to be accounted for. Our scoping attempt reconfirms the prime mitigation potential of trees and forests, but also recommends a fine-tuning of parallel strategies for Amazon frontier forests and established agricultural regions.

This new publication is part of the CGIAR research program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry.

Additional resources

The Rimba Raya REDD Project is on again – one year after being put on ice when Indonesia’s Ministry of Forestry promised half the project’s territory to a palm oil company. That decision has now been reversed, and the project is set to preserve an orangutan habitat the size of Singapore, generating millions of dollars in carbon income for local communities along the way.

6 December 2012 | Doha | Qatar | It was a fitting end to a topsy-turvy year for Todd Lemons and Jim Procanik.   As co-directors of carbon project developer InfiniteEARTH, they spearheaded the Rimba Raya Biodiversity Reserve REDD Project, a ground-breaking endeavor that will conserve 80,000 hectares of rainforest and generate 104 million credits over 30 years and was finally green-lighted last week. The announcement became official at climate talks here, a little more than a year after the Ministry of Forestry said it was giving half the project’s territory to a palm oil company.

Reuters credits the Ministry of Forestry’s reversal to intervention by Singapore-based businessman Rusmin Widjaja, Central Kalimantan governor A. Teras Narang, and Triwatty Marciano, whose husband, Marciano Norma, heads Indonesia’s State Intelligence Agency.

Whatever its cause, the decision could keep tons of carbon locked in peat swamps while habitat for one of the world’s last wild orangutan populations will remain undisturbed.

The Project

Rimba Raya is the world’s first REDD project on deep peat and Indonesia’s first REDD project and could funnel billions of dollars into community development projects that provide access to clean water, childhood development, health services, reforestation and eco-tourism.    

It’s located in the tropical peat swamp forest on the island of Borneo in Central Kalimantan province in Indonesia – a country with the highest rate of deforestation in the world, according to the 2008 and 2009 Guinness Book of World Records, although Yuyu Rahayu, the Ministry of Forestry’s Director of Forest Resources Inventory and Monitoring, speaking at a side event here last night, said that deforestation has plunged dramatically in the last three years, and that the country was on track to reduce its deforestation rate by 26%. Central Kalimantan has the world’s fastest rate of forest conversion to palm oil plantations, says Indonesia Forest Watch.

The Biodiversity Reserve also houses six species of endangered mammals-one of those being the orangutan.

Saving Indonesia’s forests are crucial to fighting climate change. Its forests and peat swamps release huge amounts of carbon when they are cleared and drained.            

“I am happy with the work progress in Jakarta and soon enough we can focus on the important work of community development and orangutan habitat conservation in the Rimba Raya project area,” says Procanik.

“Rimba Raya represents the hope and future of an entire species,” says Dr. Biruté Mary Galdikas, the ounder of the Orangutan Foundation International. “Once the Minister signs the decree, Rimba Raya will be one of the most important orangutan conservation projects in the world.”

The area is also home to hundreds of threatened and endangered species of flora and fauna.

Long Road to Success

In 2010, Rimba Raya had hit several milestones. It was verified and validated under the VCS (Verified Carbon Standard) and the CCBA (Climate Community and Biodiversity Alliance), was the first project to develop a REDD methodology and was on track to become the first REDD project to issue credits. The energy giant, Gazprom, invested in the Rimba Raya project saying they had buyers lined up while both Indonesia’s president and the governor of Central Kalimantan endorsed it.

But the Ministry of Forestry unexpectedly said it was giving almost half of the project’s territory to PT Best Group for palm oil development in 2011. Shortly afterwards, Indonesia’s Corruption Eradication Commission was sent to investigate the concession process.

The Ministry said it was skeptical of InfiniteEARTH’s economic development projections, and it argued that the financial benefits of converting forests into palm oil plantations and other development projects outweighed payments for ecosystem services, like water filtration and carbon storage, they would receive if the forests were left intact.

“Mutual friends, that both parties trust, have facilitated a dialog between our two companies and we now understand that Rimba Raya and its developers, InfiniteEARTH,represent a new breed of conservationists that recognize Indonesia’s right to develop its natural resources,” says Winarto Tjajadi, who runs PT Best along with his brother.

InfiniteEARTH said in a statement the Rimba Raya Biodiversity Reserve is a benchmark for everything REDD can accomplish and Indonesia has now cleared the way for that to happen.

“Every day we borrow from our children’s future by consuming more than we replenish and by not paying for valuable ecosystem services,” says Todd Lemons. “Four years ago, I promised my children more than just a ‘carbon neutral’ and ‘sustainable’ future. I intend to deliver on that promise and I intend to repay that debt.”

