Opinion: The Value of Ecosystem Services Valuations

It’s a fact that human life relies on the natural world but figuring out how to measure this dependency is difficult. Tundi Agardy, a marine conservation expert and the director of Forest Trends’ Marine Ecosystem Services Program, discusses her views on the benefits and dangers of ecosystem services valuations.

22 January 2014 | Nothing focuses the capitalist mind like high worth. If natural ecosystems can be demonstrated to have high value in the goods and services they provide, then – or so the thought goes – governments whose responsibility it is to ensure they are protected will be compelled to meet their obligations, while the private sector will see real benefit in investing. At the same time, in reaction to regulatory disincentive (a logical extension of government acting on its responsibilities) or in reaction to financial incentive (a logical extension of capturing private sector interest), communities and property rights owners will be stronger stewards, acting as individuals and as societies in ways so as to avoid undermining the golden goose.

We have seen this work in practice, and only a fool would argue that stressing the value of nature is a waste of breath. But what roles does economic valuation play in this? Is economic analysis always necessary to achieve conservation or sustainable use? And do economic analyses always lead to the expected, desirable outcomes?

You will already guess that the answers to these questions, at least in my mind, are not simple. Perhaps they are to an economist (which I am not), but as a conservation practitioner I have been surprised far too many times to think we have this one figured out.

The Basic Idea

An ecosystem services perspective provides us a way of looking at the collective value of nature. Admittedly the term has been slow to gain traction in our everyday language, but the concept is getting better acceptance as people toy with ways to articulate it. We now hear phrases like ‘nature’s benefits,’ ‘natural capital,’ ‘human dependence on nature,’ as well as terms borrowed from economics like ‘intrinsic value.’

Though the idea of environmental services was introduced in the 1970s, it really didn’t get widespread international attention until the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, published in 2005. Today a concerted international effort to understand ecosystem services and incorporate that understanding into decision-making (the IPBES-Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) is underway, but, honestly, we’re kidding ourselves if we think the world gets it. It is only in the telling of stories of loss (nature transformed, lost opportunities, costs of degradation) that the ecosystem services idea has real resonance.

How Much for this Ecosystem Service?

Loss is difficult to quantify. Loss goes beyond costs – it affects the human spirit, and society’s resilience. Nonetheless, we’ve seen how tragic catastrophic events periodically rekindle interest in what, exactly, nature does for us – and how imperative it is to protect these services for our well-being. Whether it is the Asian tsunami of 2004, Hurricane Katrina in 2005, or the more recent Hurricane Sandy (2012) and Typhoon Haiyan (2013), there are consistent expressions of ‘what if’ – “What if mangrove and reef off Aceh had been protected, would the loss of human life in the tsumani been less?” “What if we hadn’t messed with nature by removing oxbows, rechannelizing the Mississippi, stressing the coastal wetlands – would Katrina have caused so much damage?” “What if oyster reefs and salt marshes had been spared the ravages of development, would lower Manhattan and New Jersey shore communities been better protected from Sandy?”

Asking such hypotheticals won’t bring lost lives or property back, but it has spurred greater interest in understanding the roles of nature (ecosystem services) in minimizing risk.

So we have a sudden preponderance of studies quantifying the economic values of nature, including shoreline defense. The numbers can be huge, especially when derived from studies of loss of nature and how it affects wealthy communities or places where land value is extremely high. These data from localized studies are then extrapolated to other parts of the world, in a process known as “benefits transfer.” This has been done for hurricane damage and nature’s role in minimizing it, and also for other services with direct market value, such as support to fisheries and ecotourism.

In the coastal domain where I work, there are numbers one can grab from economic studies for any service one can think of, and with a few calculations and lots of caveats, one can present an estimate of the value of ecosystem services for any place in the world.

I have been guilty of this myself. But as is obvious, I am not comfortable with it. Value is not easily transferable – it is context specific. Not every society has a fisheries or ocean-going culture, so the potential value of fisheries offshore may never be captured. Is it fair to say that nature provides X amount of economic value in supporting fisheries when those fish will never be caught? Likewise with the more intangible values like aesthetic value – not all societies look similarly on nature. Is it fair to say something holds aesthetic value worth Y if the local communities don’t see it that way (literally)?

Since I am not an economist or social scientist, I don’t know how these sciences deal with such differences in perception, but I do believe that value is in the eye of the beholder.

Then there is the thorny problem of discounting. The value of something today is not carried forward into tomorrow – markets fluctuate, goods and services can become more rare (rendering them more valuable), substitutions can be found (rendering them less valuable), and the value in terms relative to the economy overall generally diminishes over time. Economists and planners have argued over what is a reasonable discounting rate, especially in settings where economic value drives environmental decision-making. And it is an important argument indeed – the loss of something with a discounting rate of 15% can be more easily rationalized than the loss of something that would have retained its value over time. Yet disappearing and compromised nature all around the world would suggest that these ecosystem services are indeed priceless, and we sacrifice them at our (and our grandchildren’s) peril.

So what role does economic valuation have in preventing this foolish destruction of nature at our own peril?

Positive Outcomes of ‘Good’ Valuation

Currently there are 934 marine ecosystem services valuations listed on the Marine Ecosystem Services Partnership (MESP) database, a virtual center of information based out of Duke University. The database links the economic value of ecosystems to their ecological value and then to the case study location. The library is constantly updated so the number of valuations listed is always growing.

But the fast growing number of valuation studies doesn’t necessarily mean the information is being put to good use, for management of natural systems or for society. There are good (helpful) studies, and then there are, well – less valuable ones. I risk revealing my true nature as an ecologist and not an economist when I speak to ‘good’ versus ‘not-so-good’ valuation. But bear with me.

Valuations, if done well and robustly, can influence policy at the local, regional, national, and international level in very positive ways. These include spurring planning and the development of policies to safeguard ecosystem services of value, determinations of risk, compensation for damage to natural capital, and a greater rationale for more holistic and effective ecosystem-based management, each discussed in detail below, in the context of the coastal systems.

Appraising the economic value of ecosystem services coming out of coastal and marine ecosystems has guided conservation planning in many parts of the world. For instance, protected areas are established in places with real or prospective value in supporting biodiversity (a non-market value) or in supporting ecotourism (a related market value).

The design of these protected areas in terms of boundaries and the way activities are managed can maximize economic rents or preserve economic values. And when coupled to innovative financing schemes that allow stewards of the resource to “sell” the services to those that benefit most from them (as in PES – Payments for Ecosystem Services, or what we would prefer to call INC – Investments in Natural Capital), crucial funds flows can be created for conservation and management.

In San Andres, Colombia, Forest Trends has worked with CORALINA to undertake economic studies of ecosystem services, focusing the attention of resort owners on the inherent value of sandy beaches for their business and promoting their investment in reef management specifically aimed at continued natural production and stabilization of those beaches.

Investing in Natural Capital

Calculating the economic value of nature can clearly attract investors, for both protection of nature and for restoration of nature (something that is inherently very expensive, and often beyond the budgets of government agencies charged with managing coastal and marine areas). But it has significance for financiers as well – determining values and appraising how well management protects those values can guide responsible investing, whether through trading firms or via development banks. And at the macroeconomic level, including ecosystem services values into national accounting can positively affect ratings, which in turn affects access to financial capital needed for sustainable development and further nature protection.

On the other end of the spectrum, determinations of economic value of services allows agencies to determine more precise compensation in the wake of damages, as occurs with ship groundings on reefs or oil spills. Having the baseline values determined avoids or reduces the guesswork and litigation that usually occurs following a catastrophic accident.

Injecting determinations of economic value into existing planning frameworks can also guide evaluation of trade-offs and steer decision-making toward greater rationality with longer time frames in mind.

In Belize, for instance, the Natural Capital project has applied Marine InVEST models to a host of scenarios for development, allowing the Coastal Zone Management Authority and Institute to assess the possible consequences of planning.

Similarly, economic values can find their way into Strategic Environmental Assessment (for example, Proecoserve.)

Working with our partners, we at Forest Trends are beginning to develop a comprehensive picture of nature’s benefits and how they flow to beneficiaries across the large and complex landscape/seascape of Marismas Nacionales, Mexico.

Examples abound at all levels of geographic scale and complexity, and many of these projects can rightfully claim that they have catalyzed the push toward more Ecosystem-based Management or EBM. And without EBM and its effective integration of watershed management, marine management, and land use management, our conservation investments are often wasted.

Economic valuation of nature’s services allows a more accurate appraisal of the awareness, attitudes, and motivations of the public. That, in and of itself, has immense value.

But – valuations can have unintended consequences.

Valuation Gone ‘Bad’

Putting a price tag on nature is unappealing to many, and can have unexpected negative consequences, catalyzing a backlash against even the very idea of ecosystem services. Fundamental to the backlash is the philosophical argument that nature has value in its own right, not only (and perhaps not primarily) in its support of human life and well-being.

But attaching economic value to nature does necessarily preclude a nature-centric (as opposed to human-centric) ideology. What is, in my mind, a more legitimate concern, is how the valuation information is used, and misused.

One pitfall can result from identifying a single service of high worth, and having all management attention and investment then focused on maximizing that commodity.