Additional resources

Forest communities stand to benefit tremendously from REDD+, but only if tenure rights are incorporated into the decision-making process and benefits are shared across the community. That’s why Fauna & Flora International is piloting Community Carbon Pools across Asia. Here’s a look at how the program works in Vietnam.

This article was adapted from REDD+ In Vietnam: Integrating National and Subnational Approaches, which was published by Forest Trends and Climate Focus with support from several other organizations.

9 January 2013 | Despite having been identified as a Key Biodiversity Area (KBA) by the Vietnamese government, the Kon Plong district of Vietnam’s Kon Tum province continues to be categorized as a production forest, with unsustainable/illegal logging and conversion to other purposes. The district already contains several large dams and a large area of degraded forest has been lost to reservoir inundation.

It appears that without improved environmental governance in the area, this forest (and the link between existing protected areas and KBAs) will be further degraded and eventually lost.

For this reason, Fauna & Flora International (FFI) chose Kon Plong as the spot to pilot the Vietnam Component of our Developing Community Carbon Pools for REDD+ project. Other programs are being tested in the Philippines, Cambodia, and Indonesia as well.

The Region

Kon Tum Province in the Central Highlands region has 420,000 hectares of lowland and mountainous tropical forest, is rich in biodiversity and endemism, and has a mosaic of urban and peri‐urban settlements. The province has the highest percentage of ethnic minorities of any in the country and among the highest poverty rates.

The Kon Plong district is made up of 99% ethnic minorities, largely forest‐dependent peoples. Community forestry and REDD+ project activities target forest communities and the households with forestland the government allocated to them for a 50 year period as recipients. REDD+ carbon pools will be developed based on allocated forestland areas.

FFI aims to protect the High Conservation Value Forest (HCVF) found there while developing Community Forest Management (CFM).

The Project

Overall, the project has been designed to contribute to reducing deforestation and forest degradation through improved forest governance and the development of finance and incentive mechanisms that provide benefits to forest‐dependent local and indigenous people.

Specifically, the project is designed to connect with emerging national mechanisms around benefit sharing and MRV, as are being developed in Vietnam under UN‐REDD guidance. The project has been designed to build the capacity of local communities and governments to actively participate in REDD+ pilot projects and provide feedback on lessons learned for policy dialogues at sub‐national, national and regional levels.

The project will draw from practical local level experience and seek to influence national and regional policy responses to deforestation and forest degradation.

Integration Into A National System

In terms of policy, FFI and its partner, the Non Timber Forest Products ‐ Exchange Programme for South and Southeast Asia (NTFP‐EP) has conducted analytical studies on laws and policies related to community forestry and REDD+ in collaboration with environmental lawyers to provide on‐going legal advice on community carbon rights, permitting and licensing systems, and benefit/finance distribution mechanisms in Vietnam.

Supported by national lawyers, FFI will provide legal advice for the development of community forestry REDD+ policies and for the incorporation of social and environmental safeguards into the national and sub‐national REDD+ policy framework.

FFI will undertake socio‐economic studies to define opportunity costs and forest protection costs of local communities, and establish a socio‐economic baseline for the REDD+ pilot project at sub‐national level. Accordingly, an equitable benefit sharing distribution will be developed that will need to integrate into a national system. Mutual learning and sharing are expected to occur, as well as technical support among subnational and national projects through methodologies, training and short term consultancies.

As planned, national REDD+ Working Group and thematic REDD+ workshops are regarded as a platform for sharing important policy issues related to local stakeholder participation. At least two national policy workshops will be convened to introduce proposed REDD+ governance, benefit sharing, community rights and safeguard mechanisms. At a local level, several field visits to pilot projects will be held for national/subnational policy makers to engage local community groups.

Funding Sources

Based on VCS (Verified Carbon Standard) and CCB (Climate, Community and Biodiversity) market approach, FFI will facilitate REDD+ Payments for Ecosystem Services mechanisms for community forestry pilots through voluntary markets or fund‐based mechanisms to ensure the flow of financial resources to provide local benefits and sustainability. Based on existing relationships with potential high volume buyers and investors, FFI’s Environmental Markets team will provide site‐specific advice to facilitate engagement of appropriate third‐party carbon investors, brokers or buyers in the projects after the end of the EU‐funded action. This will facilitate community carbon pools’ access to markets or funds.

Approaches

R(E)L and project scenario models will be built from a range of data, including historical deforestation trends determined through a time‐series analysis using existing satellite imagery and predictive modeling of threats of human population expansion and present management zone designations. The analysis will generate statistically robust ‘avoided deforestation scenario forecasts’, based upon relevant social, environmental and economic data and trends, combined with carbon stock data from the forest.

FFI‐owned Standard Operational Procedure (SOP) for carbon accounting, already successfully tested in Indonesia and the Philippines, will be adapted consistently with emerging national guidelines. Local stakeholders will be provided with trainings and tools for developing participatory forest carbon inventory and monitoring techniques to qualify and quantify rates of deforestation and degradation.

A plan for ongoing monitoring of forest carbon stocks and land use change indicators will be developed, to demonstrate that the project is meeting deforestation reduction targets. Monitoring will include remote sensing and field sampling to measure forest recovery and the effectiveness of forest protection measures. Third party verification of MRV outputs will be undertaken of the monitored results.

Additional resources

As our Ecosystem Marketplace team prepares to join the (albeit downsized) mass of avid climate talk followers to Doha, we set out to find the “must attend” events – and bring them to you. Take a look below for our hand-picked list of promising events during COP 18, including where and when you can find the Forest Trends team in action!

26 November 2012 | Doha | Qatar | The 18th Conference of the Parties (COP 18) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) begins Monday in Doha, Qatar. Here is a look at some of the side events we will be participating in and covering.

Vietnam’sREDD+ National Action Plan gives it plenty of flexibility in designing a nested approach to REDD+, and a recent report looks at three pilot projects in Dien Bien Province, Kon Tum Province and Lam Dong Province. All demonstrate both the opportunities and complexities of REDD+.

This article was adapted from the report, REDD+ In Vietnam: Integrating National and Subnational Aproaches that was published by Forest Trends and Climate Focus with support from several other organizations.

7 January 2013 | The global community has landed on REDD as possibly one of the best strategies in halting deforestation and thus slowing global warming. But implementing this mechanism in individual countries has resulted in varying styles and approaches.

For instance, the small Southeast Asian nation of Vietnam is taking an aggressive stance in addressing climate change mitigation and adaptation, and has developed a REDD+ National Action Plan that set out key legal and institutional roles and priority actions.

Vietnam’s government supports a national framework for its ultimate domestic REDD+ approach, and is exploring the possibility of nested REDD+ approaches for establishing voluntary carbon markets, regulating REDD+ project‐based investments and maintaining environmental integrity.

A recently published paper from Forest Trends, Climate Focus, the Vietnam Administration of Forestry and Japan International Cooperation Agency, titled, “REDD+ in Vietnam: Integrating National and Subnational Approaches” provides background and preliminary information on applying a nested REDD+ approach in Vietnam. The report is based on the current understanding of how to integrate national and subnational approaches to REDD+.

The Nested Approach

Despite the significant progress made to date on reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD+) it is still unclear how a future REDD+ mechanism may be implemented in practice, and in particular how to design REDD+ to deliver ecosystem conservation and restoration in an economically efficient and socially sustainable way.

“Nested” approaches to REDD+ offer countries an opportunity to account for overall emission reductions and removals (ERRs) from REDD+ activities at the national level as well as at the level of nested subnational programs and/or projects within the national system. Nested approaches to REDD+ require consideration of approval, registration and review, substantive policy issues and carbon rights and crediting.

Although nesting can add considerable complexity in carbon accounting, risk‐sharing, and institutional arrangements, the advantages to nested approaches seem to outweigh this increased complexity. This is true especially as the UNFCCC discussions focus increasingly on accounting and performance at national levels and away from project‐level activities that have dominated voluntary carbon markets to date. Yet countries will benefit greatly by building on their project‐level capacity.

Issues and options like accounting, regulatory framework and incentives require special consideration in regard to nesting. In establishing incentives, governments will first need to figure out their options in terms of programs and project funding and what private and public sector finance sources are available. They will then have to decipher the best pathways for distributing this finance to appropriate recipients.

Accounting issues relevant to nested REDD+ can draw on the work of the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) and its Jurisdictional and Nested REDD+ Initiative, which has provided guidance on establishing jurisdictional and nested reference emissions levels (RELs); monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV); leakage; issuing credits and avoiding double counting; and accounting for reversals and forest loss.

Arguably the most complex of these issues is creating a jurisdiction‐wide R(E)L to incorporate smaller R(E)Ls such as those at project‐level, given the numerous factors that must be considered such as determining the boundary, scope and calculation of the R(E)L, creating rules on how to nest different scales and ensuring additionality.

While the UNFCCC has not established methodologies for setting R(E)Ls, Vietnam is working to adopt interim performance indicators in pilot provinces for each type of REDD+ activity to be implemented, which will be monitored and assessed at the provincial level. This includes calculation of “top‐down” jurisdiction‐wide R(E)Ls and smaller scale R(E)Ls- from a project or series of projects- or how it relates to projects developed after the jurisdiction‐wide R(E)L is set.