Take blue carbon, for example. As scientists have begun to quantify the amount of carbon sequestration being performed by coastal habitats like mangroves, salt marshes, and seagrass meadows, interest in capturing those values has led to methods for generating carbon credits (through VCS, possibly, or in the voluntary markets, or through REDD+ schemes).

Coastal managers and private landowners could be tempted to take steps to maximize carbon fixing, at the expense of other ecosystem services. Taken to its extreme conclusion, seagrass and salt marsh, along with beaches and salinas, might be converted to mangrove ‘plantations’ in order to generate, and sell, the maximum amount of blue carbon. These mangrove plantations could be maintained in isolation, without connection to other marine habitats or upstream watersheds, with no other production functions like shoreline stabilization, fish nurseries, water filtration, or biodiversity support, occurring.

Equality for All

At Forest Trends we’ve been trying to promote a much more holistic view of ecosystem services, even in cases where there is money to be made from commodifying a single service.

In the Abu Dhabi Blue Carbon Demonstration Project, we appraised all ecosystem services coming out of known Blue Carbon habitats (mangrove, seagrass, salt marsh, but also coastal sabkha and cyanobacterial mats), to stress the comprehensive value of functional natural habitats.

While we did estimate the potential collective value of these ecosystems for their services as part of blue carbon co-benefits, we cautioned against the maximization of any one service at the expense of the others. Other groups are looking at ‘bundled services’ too, undaunted by the complexities.

Nonetheless, the danger of having valuation lead to unsustainable and inequitable use remains. With human nature, the default trajectory is down the simplest path, especially one that may end in profit. And when part of the calculus for making decisions about access to space or resources, or in resolving conflicting uses, profitable activities often trump non-use values.

Flagging areas as particularly valuable in ecosystem services can lead to inequity, denial of access, privatization, and – in the worst case – land grabs. Short planning horizons and unrealistic discounting can bias all development decisions in the direction of ecosystem harm and ecosystem services loss, even when economic value for one or more services is found to be high.

Making a Difference

Will the valuation have a meaningful impact in terms of policy change for the ecosystem it is appraising? The question of influence is another large one when discussing valuation. And a report from the NGO WRI (World Resources Institute) found that coastal economic valuations over the Caribbean region helped raise awareness of the importance of coastal ecosystems but did little in influencing policy change. More than 200 such valuations that measure the monetary value of marine ecosystem goods and services exist on the Caribbean, according to WRI’s paper. But their study only identifies 13 that have had a positive influence on conservation or management based legislation.

The report identified that valuation led to the Belizean government banning bottom trawling and the creation of St. Maarten’s first national marine park.

Report authors collected research from existing literature on valuation and marine policy as well as from interviews from those involved-marine park managers, conservation advocates and economists. Their questions and data drew heavily from the creation of Bonaire National Marine Park, which is one of the best known cases of valuation impacting policy in the Caribbean.

One of the report authors, Richard Waite, notes that in the year since this paper was published, they have made adjustments to their results. They have discovered other influential valuations raising the number to 16.

No one officially tracks influence in a public way, Waite says, so there are probably a decent number of cases we don’t know about.

What’s more, policymakers weren’t a group interviewed for the paper. Speaking with them now, WRI found that policymakers largely want more valuation-a significant find for the future of such assessments.

The report also notes that the type of valuation plays a big role in delivering change on a large scale. Absolute accuracy from the valuation isn’t always critical depending on the context. Valuation should be conducted depending on the policy in question. Sometimes a ballpark figure is needed and other times-when related to taxes and fees-more precise data is required.

Outside of the actual data the valuation provides, governance and stakeholder engagement is a key factor that can’t be neglected if planning to catalyze change.

Is it Worth the Effort?

Even when such pitfalls are avoided, we might ask ourselves “Is it possible, or even desirable, to attach economic value to things like cultural or spiritual services? Do we ultimately undermine their value when we try to do this? Does putting a price tag on nature diminish our sense of wonder?”

With a utilitarian, capitalistic mindset, we may ignore the things that matter most to long term human well-being. And, paradoxically, we may become even less inclined to fight for nature and her services.

Economic valuation of nature’s services is part and parcel of better understanding and appreciating nature’s role in sustaining us – physically, mentally and spiritually. We can use economic valuation to improve our planning, our management, and to drive investment. However, it cannot be the lone driver for decision-making, and we must be aware of potential pitfalls, and consciously work to avoid them.

A Way Forward?

Perhaps the safest path is to adopt a broader view of what should be part and parcel of economic valuation. As recently described by Blake Ratner and Edward Allison in a policy review paper, economics is not just about wealth – healthy economies may have less to do with a wealthy generation, and more to do with reciprocity and cooperation to solidify rights and enhance resilience.

Nature’s role in providing the basis for social systems that maximize such resilience is obvious, — and priceless.

Tundi Agardy is the Director of Forest Trend’s Marine Ecosystem Services Program. She can be reached at [email protected].
Additional resources

Water Is A Top Three Global Risk, Says World Economic Forum

While water risk was ranked third among the World Economic Forum’s Global Risk 2014 report, at least three of the study’s top 10 risks are directly related to water problems like pollution and scarcity prompting report authors to argue these risks reach further than originally thought and must be solved through public-private collaboration.

This article was originally published on the Circle of Blue website. Click here to read it in its original format.

20 January 2014 | Too much, too little, too dirty. For the third consecutive year, reckless use and abuse of water is seen by global authorities as having the potential to seriously disrupt social stability, upend business supply chains, imperil food and energy production, and generally make life miserable for billions of people, according to the World Economic Forum’s annual Global Risks report.

 

Water Top Three Global Risks

 

The various threats to the planet’s supply of fresh water rank third – behind debt crises in key economies, and persistent unemployment – on the list of convulsive planetary threats of greatest concern to more than 700 business, government, and nonprofit leaders who responded to the Geneva, Switzerland-based think tank’s annual survey. The latest Global Risks report, released today, is the ninth in a series that dates to 2006.

The various threats to the planet’s supply of fresh water rank third on the list of convulsive planetary threats of greatest concern.

The security and quality of the world’s water, however, goes even deeper than its bronze-level citation. At least three of the top ten risks identified in the World Economic Forum’s survey are principally problems fundamentally involving water:

  1. The failure to avert or adapt to climate change.
  2. Floods and droughts fostered by extreme weather events.
  3. Water scarcity and pollution at the root of food contamination and supply crises.

The Global Risks report uses a broad analytical lens. Its 60 pages of spider web charts and bold colors serve to highlight the complexity and interconnections between risks and regions. The strands are so tightly woven that no government, business, or charity acting alone can solve them, said the report’s co-author Margareta Drzeniek-Hanouz, director and lead economist of the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness and Benchmarking Network.

“The issues are so big that they cannot be resolved by the business sector or the political sector alone,” Drzeniek-Hanouz told Circle of Blue. She added: “The report’s overarching recommendation is for public-private collaboration.”

Produced and stored within well-defined basins, problems involving water are generally viewed as having effects confined to a specific community or region. But the authors of the Global Risks study argue that water shortages and bursts of surpluses caused by flooding are systemic risks that reach much further.

Resource depletion increases the pressure on political systems, cultures, and economies.

The report cites research, for example, showing that a terrible drought in Syria from 2006 to 2011 set the table for the country’s civil war. Crop failures in the countryside prompted farmers to move to cities where existing economic and social pressures boiled over. Conflict was not an inevitable outcome, the report’s authors said, but resource depletion increases the pressure on political systems, cultures, and economies.

In 2010, drought and poor harvests in Russia, a large grain producer, led to export restrictions. Higher prices rippled through commodity markets, increased costs for bread, and added a tailwind to the Arab Spring revolt. A year later flooding in Thailand snapped global supply chains and caused car and computer manufacturing to crater.

Smaller, local skirmishes over water also are becoming more frequent. Just this week, two people were killed in South Africa during a protest over water shortages. Though the root cause in this case was mismanagement of water, the importance of a reliable supply was tragically confirmed.

The Global Risks report also takes note of longer-term trends involving the security of the world’s fresh water reserves. Climate change is a slow-motion lurch toward atmospheric conditions that will fundamentally change life on Earth in the coming decades, the authors said. A warming world will likely increase the likelihood of both engulfing floods and chronic drought. It will lift the oceans and put a treasure chest of property at risk – assets with an insured value of more than $US 10 trillion on the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coasts alone.

Roughly 600 million people also live in areas less than 10 meters (32.8 feet) above sea level. Low-lying Bangladesh and the Mekong River delta – two of the most densely populated regions on the planet – are endangered. Pacific Island nations are already seeing their homelands eroded and, in preparation for the day their homes will need to be abandoned, are testing the legal bounds of asylum.

In the continental interiors, extreme weather often takes the form of devastating scarcity or overwhelming abundance of water. Droughts destroy crops, and floods demolish homes. If dry conditions endure, a host of repercussions follow. Forests become a tinderbox awaiting a spark. Rivers shrivel, cutting hydropower generation, reducing the amount of water to cool power plants, and putting countries with a poorly managed electrical grid at risk for blackouts, as happened in Venezuela in 2009 and 2010. Worst of all, the competition for scarce food and water supplies heats up – sometimes with world-changing results.