The Case in Vietnam

According to the report, the pilot subnational activities studied in Dien Bien Province, Kon Tum Province and Lam Dong Province demonstrate both the opportunities and complexities of REDD+. The study reads that Vietnam has considerable flexibility in designing a nested approach to REDD+ that can ensure integrity in environmental accounting and maximize financial flows for REDD+ activities and local stakeholder benefits.

Essential areas of work include the following:

• • Clarifying the legal and regulatory framework regarding carbon rights and pilot project activities;
• • Elaborating synergies between project and provincial‐level REDD+ activities;
• • Elaborating the National REDD+ Action Plan; • Creating guidelines on safeguards and benefit‐sharing for pilot projects;
• • Establishing principles for allocating ERRs; and
• • Integrating currently available bi‐ and multi‐lateral funding schemes.

Vietnam is also working to establish a REDD+ National Forest Monitoring System (NFMS), to provide MRV for both REDD+ activity outcomes and mitigation performance, with the aim to reach an accuracy assessment that will bring Vietnam to report at the higher Tier 3 level, which will reduce uncertainty but increase the complexity and resources needed. Policy and regulatory considerations for nested REDD+ will depend on how nesting is designed and developed within Vietnam. If a national scheme is chosen, provinces could fall under the authority of the national system, or the national government could create institutions or systems tailored to that province.

Fortunately for Vietnam, the National REDD+ Action Plan supports the formation of carbon credit markets and encourages private sector participation in REDD+. The Constitution and laws in force in Vietnam appear to support legal land users owning carbon rights.

As Vietnam moves into Phase II, they will build provincial MRV capacities, implementation strategies and benefit distribution systems. Further Phase II work is focused on creating conditions for results‐based finance to flow into such provinces “nested” within the national framework.

More work, however, is needed on how accounting for results at different scales will be carried out and any different approaches or inconsistent findings reconciled.

In order to measure the impact and success of climate change mitigation actions in terms of forestry and agriculture, researchers at CIFOR first weigh three options- the potential of emissions reductions, economic risks and implementation expenses. They find the best mitigation action is an integrated approach between land-use, land-use change and forestry.

This article was originally published on the CIFOR (Center for International Forestry Research) website. Click here to read the original.

31 December 2012 BOGOR Indonesia | Making informed decisions on how to reduce carbon emissions from forestry and agriculture requires some solid knowledge about potential tradeoffs between development and conservation objectives: what you manage to win through avoided deforestation or reduced cropping emissions has to be weighed against possible farm income losses when first-best farming strategies have to be sacrificed.

Forest conservation climate mitigation strategies typically involve creating areas where trees are protected. Activities in these areas, such as crop expansion or logging, are restricted or prohibited, so trees are left standing.

Making sure there are trees in the landscape is a definite game changer when it comes to assessing the costs and benefits of different types of land-use strategies for reducing emissions and mitigating climate change. On a per-hectare basis, preserving threatened Amazonian forests provides an exceptionally high mitigation benefit according to a recent CIFOR study.

However, this does not mean that agriculture has no mitigation potential.

Low-cost technological alternatives to conventional agriculture and extensive cattle ranching do exist in the Amazon. For instance, no-till farming, a way of growing crops without mechanically overturning the soil is a now widespread alternative to conventional farming. No-till farming can help maintaining soil fertility and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from biological processes in agricultural soils.

However, while avoiding deforestation and conserving forests can result in substantial emissions reduction, such benefits must be weighed against the possible economic losses of sacrificing income from agriculture. Finding the optimal tradeoff of conserving forests versus developing land for agriculture will therefore be instrumental in ensuring the best use of scarce resources.

Yet, adopting new technologies often requires new skill sets, and improved access to credit or markets, and may expose farmers to risks. That is unattractive for many Amazon smallholders, and explains why they are often hesitant to adopt these techniques, even if research suggests that the profits, on average, are increasing.

Ideal Features of Climate Change Mitigation Options

There are several criteria we considered when looking to invest in different climate mitigation options.

First, the potential for emissions reduction should be high. Second, the risks of economic failure to the land user should preferably be low. Third, implementing the option should be cheap. And finally, any negative knock-on effects have to be contained.

In practice, none of the available options for mitigating climate change scores highly on all four features. A compromise has to be struck that takes into account the pros and cons of both forestry and agriculture to achieve an integrated reduction in emissions from land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF).

This can only be achieved if land-use mitigation strategies take into account the different local environmental, social and political contexts. The aforementioned study has shown how different factors can hamper forest conservation and agriculture mitigation efforts, respectively, reducing the kind of benefits that can be achieved.

For instance, while forest-based mitigation strategies can be implemented more easily than getting farmers to adopt new farming practices, in some contexts poor governance and conflicting claims over land as a result of unclear tenure can reduce the effectiveness of forest conservation in lowering carbon emissions. Here, agricultural reforms could eventually be more interesting.

When choosing between forest conservation and agriculture, the hidden costs associated with forest conservation must be weighed against the potentially high operational and transaction costs of promoting agricultural change through extension programs and infrastructure investments, at often relatively low mitigation benefits per unit of land.

Moreover, promoting agricultural change bears the risk of undesired “spillover effects” such as crop or pasture expansion into forest areas, thus neutralizing the potential mitigation benefits from adopting such technologies.

CIFOR’s and others’ research on deforestation, REDD, and agricultural technologies has shown that these side effects are not only possible, but probable – and thus, at the very least, need to be accounted for. Our scoping attempt reconfirms the prime mitigation potential of trees and forests, but also recommends a fine-tuning of parallel strategies for Amazon frontier forests and established agricultural regions.

This new publication is part of the CGIAR research program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry.

Additional resources

19 May 2011 | Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono on Thursday signed a two-year moratorium on logging in primary forests and dredging in peatlands to unlock up to $1 billion in seed funding from the government of Norway that could help the country earn billions more by saving tropical rainforests and capturing carbon in trees.

To earn a shot at that less-than-certain income, however, it will have to forego guaranteed billions in concessions from logging, pulp, and palm oil industries – an equation that prompted internal government debate over the definition of “primary forest”, and delayed the signing of the moratorium by five months.   The official text is expected to be released on Friday, and those definition are sure to be scrutinized by industry groups and environmentalists alike.

The Norwegian Pledge

The Norwegian government made the billion-dollar pledge one year ago, following Yudhoyono’s commitment to battle deforestation and reel in the country’s rapidly-rising CO₂ emissions.   It is earmarked for building up the country’s capacity to measure and monitor its forests – a key step if the country is to earn carbon credits for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD).

That funding is to be paid out slowly over the 7-8 years, and is contingent on certain benchmarks – the implementation of this moratorium being one of the first. Indonesian and international observers are looking to the moratorium as an indication of the seriousness of the country’s commitment to the principles and objectives of REDD.

Yudhoyono had pledged to sign the moratorium on January 1, but faced stiff opposition from other officials and industry lobbyists who argued that REDD was less lucrative than palm oil, pulp, and timber.
 

Background

Indonesia’s history of unchecked deforestation earned the nation an unenviable place among the top greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters in the world, ranking third globally.   Even before securing this ignominious ranking, however, Indonesia had long been targeted with sustained criticism from environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and foreign governments for its troubling environmental record.   It came as a major surprise for many in the international community as Indonesia began taking several serious steps toward initiating a nation-wide REDD program over the past year.

The singularity of Indonesia’s emissions profile (80% from forest and peatland degradation), has made the island nation a prime location for testing and demonstrating the potential for REDD on a globally-meaningful scale.   And yet, while many observers in the media are attuned to the major events occurring in Indonesian forest and climate change policy, few independent voices have provided a view of these events that goes beyond the national significance of the Indonesian REDD experiment.   Indonesia is an international focal point and laboratory for dealing with numerous critical dialogues including land tenure and indigenous rights reform, biodiversity conservation strategy, let alone the pivotal gateway it may hold for global carbon markets.
           

An Overview of REDD-Related news in Indonesia

On May 1, 2009, the Indonesian Minister of Forestry signed the Ministry of Forestry Regulation P.30/2009 on Procedures for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, putting into motion the ongoing REDD saga.
       
REDD featured prominently throughout the climate talks of 2009, achieving its most prominent recognition in December 2009 with an explicit place in the Copenhagen Accord as well as insertion of language supporting a REDD mechanism in the formal negotiating tracks within the UNFCCC.  
           
In January 2010, Indonesia announced an audacious plan to reduce emissions by 26 percent from business as usual levels by 2020, with REDD being a major component of the plan. By mid-year Indonesia had reviewed its forestry laws to make them more compatible with REDD and was, with international support, building capacity on the ground to deal with issues of governance and monitoring.
     