Shifts in the Global Winds

Since 2006, when the first Global Risks report was made public, much has changed. The early editions emphasized macroeconomic risks: oil price shocks, a collapse in asset prices, or a decelerating Chinese economy. Chronic diseases, both in the rich world and in developing countries, made the list as did infectious pandemics. Risks were ranked according to economic losses and number of deaths, which gave greater weight to those risks more easily measured in dollar terms. Environmental risks such as water supply, climate change, and natural disasters were considered “core” risks but were firmly in the second-tier.

In the latest report, macroeconomic threats still rank high. After all, anxiety about global debt tops the list. But water and climate change have pushed upward. The report still uses economic loss and deaths as guidelines, but they are not assessed as overtly. Perception matters more.

Respondents were asked to assess 31 pre-selected risks based on the risk’s likelihood and severity in the next decade. For the first time, respondents were instructed to select the five risks they thought most concerning. Women and people younger than 30 were more likely than men and people older than 30 to perceive environmental risks more seriously. More young people have been included in the survey in recent years – one possible explanation for water’s rise.

The report encourages its respondents to consider the long term. Yet the window for avoiding the gravest threats is closing as the atmosphere gets warmer. Recent research on water scarcity makes that clear.

An increase in global average temperatures by 2 degrees Celsius compared to today will increase the number of people living with absolute water scarcity by 40 percent, according to a study published in December from dozens of researchers in China, Europe, Japan, and the United States. Absolute scarcity is defined as less than 500 cubic meters per person per year within a country. The increase in those living with scarcity is in addition to what would be expected from population growth.

“Every degree matters now,” said Jacob Schewe, the report’s lead author, and a scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

“The fundamental impact that climate change has on global water resources is becoming very clear now.”

“The fundamental impact that climate change has on global water resources is becoming very clear now,” Schewe added in an email to Circle of Blue. “We need reliable, quantitative knowledge about these impacts in order to support adaptation. But ultimately, there will be limits to what societies can adapt to, so climate change mitigation is crucial as the risk of water scarcity increases with rising temperatures.”

How to achieve that? The risk report asserts that a weakening U.S., a growing China, and a jumbled middle requires new forms of global decision-making if systemic risks such as climate change are to be addressed. In fact, respondents selected a failure in global governance as the risk most connected to all others.

 

WEF Chart

 

The report’s recommendations in this regard are thin and generic-buzzwords about multi-stakeholder action and “agile and responsive multilateral governance.” However, the purpose of the report is to be “a platform for discussion,” said Drzeniek-Hanouz. Perhaps attendees at the forum’s annual winter meeting in Davos, Switzerland next week will ponder a stronger recipe.

Brett Walton is a Seattle-based reporter for Circle of Blue with interests in infrastructure, pricing, Pacific Northwest and the Southwest. He can be reached at [email protected].

Writing About Food Security? Say It With Pictograms!

Food security is a critical yet complex issue, and CGIAR (formerly the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research) has issued a new set of pictograms designed to help people who need to communicate it do so with pictures.

7 February 2014 | Big Facts is an open-source, online library of pictograms designed to illustrate the nexus of climate change, agriculture and food security. It is intended to provide a credible and reliable platform for fact checking amid the range of claims that appear in reports, advocacy materials and other sources. Full sources are supplied for all facts and figures and all content has gone through a process of peer review.

Anyone is free to download, use and share the facts and graphic images.

The Big Facts project is led by the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). CCAFS is a strategic partnership of CGIAR and Future Earth, led by the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT). CCAFS brings together the world’s best researchers in agricultural science, development research, climate science and Earth System science, to identify and address the most important interactions, synergies and tradeoffs between climate change, agriculture and food security.

Additional resources

Forest, Ag Projects Can Combine Adaptation And Mitigation: CIFOR Study

COP 19 Coverage

We covered the COP from beginning to end, with a narrow focus on REDD and those issues still under discussion. Here is the bulk of our coverage, with a few breaking stories omitted.

Demand For Forest Carbon Offsets Rises As Forestland Under Carbon Management Grows sets the stage for Warsaw with a deep dive into the state of forest carbon markets around the world.

REDD, CDM Likely To Find A Place In New Climate Agreement: UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres offers hope that the troubled CDM market and REDD projects will be included in the international climate deal expected to be finalized in 2015.

Understanding Carbon Accounting Under The UN Framework Convention is a work in progress designed to explain in simple terms the complexity of carbon accounting under the emerging “REDD Rulebook”.

Indigenous Leaders Stand Up For Active Role In REDD relates what indigenous leaders expect from forest-carbon finance

REDD Reference Levels Share Stage With Broader Land-Use Issues In Warsaw outlines the issues on the table at the beginning of the talks.

In Warsaw As In California, Forest Carbon Carrot Needs Compliance Stick  explores the need for compliance drivers to boost demand for forest carbon offsets.

Forest, Ag Projects Can Combine Adaptation And Mitigation: CIFOR Study  highlights the missed opportunities to link multiple benefits in projects that aim to tackle the impacts of climate change.

Dutch Platform Turns Landscapes Talk Into REDD Reality examines a new platform unveiled in Warsaw that could serve as a model for future public-private partnerships for financing REDD+ projects.

The REDD Finance Roundtable: A Quick Chat With EDF, WWF, and UCS takes stock of the talks on the eve of the final REDD agreement.

For REDD Proponents, No Regrets  examines the early success of REDD pilot projects despite sluggish progress made in securing policy and financial support at the national and international levels.

US, UK, Norway Launch Next-Stage REDD Finance Mechanism Under World Bank examines a financing mechanism designed to support performance-based payments down the road.

After the talks, we began digging into the decisions and themes of the two-week talk, and will be rolling these stories out as they take shape.

Unpacking Warsaw, Part One: The Institutional Arrangements explores the last-minute deal that lays rules for governing REDD finance through 2015.

Unpacking Warsaw, Part Two: Recognizing The Landscape Reality explores the thinking behind the growing emphasis on “landscape thinking” in climate finance.

Unpacking Warsaw, Part Three: COP Veterans Ask, ‘Where’s The Beef?’ explores the reaction of carbon traders to the Warsaw outcomes and offers a peek into the year ahead.

Further stories in this series will explore the impact of individual decisions within the rulebook, the role that the rulebook can play in helping existing projects nest in jurisdictional programs, and the impact of the rulebook on the private sector.

 

 

18 November 2013| WARSAW | Tree planting in Uganda. Mangrove restorations along the coast of Indonesia and Vietnam. REDD in the Congo Basin and Indonesia. Proponents of projects like these have long argued that they can address both adaptation and mitigation. Now they have the data to back it up, thanks to a new study by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).

CIFOR decided to examine the growing interest in how adaptation and mitigation issues can be addressed in combination and look for win-win options, while also investigating concerns about the feasibility of this approach and the possible drawbacks, Bruno Locatelli, a scientist with CIRAD (Agricultural Research and Development)-CIFOR and lead author of this study, said at a side event at the COP19 UN climate negotiations in Warsaw last week.

During a systematic review of 139 papers, CIFOR found research that detailed how agriculture, forestry and soil management can contribute both to mitigation by, for instance, increasing carbon in soil, and adaptation by increasing the resilience of agricultural systems to climate variations. Other papers covered the impact of REDD+ projects on mitigation and adaptation, especially the use of forest projects by local communities as a method of livelihood diversification. But the papers also uncovered some trade-offs, including less water downstream, more vulnerability of watersheds and REDD+ projects that result in less access by local communities to the forest resources. “So it’s not only about synergies,” Locatelli said.

“In terms of the science, we still have a lot of gaps in knowledge, especially on the social aspects of the synergies,” he continued. “We need stronger evidence, especially at the local level.”

The CIFOR study examined 235 adaptation and mitigation projects in different portfolios, including Clean Development Mechanism projects and Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standard (CCB) certified projects. “We found that many projects have the potential to contribute to the other goal,” Locatelli said.

Of the 123 mitigation projects evaluated, 71 projects were not considering adaptation while 15 were explicitly considering adaptation and 37 projects provided evidence of adaptation consideration. Of the 112 adaptation projects examined, 89 were not considering mitigation contributions at all while only 22 were explicitly considering mitigation and only one additional project was explicitly considering mitigation and giving evidence of it.

“It is a question of motivation or rationale,” he said. “Given that funding streams differentiate adaptation and mitigation, an adaptation project receiving adaptation money has no reason to demonstrate a contribution to mitigation even if it has one.”

For example, one adaptation project in Colombia proposed to implement resilient agriculture practices, promote livelihood diversification and ecosystem restoration with flood resistant trees to reduce flooding downstream, integrating adaptation throughout the project. At the same time, the project was expected to achieve mitigation benefits such as increased carbon storage in soils and trees, but these benefits were not explicitly recognized in the project documentation, Locatelli said.

“Project analysis shows that many projects have the potential to have synergies between adaptation and mitigation, but the rationale for doing it is not so clear,” he said. “I think we have to move beyond this project document analysis and go to see how projects are developing in the field to get more sense of this rationale.”

Overall, 78% of the adaptation projects examined had the potential to report a contribution to mitigation because the activities had an impact on the carbon in forest or soils. Meanwhile, 100% of the mitigation projects had the potential to contribute to adaptation. “It doesn’t mean they will automatically contribute to adaptation,” Locatelli said. “They may have to adjust their project design, but they have the potential to do it.”