In June 2010, Norway and Indonesia signed a letter of intent pledging US$1 billion from Norway to initiate a REDD program in Indonesia. The deal intended to aid Indonesia in achieving its emission reduction goals, realized primarily through the establishment of   2-year moratorium on concessions for forest-clearing activities slated to begin in 2011. Indonesia then went one step further, announcing a voluntary decision to halt concessions on peatlands immediately. However, disagreements on Indonesia’s part about what constituted “peatlands” made some question how committed the country is to enacting a credible moratorium.   As with forest conservation more generally, the “name game,” that is, the choice of definitions of “forest” and “peatland” used for these types of programs are politically, economically, and environmentally contentious and subject to heavy lobbying and pressure from various interest groups.

Following the announcement of the moratoria and progress toward a wide-scale implantation of the REDD plan, detractors—mostly environmental groups and scientists — began faulting Indonesia’s hesitation in reducing existing forestry concessions, citing concerns over the influence of the large palm oil and paper industry.

The eruption of a number of environmental scandals this summer involving Indonesian palm oil giant Sinar Mas added to fears that powerful industry interests could undermine forest conservation efforts. In one of the most-covered events of the summer, Greenpeace launched a campaign against Sinar Mas that convinced several large companies (including Burger King and Unilever) to cut Sinar Mas products from their supply chains. A moment of heightened tension came when Greenpeace published photos allegedly showing Sinar Mas clearing protected primary forests.

Indonesia’s REDD program appears to be moving forward, but is still characterized by confusion and uncertainty.   Several conflicting statements as to the status of disbursements of funds from the Norwegian pledge, as well as jurisdictional power-plays have been common.   Plans to form a ‘REDD council’, shifting power from the Forest Ministry to the new agency that would report directly to President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, were criticized by a third agency, the National Forest Commission, who claimed it would make forest management more complicated. In a gaff that received minimal press, the delayed distribution of the first $30 million from the $1 billion REDD fund in early October was announced by Environment Minister Gusti Muhammad Hatta, who said that Indonesia had not yet not completed necessary preparatory steps stipulated in the deal. The President’s special assistant on climate change, Agus Purnomo, quickly refuted the claim, saying a decision to postpone distribution of the funds had not been delayed, but that the REDD taskforce would be choosing which financial institutions would handle the funds that coming Monday.

Additional resources

Answering China’s call for intensified emissions targets, the nation yesterday saw its first transaction of voluntary carbon credits piloted under the domestic Panda Standard. The credits – purchased from a bamboo reforestation project by a large Chinese real estate firm – signal Chinese companies’ willingness to pay for (literally) home grown carbon reductions.

30 March 2011 | Yesterday, the China Beijing Environmental Exchange (CBEEX) and BlueNext announced the first transaction of pilot voluntary carbon credits under China’s Panda Standard – the nation’s own domestic third-party standard for voluntary carbon reductions.

One day after Chinese officials surprised the world with their higher-than-expected five-year emissions and energy intensity targets, the Panda Standard partners – which also include Winrock International – announced the sale of 16,800 voluntary emissions reduction credits (VERs) to domestic buyer Franshion Properties.
 
A subsidiary of the state-owned Sinochem Group and one of the nation’s leading real estate companies, Franshion purchased the VERs via CBEEX, for which BlueNext is also a strategic partner.

“The Panda Standard serves as a key reference for China’s fledgling carbon market, including the price of tradable carbon, the validation process, and the supervision system,” said Mei Dewen, CBEEX General Manager, in an interview following the announcement.

The price of the credits – at $9.14/tCO2e – was lower than the going rate for credits under the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism but higher than the average price fetched by forest carbon credits on the voluntary carbon market.

This is perhaps due to the unique nature of the inaugural sale and project itself, a bamboo reforestation project covering up to 59,000 hectares in China’s Yunnan Province. The project is indicative of the Panda Standard partners’ goals, including quality emissions reductions and poverty alleviation in the region.

Parlez Vous AFOLU?

At the 16th UN Conference of Parties in Cancun (COP16), held in December 2010, Agence Française de Développement signed an MOU with CBEEX and BlueNext to pursue these goals as it developed the standard’s first pilot project in the Yunnan Province.

In an earlier gesture of Sino-French cooperation, the French Global Environment Fund (FFEM) pledged in April 2010 to work alongside the Administrative Centre for China’s Agenda 21 (ACCA21) to craft the Panda Standard’s bamboo reforestation methodology.
 
The methodology fits under the Panda Standard’s agriculture, forestry and land use (AFOLU) specifications, for which the initial public comment period closed in late January 2011.
 
The Panda Standard partners agreed to an initial focus on AFOLU, which dovetails with the desire of its stakeholders – including China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and State Forestry Administration – to pair poverty alleviation and carbon emissions reductions.