CCB Rules

The study also revealed that mitigation projects certified by the CCB have a greater potential to integrate adaptation benefits because of the guidelines and incentives proposed by the standard, with 46 CCB projects evaluated in the study. “It was interesting to see how CCB was moving things along in terms of synergies with adaptation and mitigation,” he said. “You can really see a difference between CCB projects and others.”

The CCB standards were originally developed for climate change mitigation and to help draw investment and support to projects that also deliver community and biodiversity benefits. The organization eventually added a gold level designation for adaptation. The projects have to perform modeling on climate change in the area and how it is going to impact people and biodiversity in the area and explain why their activities are going to help communities adapt to climate change, said Joanna Durbin, director of the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance.

“What we’re interested in is, ‘will the market pick up on that’?,” she said.

In September, the Oddar Meanchey REDD+ project in Cambodia became the first in the world to complete verification of emission reductions under the Verified Carbon Standard with a triple gold CCB accreditation, which signals that the project is delivering the highest community, biodiversity, and adaptation impact benefits along with robust accounting for emission reductions.

In Indonesia, REDD is part of the presidential agenda because 78% of emissions come from the land-use sector, said Pak Heru Prasetyo, Deputy Head of President’s Delivery Unit for Development Monitoring and Oversight. Of the country’s 41% by 2020 emissions reduction target, 83% should come from the land and forest sector. REDD projects that achieve both adaptation and mitigation goals are crucial to meeting these goals, he said.

“Mitigation is definitely important, adaptation is unavoidable and has to be done right away,” Prasetyo said.

However, there are many perceived barriers to the integration of adaptation and mitigation into these projects, including the different rationales driving their implementation, according to the study. There is a school of thought, for example, that mitigation projects should be implemented in locations and sectors where they are most cost-effective or have the highest emissions, while adaptation projects should be targeted for the most vulnerable areas. In addition, the funding for adaptation and mitigation projects often comes from government agencies with different agendas that do not overlap.

Financing the Linkage

The CIFOR analysis incorporated 22 interviews with major fund representatives to investigate their views on integrating both adaptation and mitigation benefits into forestry and agriculture projects. All agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that there are clear benefits in integrating adaptation into mitigation projects, with one of the fund managers responding that it would be difficult if not impossible to undertake REDD+ projects successfully without incorporating adaptation.

In contrast, only 75% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the premise that there are clear benefits of integrating mitigation into adaptation projects, while 17% were uncertain and 8% disagreed with the statement.

“Adaptation objectives into mitigation projects provide benefits for the project –permanence/sustainability, acceptance/legitimacy – while adding mitigation objectives into adaptation projects has not so clear benefits for projects,” Locatelli said.

While fund managers are interested in projects that achieve these synergies, very few have actually taken steps to pave the way for such integration, the CIFOR study found. Only 37% had plans to better harness these synergies. About 32% said projects with adaptation and mitigation synergies were more likely to be accepted for funding, but only 11% provided guidance on such synergies to project developers.

The Humanitarian Approach

In Uganda, a campaign to engage children in planting thousands of trees has been underway, as well as local districts implementation of policies that ban the cutting down of trees for specified timeframes, said Shaban Mawanda, Senior Programme Manager-Disaster Risk Reduction, Uganda Red Cross.

“Of course, we think this is something good,” he said. “It’s not a perfect solution because if you tell the local people not to cut down trees, there must be an alternative because they have to eat, they have to live. But we believe this is something that we can build on.”

“We believe that both adaptation and mitigation will be achieved if we focus on the simple, low-cost, local community actions that can easily be replicated by the communities themselves,” Mawanda stated.

In response to the constant flooding and typhoon threat posed to the coasts of Vietnam, the Vietnam Red Cross has been engaged in an extensive mangrove plantation effort for about 20 years. But the mangroves are estimated to have absorbed 16.3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2025, at a value of about $18 million.

“It was not started as a climate change adaptation or climate change mitigation project,” said Susil Perera, IFRC Secretariat. “It was started as a disaster preparedness and a disaster restoration program.”

For Indonesia, projects that integrate adaptation and mitigation are incredibly personal, following the devastating impact of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, which instigated immediate discussions during the rebuilding effort in the affected Aceh province on how to adapt to the impact of the tsunami and mitigate the impact of similar events in the future. Mangroves were planted along the coast to help protect against another potential tsunami.

“Adaptation and mitigation for us is very close to our heart and is something we see as inseparable,” Prasetyo said.

 

Additional resources

REDD Reference Levels Share Stage With Broader Land-Use Issues In Warsaw

The REDD Rulebook

The “Rulebook” is actually a collection of seven decisions that together provide guidance on how countries can harvest available data to create reliable snapshots of their forests over time and to use these snapshots to create deforestation reference levels that will be recognized by the UNFCCC.

The decisions govern, among other things, modalities for monitoring national forests, addressing the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation, and measuring, reporting and verifying activities designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

It’s still, however, not clear what sort of payoffs that data will yield long-term, and for that there’s a work program for developing results-based finance in support of REDD and a new set of arrangements between the COP and the Green Climate Fund. The decisions also include a mechanism for helping developing countries deal with loss and damage from climate change.

The final decision reached is the one covering institutional arrangements for REDD finance moving forward.

COP 19 Coverage

We covered the COP from beginning to end, with a narrow focus on REDD and those issues still under discussion. Here is the bulk of our coverage, with a few breaking stories omitted.

Demand For Forest Carbon Offsets Rises As Forestland Under Carbon Management Grows sets the stage for Warsaw with a deep dive into the state of forest carbon markets around the world.

REDD, CDM Likely To Find A Place In New Climate Agreement: UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres offers hope that the troubled CDM market and REDD projects will be included in the international climate deal expected to be finalized in 2015.

Understanding Carbon Accounting Under The UN Framework Convention is a work in progress designed to explain in simple terms the complexity of carbon accounting under the emerging “REDD Rulebook”.

Indigenous Leaders Stand Up For Active Role In REDD relates what indigenous leaders expect from forest-carbon finance

REDD Reference Levels Share Stage With Broader Land-Use Issues In Warsaw outlines the issues on the table at the beginning of the talks.

In Warsaw As In California, Forest Carbon Carrot Needs Compliance Stick  explores the need for compliance drivers to boost demand for forest carbon offsets.

Forest, Ag Projects Can Combine Adaptation And Mitigation: CIFOR Study  highlights the missed opportunities to link multiple benefits in projects that aim to tackle the impacts of climate change.

Dutch Platform Turns Landscapes Talk Into REDD Reality examines a new platform unveiled in Warsaw that could serve as a model for future public-private partnerships for financing REDD+ projects.

The REDD Finance Roundtable: A Quick Chat With EDF, WWF, and UCS takes stock of the talks on the eve of the final REDD agreement.

For REDD Proponents, No Regrets  examines the early success of REDD pilot projects despite sluggish progress made in securing policy and financial support at the national and international levels.

US, UK, Norway Launch Next-Stage REDD Finance Mechanism Under World Bank examines a financing mechanism designed to support performance-based payments down the road.

After the talks, we began digging into the decisions and themes of the two-week talk, and will be rolling these stories out as they take shape.

Unpacking Warsaw, Part One: The Institutional Arrangements explores the last-minute deal that lays rules for governing REDD finance through 2015.

Unpacking Warsaw, Part Two: Recognizing The Landscape Reality explores the thinking behind the growing emphasis on “landscape thinking” in climate finance.

Unpacking Warsaw, Part Three: COP Veterans Ask, ‘Where’s The Beef?’ explores the reaction of carbon traders to the Warsaw outcomes and offers a peek into the year ahead.

Further stories in this series will explore the impact of individual decisions within the rulebook, the role that the rulebook can play in helping existing projects nest in jurisdictional programs, and the impact of the rulebook on the private sector.

 

12 November 2013 | WARSAW| Poland | Developed countries have set aside billions of dollars to help rainforest nations save their forests by earning credits for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD). They won’t start spending it in a big way, however, until they see trustworthy reference levels that tell them both how much carbon is captured in the recipient countries’ forests, farms, and prairies and how that carbon content is changing.

Developing countries, on the other hand, are reluctant to invest time and effort in creating reference levels until they know the money will flow. Some of them, most notably Brazil, are also adamantly against third-party verification, which they see as a violation of sovereignty.

These and other issues are a central focus of talks today, as the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) works to crystallize existing principles for the creation of reference levels into concrete guidelines that will be shared with the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) tomorrow.

The general expectation here is that a text will be finished and approved by the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (AWG-ADP) by the end of the week. It then gets handed up to the high-level negotiators – the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC – next week.

The Knowledge and Finance Gaps

By issuing clear guidance, the UNFCCC aims to help close the knowledge gap, which will help close the finance gap next year. This week’s guidance, however, will still leave a massive hole in the general understanding that forestry practitioners have of terrestrial carbon accounting.

Several efforts are underway to correct this, chief among them being an intensive month-long course in advanced terrestrial carbon accounting that the University of California at San Diego (UCSD) and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) launched at UCSD’s La Jolla campus this summer. We participated in that program, and are in the process of harvesting our notes for a detailed primer on carbon accounting, which is under development here.

Wider Agriculture

Tangential to the talks, SBSTA also held a workshop earlier today to explore the technical and scientific aspects of helping agriculture adapt to climate change. While efforts to use carbon finance to promote climate-safe agriculture have not proven economical, they have increased yields enough to make the practices worthwhile. Carbon finance may help by funding education and other efforts in support of agriculture.