Mechanisms and Rumors of Mechanisms

The Panda Standard, CBEEX and its partners aren’t the only show in town. Throughout 2010, several major carbon market players – and the Chinese government itself – announced domestic initiatives in an effort to stay in front of the government’s emerging climate targets.

In August 2010, the Chinese government introduced low-carbon pilots and related exchanges in five provinces and eight cities throughout the nation – several of which had already made significant progress toward their mandates by the year’s end.

In September, Pacific Carbon Exchange (PCarbX) and Shanghai Environment and Energy Exchange (SEEE) signed an MOU to exchange technical best practice and foster partnerships between their respective members.

The Innovation Center for Energy and Transportation (iCET) also announced at COP16 its partnership with CBEEX, Los Angeles-based The Climate Registry and software company Misys to operate and promote the China-specific Energy and Climate Registry.

Additional resources

Mongolia’s GDP is set to surge as mining interest move into the country in a big way, but its agriculture sector is suffering in the wake of unsustainable practices that use up topsoil and contribute to climate change. One program aims harness the carbon markets – and the mines – to promote sustainable herding and reduce carbon emissions.

Ninth in a Series

15 November 2010 | The right financing changes everything.   This is what participants in the Investment Fair at the International Conference on Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change at the Hague sought two weeks ago.

A participant in the fair, the Mongolian Society for Range Management (MSRM), supported by the Green Gold Pasture Ecosystem Management Programme, makes it possible for Mongolia’s herder community to restore degraded pastures by connecting them to finance for sustainable land management in the carbon markets.   The Pasture Ecosystem Management Project was developed in response to Mongolia’s steadily overgrazed and eroding pastures (among the largest in the world) — and in preparation for the dramatic changes that are about to happen to this land-locked country.

Today, 41% of Mongolians make their living as herders of sheep, horses, cattle, goats and yaks, ranging over the country’s vast grasslands that cover 70% of the national land area.   But the national GDP, long based on herding and agricultural products, is preparing for a dramatic turn.   Next year, it is expected to double as the mining of mostly untapped natural resources — such as coal, gold, silver, copper, uranium and zinc — expands dramatically.

Enkh-Amgalan Tseelei, the project manager from MSRM, wants to make sure the herders are not forgotten.   The purpose of the project is to “implement a carbon finance project to combat pasture desertification and restore pasture productivity in Arkhangai aimag (province) located in Western Mongolia.”

“For Mongolians, pasture is really green gold: socially, ecologically, culturally and economically,” says Tseelei. “It really is the basis for our existence.”

The Threat

Currently, that pasture land is threatened: 70% of it has gone through desertification.   While the government is attempting to address the fact that 60% of the population is below the poverty line, Tseelei says its methods are not the most beneficial for herders.   “The government policy was not really appropriate for the issues that herders were facing,” she says.  

She thinks that this project can act as an example for the government that typically sends cash handouts and disaster relief to aid the nomadic herding communities. Temporary solutions, like the government purchase of expensive animal feed from Russia during the winters, solves little, she says. Instead, Tseelie advocates that the government set policies and extend financing to build up herders’ ability to raise their own income and manage their resources to maintain their productivity in future generations.

In response to economic hardships, many of the herders increased their stock of animals, leading to overgrazing and poor quality meat and an undeveloped dairy sector.  

“It is a classic tragedy of commons, herders would like to earn income and get out of poverty,” says Tseelei, “but this is done at the cost of the pasturelands.”

She explains that beyond simply being herders, they need to learn how to be entrepreneurs in a market economy.

“Everyone used to be employees of a state company and now they are responsible for everything themselves; herders are at a loss now,” says Tseelei.  

In addition, these herders must deal with the hardships of climate change, which is accelerating the rate of desertification and decreasing the productivity of animals as they adapt to cold.

Protecting the Livelihoods of Mongolian Herders

The project is hoping to reverse that, assisting the herders in the transition to entrepreneurs and creating economic incentives to encourage more sustainable herding practices.   These sustainable herding practices can lead to multiple benefits for the environment and for the herders.

The establishment of Pasture User Groups (PUG) is at the core of this project.   Each herder has the opportunity to engage with this group and assist in determining rules for their local area. Large and small herders will have equal rights in these PUGs, assuring that neither group has too great an influence.

During monthly meetings, the PUGs will develop community-based management structures, increasing cooperation and providing an opportunity to develop pasture and land management plans.     “All the herders in the groups have to follow the rules and become part of the pasture,” says Tseelei.

The practices specified in this plan include: grazing management on natural pastures, rotational grazing, designation of winter-spring reserves, the resting of degraded grasslands and a limit to the number of livestock will be included as aspects to these plans.

While the state law does not recognize the ability of herders to exclude anyone from pasture land—which is mainly state owned—Soum (county) governors can utilize county laws to approve the MSRM project.   These governors will have final approval on each PUGs’ land management plans.

Beyond assisting with developing better practices, the MSRM will assist PUGs in developing mutual aid societies.   The concept is that each herder will provide a small cash payment, as little as $25, to a fund managed by village level associate pasture groups.   From this savings fund, herders can borrow at a 3% interest rate.   In essence, this is an affordable financial source—unlike high interest bank loans.   These provide the farmers financial support through the long off-seasons.

“In brief, (the project) protects the long-term interest of the ecology through short term economic needs, combining them both,” says Tseelei.   “The PUG is based on the notion to protect, introducing proper grassland management.   We support this institution through meeting economic needs.”

MSRM will be a part of each step in this process, establishing the PUGs and offering support as they develop land management plans.

Where’s the Beef for Carbon Investors?

Sustainable land management and the resulting rehabilitation of overgrazed pastures can, according to a pre-feasibility analysis, yield increased soil carbon sequestration and emissions reductions from efficient livestock management.

MSRM is currently seeking a carbon investor that will support the project development, issue carbon payments and sign an Emission Reduction Purchase Agreement with MSRM.   This partner will also assist in the development and implementation of the carbon validation and verification.

The income from carbon reduction will be directed to the village-level groups to provide collective benefits.   “We can channel these resources through the PUG institution model so economic incentives are channeled through this institution and village level associations,” says Tseelei.

Though the PUG will disseminate the funding, each institution involved in the project will be responsible for an aspect of carbon emission reduction.   Beginning at the local level, PUGs are responsible for implementing grazing practices and fodder production.   Soum-level NGOs will monitor carbon services, surveying activity and production of the herders.MSRM then will supervise this carbon monitoring and assist with the implementation of improved management activities.  

Benefitting the Environment and the Economy

MSRM hopes that they can transform these sustainable practices into cold-hard cash for the herders seeking to partner with them.

At first glance, reducing herd sizes may seem like a good way to decrease one’s income.   But with the help of the MSRM, the herders will be rewarded with supplemental income and a higher yield on the products they sell.

This model, Tseelei believes, will exist as an example for the government, providing a way to channel the assistance through the herder community in a way that will encourage better management of the grassland and decreased stocking rate.   Though the herders will still have a choice not to participate, the project offers specific economic incentives.

For example, understanding and instituting the best feeding and processing practices in the dairy sector can increase the pastoralist’s income by 200 to 500%, according to one study of the dairy product processing activities.

Additionally, a Payment for Ecosystem Services scheme could provide supplemental income, as the change in practices will lead to higher quality soil and decreased carbon emissions.   MSRM is still seeking investors to purchase these carbon credits.

MSRM is also considering how to best work with the expanding mining business, which is currently 22% of the GDP and includes both foreign and domestic investors.   While this could involve carbon credits, it could also include other aspects of the land management projects.

For the long-term, Tseelei and her team believe the herders must find a more direct route to the expensive boutiques in Milan, Paris and New York who sell their cashmere wares and other animal products.     With the decreased number of stock and adoption of more sustainable practices, the product they produce will be of higher quality and value.   MSRM and the PUGs will then be able to market these products to a higher end market.

When the products are marketed, they will be showcased as natural and environmentally friendly.   MSRM is hoping to include that they are carbon certified, a key aspect of the project.   In addition, instead of sending these raw materials to Chinese manufacturers, MSRM would like the manufacturing to take place in Mongolia.   This would shorten the supply chain and increase the profits for the herders.

Even when the accumulation of carbon in the soil slows and eventually stops over time, the increased value of their products may lead to longer-term sustainability for the herders and the environmentally-friendly practices despite a decline in carbon payments.

However, the challenge still exists that they do not have a connection to the higher market.   Since Mongolia’s products are not known at the international level, Tseelei says they need experts to connect them directly with these higher-end markets.

Moving Forward

Tseelei sees this conference in the Hague as a good first step for connecting carbon emissions and agriculture, but she hopes that the momentum gathered here will not be lost.

“Everyone is totally committed, from organizers to participants, to really make some product out of this,” says Tseelei. “People have realized that we have really little time left and that we need to get into more action.”

She has learned from the other participants, meeting individuals who have had longer-term experience with grassland management.

“At the same time, it’s not just speeches,” says Tseelei.   “It’s a chance to meet some real investors.”   Indeed, she was able to meet companies and individuals that have expressed interest in the project.

Additional resources