The weekend in the middle of the talks is traditionally reserved for “Forests Day”, but this year it’s been replaced with “Landscapes Day”, which is designed to explore the interconnected drivers of land-use change.

 

Additional resources

Demand For Forest Carbon Offsets Rises As Forestland Under Carbon Management Grows

Covering New Ground, Ecosystem Marketplace’s new State of the Forest Carbon Markets report launched today in London. Among the findings in this year’s report include market growth by 9% and a growing interest from the business community in payment schemes that protect forests. Also in 2012, the amount of forest conserved by carbon finance grew to 26.5 million hectares.

5 November 2013 | Carbon finance supported the management of forests spanning 26.5 million hectares worldwide as businesses in 2012 injected a near-record $216 million into projects that plant trees, avoid deforestation, improve forest management and support low-carbon agriculture.

These projects, a key defense against the ecological and socio-economic impacts of climate change, were financed by the sale of 28 million tonnes of carbon offsets, according to the 2013 State of the Forest Carbon Markets report released by non-profit researchers Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace this week in London.

Representing 162 projects in 58 countries, the report tracks forest carbon management over a land area larger than Ecuador. While market size grew 9%, the global average price for forestry offsets was $7.8/tonne – down from $9.2/tonne in 2011, but still higher than prices paid by voluntary buyers for other offset types ($5.9/tonne).

Multinational corporations driven by responsible business ethics and a desire to show leadership on climate change bought two out of every three forestry offsets sold. The top buyer sectors ‒ energy, agriculture/forestry and transportation ‒ depend on forests’ ecosystem services (e.g. clean water) for their business, and some view investments forest carbon investments as a kind of insurance against direct exposure to climate risks.

Overall, this year’s report findings illustrate growing corporate interest in incentive payments to protect forests as a climate response, despite political and economic challenges to carbon price mechanisms more broadly.

“Private businesses increasingly recognize the numerous climate risks to their security of supply and producer livelihoods,” says Forest Trends president and CEO Michael Jenkins. “This reports demonstrates what industry first-movers already know, that financing forests’ conservation and sustainable management is not just about license to do business, or image. It can directly benefit companies’ infrastructure, suppliers, and bottom lines.”

Industries in California and Australia also sought forest carbon offsets to prepare for domestic carbon regulations. While California’s compliance cap-and-trade market began this year, the future of Australia’s carbon price is uncertain, with new leadership pledging to ax the country’s carbon tax.

Projects that reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation (“REDD”) saw heightened demand in 2012, as private companies like The Walt Disney Company and clothing brand Puma invested millions to support REDD projects in developing countries. A total of 8.6 million REDD offsets were transacted, tying with tree planting activities as 2012’s most popular project types. Projects that improve forest management climbed in popularity, while carbon finance for sustainable agriculture remained muted. Yet, the private sector and negotiators are increasingly attentive to agricultural carbon projects’ strong business case and benefits to avoided deforestation.

“In most regions, unsustainable smallholder or commercial agriculture is a primary driver of deforestation that projects in our survey are trying to address,” says report co-author and Ecosystem Marketplace Associate Director Molly Peters-Stanley. “So it’s no surprise that land-use experts, donors, and communities themselves, are pushing climate-smart agriculture and its symbiotic ties to forest protection to the front of the climate agenda.”

Offset buyers strongly supported forest projects that deliver benefits beyond carbon sequestration, such as alternative local livelihoods and habitat protection for threatened species. Projects reporting community-held land tenure covered 13.7 million ha and were valued at more than $70 million, representing a particular interest in projects that benefit smallholders. Projects that actively monitored their social and environmental gains were behind 61% of offsets sold. Likewise, the market’s most popular third-party project standard, the Verified Carbon Standard, was rarely utilized without dual certification to the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standards.

Even with strong growth in forestry offset demand in 2012, forest project developers reported 30 million tonnes that remained unsold at year’s end. Though developers predict strong market growth, their projects’ emissions reductions are expected to outstrip historical offset demand, with developers expecting to reduce another 1.4 billion tonnes of emissions over the next five years. Most of these reductions will come from REDD projects.

As market participants admit, finding a home for these offsets will ultimately hinge on regulation. United Nations member states will convene in Warsaw next week to continue negotiating a post-Kyoto Protocol international climate agreement, which has previously stumbled on the topic of monitoring of REDD activities. Some observers believe that overcoming this hurdle is key to progressing toward a new agreement in 2015.

The State of the Forest Carbon Markets 2013 is publicly and freely available thanks to support from the report’s Premium Sponsors: the Program on Forests (PROFOR), the World Bank Biocarbon Fund, Face the Future, and New Forests; Sponsors: Althelia Ecosphere and Baker & McKenzie; and additional support from the UK Forestry Commission’s Woodland Carbon Code – all of which enable Ecosystem Marketplace to explore developments on the frontier of ecosystem service finance.

Additional resources

Pendleton Highlights Need To Communicate The Value Of Marine Ecosystem Services To Wider Audience

Linwood Pendleton, the Director of Ocean and Coastal Policy at Duke University, recently answered questions on marine and coastal ecosystem services during an interactive ‘Office Hour’ online chat. The questions were wide-ranging, but Pendleton focused on connecting with decision makers through relevant high quality data that is easily communicated.

5 November 2013 | As Director of Ocean and Coastal Policy at Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions and manager of the Marine Ecosystem Services Partnership, Linwood Pendleton has been able to view his watery landscape both deeply and widely. Early last month, he engaged in an online “Office Hour” chat with members of the marine ecosystem community, and offered his insights into the science, the politics, and the economics of developing results-based financing for oceans.

The greatest challenge, he says, isn’t the research, but the communication of that research. Research needs to be communicated in such a way that it causes real political action as well as unleash funding for the right type of research that will generate results. He cautioned against spending excessive amounts of time and money on models and data that decision makers, institutions and individuals don’t relate to or trust. Instead, he said, researchers need to identify specific data relevant to marine policy to make it clear to all what we do and don’t know, and then make the case for moving forward. This basic understanding can be built on and then used to analyze how human activities impact the environment. Deciphering the factors that inhibit ecosystem services thinking is another element that deserves more thought and time.

“If the quantification of ecosystem services doesn’t change behavior, then why do it,” Pendleton says.

Pendleton stressed identifying decision makers and to use information that would relate to or impact their interests. The first thing I do when contemplating a valuation study is to ask- ‘Who am I communicating this information to and what are they going to do with it?’ he says.

Analyzing Ecosystem Services

Figuring out just how to communicate the ecosystem services concept to different actors is tricky. A report by the non-profit research organization, the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI), found that just 2% of ecosystem services valuations actually influenced policy in recent years. The possibility that valuation studies don’t generate the expected results isn’t popular thought but it seems Pendleton agrees, at least, to a certain extent. He discusses how using the term, ‘ecosystem services,’ and placing a value on them would seemingly relay the message to the business community. That way companies would be able to measure the risk as well as understand their dependence on the environment in order to conduct business. But Pendleton argues it doesn’t always work. In some cases, the services measured, such as lives protected or saved with ecosystem services- don’t help the business community understand their own reliance on these services.

“In much of the rush to valuation, I think we naively believed that putting a monetary value on all types of ecosystem services would make them more understandable to business types,” Pendleton says.

Some companies are more likely to respond when revenues or local jobs are factored in, he says, which is just another reason to focus in on decision makers’ specific interests.

Marine Ecosystems Provide Obscure and Far Reaching Benefits

Others argue the term, ‘ecosystem services,’ puts too much of an emphasis on nature’s economic importance. Recreational services, like wildlife viewing or surfing, are harder to quantify in monetary terms than hunting or fishing because they don’t generate as many obvious financial benefits. But they do generate benefits, Pendleton says. A study he was involved with showed how surfing contributes significantly to California’s economy.

Benefitting from ecosystem services is a wide topic and one that was touched on during the conversation. Where an ecosystem service is produced tells us almost nothing of who benefits from it, Pendleton says. Marine ecosystems need to be linked not only to the users within the ecosystems but also to users in other locations. Pendleton uses the example of the Sargasso Sea in the Atlantic Ocean. It provides critical habitat for turtles and other species as well as local fishing activities. It also is the only spawning site for several species including the endangered eel that populate Europe and America’s east coast and serve as food, bait and fish food.

Possibilities with PES

Benefits in the form of payments for ecosystem services (PES) is another important aspect of valuing marine ecosystem services, especially since coastal environments are often forced to decide between economic development and conservation. PES can prevent this by providing payments for maintaining environmental quality. A growing understanding of blue carbon is also helping to maintain marine ecosystems through payment schemes that keep carbon in the soils of seagrasses, mangrove forests and salt marshes.

PES mechanisms could also include payments for those upstream caring for the watershed. The ecosystems must be healthy in order to store carbon so invested stakeholders may be willing to include upstream caretakers in the payment deal. Those invested in blue carbonwould pay farmers to sustainably care for the land and watershed.

Finding the Right Tools

Instruments for evaluating marine services were another popular topic. As mentioned, data collection plays a fundamental role in how these ecosystem services are presented to different actors. Pendleton points out the importance of using the right tools for the specific question at hand. Don’t change the question so it fits with the data available, he says. Modeling tools that allow one ecosystem service to be changed independently of others in the same ecosystem can also cause problems because it doesn’t reflect reality. Ecosystem services are produced jointly and therefore dependent on each other, Pendleton says.

Emerging tools include a valuation kit created by non-profit Earth Economics, which quantifies the goods and services of regional ecosystems. There is also InVEST, which is a set of software models that map and value ecosystem services. It’s similar to MIMES (multi-scale integrated models of ecosystem services), another suite of models that can measure the effects of land and sea-use change on the environment.

The Right Research

Determining the best method to use to value Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) is all about data collection, Pendleton says, and not as much about a specific tool or a combination of tools. As of now, not enough research is done regarding MPAs. The best way to demonstrate that MPAs bring economic and ecological benefits is by gathering data before and after implementation of the MPA and then during the many different management approaches that are attempted. This will show how the different management activities affect the ecosystem and the local populations.

In terms of databases on valuation services, Pendleton listed several including NOEP (National Oceans Economics Program), Gecoserv and Earth Economics. There will soon be a database at IPBES (Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) as well, he says.

Locating Linkages

“What marine policies right now cry out for is better information on ecosystem services,” says Pendleton.

And better communication with the information it has. Pendleton believes comprehensive integrated human and ecological research sites could demonstrate the cause and effect of human impacts on ecosystem services.

Pendleton says, “we spend far too much time modeling hypothetical ecosystem service outcomes, producing models that no one believes.”

Additional resources

Why And How To Invest In Forested Landscapes

1 November 2013 | Natural ecosystems like forests and wetlands provide essential services to water utilities, businesses, and communities—from water flow regulation and flood control to water purification and water temperature regulation. To ensure these ecosystem functions and associated benefits continue, com- munities can strategically secure networks of natural lands, working landscapes, and other open spaces as “natural infrastructure.” While concrete-and-steel built infrastructure will continue to play a critical role in water storage and treatment, investing in natural infrastructure can reduce or avoid costs and enhance water services and security as part of an integrated system to cost-effectively deliver safe drinking water.

Now is a critical moment facing water resource managers and beneficiaries nationwide. Much of America’s aging built infrastructure for drinking water is nearing the end of its useful life, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers. Yet funds for investment in water infrastructure are drying up in an era of fiscal austerity. As utility rates for drinking water are increasing faster than inflation and household incomes (Harris 2012), the need is clear for lower cost, integrated solutions to meet water infrastructure demands of the 21st century.

Recognizing this critical moment, water resource managers are looking to invest in ecosystems to address emerging water issues. Promising efforts across the country have secured natural infrastructure for water management objectives through a variety of means—from land acquisition, zoning ordinances, and conservation easements to catastrophic wildfire risk mitigation and pay- ments to private landowners for best management practices. These efforts have yielded a number of valuable lessons and highlighted several challenges.

A number of barriers have impeded efforts to scale up the integration of natural infrastructure into water management nationwide. For example, many utilities, municipalities, and businesses face knowledge gaps among key constituents or even internal decision makers. These entities often lack the financial resources or technical guidance needed to champion natural infrastructure. Moreover, utilities have struggled to quantify the ecological and economic benefits of natural infrastructure, a task made more difficult by imperfect science.

Natural Infrastructure Table

Even where the case has been made, public utilities work with financial accounting standards that do not enable operations and maintenance spending on natural infrastructure as part of normal business practices, despite the clear benefits. Ultimately, however, the movement toward widespread, landscape-level investments in natural infrastructure nationwide can be successful if key decision makers in key institutions have the understanding, know-how, and tools needed to act.

In light of these challenges and opportunities, this guide is intended to be a foothold for those who can champion natural infrastructure in water utilities, local conservation groups, and private businesses, and who need a persuasive case, a road map of next steps, and overarching guidance to do so. It attempts to provide the resources, science and economics, illustrations, and guidance needed to foster meaningful dialogue with watershed decision makers and stakeholders around natural infrastructure options, to secure adoption and commitment, and to begin early design and implementation steps on solid footing. It is the most comprehensive publication of its kind to date, pulling together the perspectives of 56 authors spanning the stakeholder groups and experts who need to be involved for natural infrastructure efforts to be successful. As such, it is a go-to reference for their colleagues across the water resource management and conser- vation fields, agencies at all levels of government, and academia.

Together, these authors have threaded together the evolving “story” of the forest-based natural infrastructure approach to source water protection. These take-aways from the economics and underlying science, the opportunity for the approach across the country, and lessons for program design and implementation comprise the guidance and over- arching narrative of this guide.

Economcis

The economic benefits can be substantial. High source water quality and well-regulated flow can reduce the capital and water. Numerous studies have affirmed the intuitive: High source water quality can reduce treatment costs. And across the United States, we have seen utilities with high source water and even major capital investments, by bypassing elements of the conventional treatment process. Similarly, ecosystem-regulated water flow can have substantial economic benefits by avoiding flood-related damage and maintaining water supply through dry seasons.

The financial case can be made. The case for natural infrastructure investment has been made in several watersheds nationwide, and a methodology for “green-gray analysis” is available to compare the financial merits of integrated natural and built infrastructure alternatives.

Natural infrastructure investments are actionable despite uncertainty. Ultimately, the strength of natural infrastructure economic analyses depends on the robustness of the underlying science. Even where detailed scientific modeling has not been conducted, conservative assumptions and careful sensitivity analyses can produce actionable results. However, being overly conservative about costs and benefits can also lead to underestimation of the returns of natural infrastructure.

Science

The scientific foundation is imperfect, but robust. The water-related functions of healthy forested landscapes are well- established; maintaining healthy, forested landscapes and implementing best practices in forestry management can be effective strate- gies for promoting source water quality and regulating flow. For example, forests help to anchor soil against erosion, promote infiltration and minimize overland flow, prevent nutrient delivery to streams, minimize the impact of rain-on-snow events, and maintain snow pack later into the spring. Best practices in forest management can help maintain these critical functions and mitigate the potentially negative impacts of activities such as timber harvest and road construction.

Inherent variability poses challenges for quantification. While the science is robust, there is inherent variability across and within watersheds in the magnitude of water resources impact of a given land cover change or management practice. Quantitative water- shed models can help to address part of this variability. These tools are advancing in reliability and usability, and can account for a portion of the variability in natural ecosystems. While there is a growing number of applications of these models, modeling remains relatively resource-intensive and results inevitably come with some level of uncertainty.

Risks and uncertainty can be managed. Despite residual scientific uncertainty, natural infrastructure options are actionable. Given robust but imperfect science and the need to prevent the perfect from being the enemy of the good—as in all things—the dominant approach to natural infrastructure investments has been to manage uncertainty and maximize cost-effectiveness by: a) prioritizing types of interventions (e.g., easements and best management practices) and the distribution of those interventions throughout the watershed, b) carefully monitoring the response of water resources throughout implementation, and c) managing investments adaptively to maximize outcomes.

Opportunity

The opportunity is widespread. Water- sheds across the United States have opportunities to integrate natural infrastructure alongside critical built infrastructure. The fundamental conditions needed for natural infrastructure to be a potentially viable solution to water needs are quite basic and found in diverse watersheds across the United States. Unfortunately, costly water management challenges are increasingly widespread in the United States. Where there is a clear connection between these challenges and ecological conditions on the landscape—for example, loss or degradation of natural ecosystems due to development, wildfire, invasive species, or unsustainable forestry—the natural infrastructure investment approach can play a role.

Local decision maker participation is critical for success. The success of the approach depends on the ability of natural infrastructure champions to make the case to local decision makers and stakeholders, and to articulate a vision of success. Early engagement efforts with decision makers should be careful to understand and take into account their priorities, preferences, and perceptions related to water delivery, source water management, and natural infrastructure.

Design and Implementation

Cultivating partnerships is an important first step toward success. In each of the successful attempts to build robust pro- grams for investment in natural infrastructure, essential components have been collaboration among a variety of stakeholders and experts, and the emergence of champions within stake- holder groups to push the program forward. The co-benefits associated with natural infra- structure—benefits such as carbon sequestration, wildlife, and recreation—can motivate a wide range of stakeholder groups to partner with water utilities and other beneficiaries. These partnerships can be critical to success as they expand available resources, increase capacity, and provide political capital.

Landowner participation is essential in privately owned watersheds. Landowners are highly independent, value their autonomy, and generally engage in agriculture or forestry because it is a way of life as well as an eco- nomic enterprise. In addition to the financial inducement being offered, landowners con- sider how the program is designed and admin- istered as part of their participation decision.

Investment must be large-scale and sus- tained. A long list of public, private, and hybrid public/private finance mechanisms is available to get dollars on the ground to restore, enhance, protect, and manage natural infrastructure for water resources. The primary challenge is to select a finance mechanism (or combination of mechanisms) that is capable of gaining the nec- essary political support for adoption, while also generating sufficient funds for meaningful and sustained investment in natural infrastructure.

While there are several challenges facing the natu- ral infrastructure approach, several forest-based water management efforts have been successfully implemented in watersheds across the United States to provide clean and abundant source water at reduced cost and with a suite of co-benefits for people and nature. These efforts and the lessons they produced are profiled in this guide.

From experience with the natural infrastructure approach, a set of “action items” are evident for both watershed stakeholders and the broader community of practitioners working to scale up the approach nationwide.

Natural Infrastructure Chart

Action items for water managers, conservationists, and other stakeholders at the local watershed level

  1. Assess the watershed for ecological condition and trends causing water-related issues tied to substantial current or projected costs;
  2. Engage with key stakeholders and decision makers early and often to articulate a vision of success, expand capacity for program development and implementation through strategic partner- ships and consultation with experts, and build on the lessons of past successes and failures;
  3. Conduct necessary economic analyses to determine if natural infrastructure is the best approach and to make the case for financial investment;
  4. Assess a broad array of finance mechanisms with an eye toward securing large-scale “anchor funding” as well as a broader “funder quilt” to ensure meaningful and sustained investment over the long term;
  5. Prioritize investments across parcels and interventions (i.e., reforestation or forest best management practices), monitor outcomes, and adapt investments accordingly.

Action items for the broader community of practitioners

  1. Actively participate in the community of experts, facilitators, consultants, and “mobilizers” seeking to scale up integration of natural infrastructure into water management strategies, in order to leverage others’ efforts;
  2. Assist in securing large-scale natural infra- structure funds such as bonds by ballot mea- sure and natural infrastructure “set-asides” like the 20 percent green infrastructure require- ment in the State Revolving Funds (SRS);
  3. Expand research to quantify forest-to-water connections and improve the reliability and accessibility of watershed models;
  4. Improve accounting standards to enable opera- tions and maintenance spending on natural infrastructure by public entities as part of normal business practices;
  5. Build awareness among the water resource management industry, the urban planning field, ratepayers, and taxpayers of the impor- tance of natural infrastructure as a cost-effec- tive and beneficial element of an integrated solution to emerging water issues.

Perhaps the two most important lessons learned from natural infrastructure efforts to date are the power of individuals and the importance of partner- ships. Ultimately, the most effective messengers to decision makers and stakeholders affecting natural infrastructure decisions at the local level are influential individuals within their own institutions. Behind successful natural infrastructure programs are consistently the often-unsung source water coordinators, conservation staff, and sustainability officers creating real change.

These champions can be those in positions of power, but they need not be. A source water coordinator or manager in a public utility, a risk manager in a private business, or a water program manager in a state environmental agency can have immense impact within their respective institutions—many have been creating that impact for decades. These champions lead and inspire by offering fresh ideas and creativity where precedent might otherwise win the day—and by coming to the table with the evidence base to support those ideas. They identify likely challenges within their institutions and seek external support where appropriate to overcome those challenges.

In the source water context, these champions may need to help decision makers step outside the bounds of their primary roles and grow their competencies through various learning processes. Water utilities and municipalities that have been able to innovate in the face of the internal and external challenges they face recognize that bringing the natural infrastructure approach to scale will require institutional change in combination with a concerted effort to provide external cover by raising public awareness.

At the same time, successful cases have illustrated the importance of leveraging the resources, capacity, and political capital of a wide set of partners—including those who have not traditionally partnered with water utilities. The wide range of benefits offered by natural infrastructure—not just for water but also wildlife, recreation, climate, and rural economic development—offers a salient opportunity to build new coalitions across utilities, rural landowners, conservation groups, and private businesses.
But the task is not easy. As one utility staffer put it, if this were so, we’d have been doing it at scale a long time ago. This guide can be a resource for these individual champions and their partners as they work to gain traction for investment in natural infrastructure in their watersheds.

A Background on Natural Infrastructure

In the late 1990s, in the face of growing development pressures in its largely privately- owned Catskill and Delaware watersheds, New York City initiated a plan to protect its source water and avoid the cost of an $8–$10 billion filtration plant. Strategic investments in its 2,000-square-mile watershed were estimated to cost $1.5 billion. This watershed program staved off the need to build a filtration plant and provided an annual $100 million injection to the rural economy in the upper reaches of the watershed. The program provides financial incentives to forestland owners to keep forest intact and to farmers to fence off livestock, as well as payments to local contractors to install septic tanks and stormwater protection measures.

The fundamental premise of this highly cited example, and the “natural infrastructure” approach more generally, is that healthy natural ecosystems provide essential services to water utilities, governments, and businesses—from water flow regulation and flood control to water purification and water temperature regulation. Investments in natural infrastructure can complement essential concrete-and-steel built infrastructure components as part of an integrated system for water treatment and storage. This integrated approach is commonly referred to by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the industry as the “multi-barrier approach.”

 

Todd Gartner is a Senior Associate in WRI’s Forest, Food and Water Program. He can be reached at [email protected]. James Mulligan is Executive Director of Green Community Ventures. Rowan Schmidt is a Research Analyst at Earth Economics. John Gunn is the Executive Director of the Spatial Informatics Group-Natural Assets Laboratory.

This Week In Forest Carbon:
State Of The Forest Carbon Markets Returns!

Ecosystem Marketplace’s annual State of the Forest Carbon Markets report is due out November 6 and with it the latest findings on forest carbon projects’ structure, standards and finance. Focus points include the changing dynamics of forest finance and global market activity. Join Ecosystem Marketplace in London for a presentation on these findings. RSVP today!

This article was originally published in the Forest Carbon newsletter. Click here to read the original.

25 October 2013 | Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace will unveil its most recent State of the Forest Carbon Markets report on November 6, 2013. The report, which details our latest findings on the state of forest carbon projects’ structure, standards, and finance, will be freely available on both the Ecosystem Marketplace and Forest Carbon Portal websites on and after this date.  

In 2012, the State of the Forest Carbon Markets report was Ecosystem Marketplace’s most widely-accessed research product. This year’s edition explores topics ranging from global market activity; to the time-cost of the project cycle; to the changing dynamics of forest finance. Supported by more data points and representing projects in more locations than ever before, we’re confident that our 2013 report will inform a broad range of policy, practitioner and investment discussions.
 

Join us to learn about the results first-hand at our London launch event! Hosted by Ecoinvest Services/Bunge Environmental Markets, we will host a panel of experts to present and discuss report findings from 4:30-6pm, followed by cocktails. RSVP here to reserve a space – and act fast, space is limited to 50 seats!



When: 4:30-6pm

Where: Bunge Environmental Markets/Ecoinvest

3 More London Riverside SE1 2AQ

London, United Kingdom

RSVP: By COB November 4, 2013

Ecosystem Marketplace wishes to thank our 2013 report Premium Sponsors: Face the Future, the World Bank BioCarbon Fund and The Program on Forests (PROFOR); and sponsors Althelia Ecosphere and New Forests; all of which enable Ecosystem Marketplace to explore developments on the frontier of ecosystem service finance.

 

Valorando Naturaleza Webinar

Valorando Naturaleza, sister site to Ecosystem Marketplace, will present the second webinar in its report launch series,Considering Compensations in Latin America: Carbon Management, Communities And Corporate Responsibility on Friday Oct 25th at 12pm EST. The event brings together private sector speakers from Brazil – Keyvan Macedo of Natura, Chile – Carlos Berner of the Santiago Climate Exchange and Valentina Lira of Concha y Toro Winery – and Costa Rica – Sylvia Chaves of Florex – to discuss how forest carbon offsets fit into their strategies and what their experience has been engaging in such deals. The webinar will be conducted in Spanish.

To register, click here.

 

 

From the Editors

Forest Trend’s REDDX website launched earlier this year to track the more than $7.3 billion pledged to support REDD+ readiness in developing countries. Information transparency around the financing of REDD+ activities remains murky, but by tracking disbursements with local in-country civil society groups, REDDX seeks to follow the money through the entire supply chain.


REDDX is working to disseminate information about 14 countries, with Colombia, Liberia and Tanzania now joining the four other countries whose REDD+ information was already available online. In addition, the data for Ecuador and Vietnam was recently updated.

 

Colombia’s REDD+ financing shows that donor government agencies, particularly USAID, are the primary contributors. USAID has committed 70% of the total funding flowing to Colombia, the majority of which goes to U.S.-based consultancy firm Chemonics International. Overall, a total of $44 million has been committed, with $25 million of that disbursed.

 

Similar to Colombia, donor governments account for 95% of all REDD+ finance flowing to Tanzania. Unlike the former, most of that money then goes to other donor government agencies. In general, donor governments are not recipients of international REDD+ finance. However in some instances, specific donor government agencies receive funds from another agency within their own government. In this case, the Government of Norway is directing 95% of REDD+ finance commitments through the Royal Norwegian Embassy in Tanzania.

 

Liberia has a more diverse set of funding: a majority of the money stems from multilateral institutions but donor government agencies and private foundations also supply a fair amount. The money is also split among recipients: the Government of Liberia receives a bit more than international and Liberian NGOs/academia. Liberia currently receives about $9.5 million for REDD, with $5 million of that disbursed.

 

These and other stories from the forest carbon marketplace are summarized below, so keep reading!

—The Ecosystem Marketplace Team

If you have comments or would like to submit news stories, write to us at [email protected].

Forest Trends’ Fundraising Challenge

Forest Trends’ work doesn’t grow on trees – we rely on readers’ generosity to help keep them standing.

Now through November 22, (and for the cost of a typical lunch!), donations to Forest Trends’ Crowdrise campaign could leverage up to $1 million in matching awards through the Skoll Foundation’s Social Entrepreneurship Challenge. Help Forest Trends expand our vital services to communities and experts on the front lines of ecosystem conservation. $10 will go a long way!

Support us on Crowdrise

News

International Policy

Turning over the same LEAF

Earlier this October, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry attended the Association of Southeast Asian Nations – U.S. Summit. Discussions there reaffirmed cooperation on several environmental programs, including U.S. support for USAID’s Lowering Emissions in Asia’s Forests (LEAF) project. LEAF promotes collaboration between regional governments, forestry and climate mitigation specialists and universities with technical capacity building focused on REDD programs. The U.S. also encourages emissions reductions activities in Southeast Asia through its Enhancing Capacity for Low Emission Development Program, the Department of State’s LEDS Global Partnership, and USAID’s Low Emissions Asian Development program.

 

Project Development

REDDy…Olé!

The Climate Action Reserve’s (CAR) Board of Directors just adopted the organization’s Mexico Forest Protocol. The protocol marks several years of collaboration between California, Mexico and CAR and was created with special attention given to ejidos’ (local communities) involvement. The Mexican Forest Protocol uses a standardized approach for measuring avoided deforestation and enhanced carbon sequestration while enhancing Mexican environmental and social safeguards. It was designed for integration within evolving Mexican REDD+ policies and could play an important role if California seeks REDD offsets for its cap-and-trade program. The protocol will “spur innovation in Mexico… and support California’s ongoing efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while expanding business opportunities and job creation,” explains Senator Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana), chair of the Select Committee on California-Mexico Cooperation.

 

A wasteland, transformed

In the wasteland of Deramandi, India outside of New Dehli, the grasslands and native flora that once flourished are beginning to make a comeback after a century of degradation from urbanization and open cast quartzite mining. The revegetation project launched in 2008 after the government handed the land over to the Eco-Task Force of the Indian Territorial Army, members of which did most of the planting. It was recently accepted under the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism as an urban forestry project–the only of its kind in India. The project is expected to save 12,138 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) per year, but the forest department says it is too early to say how much money the sale of the Certified Emissions Reductions will generate, which depends partly on whether they find a buyer in the compliance or voluntary markets.

 

Starting small

The Micro and Small Enterprise Development and Building Alternative Livelihood for Vulnerable Groups initiative has just launched in Guyana. The project is a joint effort between the Minister of Tourism, Industry and Commerce and the Inter-American Development Bank and has $10 million in funding from the Guyana-Norway forest carbon partnership agreement. It will make loans available below a 6% interest rate and offer a maximum of $1,500 for entrepreneurs interested in ecotourism, fruit and vegetable farming, and aquaculture and sustainable forestry initiatives. An estimated $5 million will be released the first two years of the program and could create as many as 2,200 jobs.

 

Flying off the map

An $8 million project funded by Germany has just taken off, with planes starting to map forest cover in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). NASA remote scientist Sassan Saatchi is one of the participants flying the planes, which will collect 100 meter forest cover resolutions. The scientist has already mapped forests across the tropics at a 1 kilometer resolution in the past, but enhanced accuracy could prove instrumental for the DRC to gain greater legitimacy for REDD projects. Saatchi estimates the DRC’s forests could contain up to 22-24 billion tCO2e. The project will use planes to collect data via laser at sample locations, which will then be used to estimate the entire country’s forest cover.

 

Ecuador Gets REDDer

The governments of Norway and Germany recently signed an agreement with Ecuador to contribute $2.6 million to build national capacity for REDD over four years. The money will be used to strengthen forest governance and develop measurement, reporting and verification (MRV). Ecuador has 10 million hectares of forest covering 55% of the country across the Amazon, Andean highlands, and coast. Its Ministry of Environment estimates the rate of deforestation is 61,764 hectares per year. After joining the UN-REDD Programme in October 2009, Ecuador officially launched its REDD program in August 2012.

 

Intent on buyers

Earlier this month, Costa Rica signed a Letter of Intent with the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), which resulted in a first of its kind Emissions Reductions Payment Agreement to allow a country large-scale access to performance based payments, as it guarantees FCPF will negotiate the purchase of carbon offsets up to $63 million. This ensures demand for Costa Rica’s efforts to protect forests on 340,000 hectares of land and help the country meet its 2021 carbon neutrality goal. The plan also targets indigenous participation with a goal of 10% of the land to be indigenous territories. “It’s the first time that the indigenous territories will have access to the information on REDD+ in their languages and according to their worldview,” adds Carlos Cascante, a representative of the Bribri indigenous territory.

 

Praying for carbon guidance

Last week, Finite Carbon registered 4,000 acres of the Shannondale Tree Farm with CAR. The farm belongs to the Missouri Mid-South United Church of Christ and marks the first religious organization in the U.S. to complete a carbon offset for CAR. The project qualifies for more than 120,000 offsets and can supply early action offsets to California’s cap-and-trade program. “One of my personal hopes is that the churches will use this moment to inventory their own emissions of carbon through travel, heating and cooling, and plastic purchases, and to commit to reduce our church-wide carbon footprint.” said Rev. Dr. Davida Foy Crabtree, UCC Missouri Mid-South Acting Conference Minister.

 

Train heading West

Developer Finite Carbon and transportation company Norfolk Southern have registered the Brosnan Forest Improved Forest Management carbon project in South Carolina under CAR’s forest project protocol. The project has resulted in more than 282,000 compliance-eligible carbon offsets at initial registration and is being transitioned as an early action project for the California cap-and-trade program.

 

National Standards and Capacity

REDD money just out of reach

With 40% of forested land, Zimbabwe holds great potential for REDD. However, all REDD+ initiatives located in the African country are small scale, with the exception of the private sector-funded Kariba project. The Bio-Hub Trust, a coalition of local and environmental organizations, seeks to change that. Working with Zimbabwe’s environmental ministry, the coalition hosted the country’s first REDD+ Stakeholders Consultative Workshop earlier this year, which found that Zimbabwe has still not taken steps to encourage REDD adoption. Bio-Hub Trust estimates that more than $1.2 billion REDD+ support financing is waiting for applicants, but the country needs to establish a national REDD+ plan to access the money.

 

Turning to the Dark Side

When Harrison Ford arrived in Indonesia last month, he spoke with President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Forestry Minister Zulkifli Hasan about his concerns over deforestation in a Central Kalimantan peatland restoration project. However, in spite of promised support from the President, Zulkifli has now proposed reducing the reserve in half. The 203,000 hectare Katingan Peatland Restoration and Conservation project is a potential REDD site, and Hartono Dharsono, the president and director of forest conservation company P.T. Rimba Makmur Utama, has spent millions trying to bring his ecosystem restoration license in front of the minister. Dharsono has worked on the application for five years and generated the support of the local community for the REDD project, which would be the country’s largest if successful. Despite the Forestry Ministry’s approval of the project proposal, Zulkifili hasn’t signed the restoration license. His newest statement – announcing a 100,000 hectare cut to the area – is reportedly due to his worry about Dharsono’s ability to manage the area.

 

Methodology and Standards Watch

A promise to keep

In February this year, Asia Pulp and Paper (APP) declared that it would cease clearing natural forest land in Indonesia. However, green groups were reluctant to applaud APP until they saw actual results. Eight months later, the company opened its doors for reporters to come learn about their progress. Phil Covington from the Triple Pundit reports: “First things first – is the deforestation moratorium holding up? In short, the answer is yes.” He explains that the moratorium affects 38 concessions – 2.6 million hectares – so APP is working with the organizations Ekologika and The Forest Trust to assess each concession’s ecological importance. Both organizations agree that, despite a few breaches, the moratorium and transparency are being upheld. The assessments are due to be completed in 2014, with recommendations on how to manage each concession.

 

Tracking progress

The 18-month “National Forestry Monitoring System” project by the Central African Forest Commission (COMIFAC) is coming along nicely, according to the experts and stakeholders meeting from October 7-11. The project has already created two thematic working groups and placed COMIFAC members into each to learn to pilot local projects. What remains is to iron out the project details for activities and budget. Cameroon, one COMIFAC member, has been placed into the detection and geographic information system group, which will help the country create a national forest inventory. After 18 months, the resulting plan of action will be submitted to the African Development Bank and the Congo Basin Forest Fund for funding to implement a National Forest Monitoring System in each member country.

 

Human Dimension

Striving to adapt

Indian Country Today Media Network last week recognized eight tribes that are “way ahead of the climate-adaptation curve.” One of the highlighted tribes is the Nez Perce of the Columbia River Plateau of northern Idaho who a decade ago developed a carbon strategy to market offsets from a 400-acre afforestation project. These efforts have since expanded to 33 different projects over 3,375 acres that convert former agricultural land to forest or restore forests damaged by wildfire. The projects employ tribal members through activities such as seed-planting and thinning, improve water quality, and reduce soil erosion, therefore improving fish habitat in the river below. A profile of the carbon finance effort cites the challenges that the Nez Perce encountered along the way: understanding carbon market terminology, the “convoluted” process for validating offsets, and the reluctance of many tribal members to trust outside firms to develop forest plans on tribal land.

 

Nothing is sacred

All over the world, indigenous communities quietly protect some of the most biodiverse forests on Earth. In Kenya, the Massai people have a belief system that condemns deforestation. They use only branches for firewood and roots for herbs. India has hundreds of sacred groves protected by followers of Buddhism. One study estimated that the Sem Mukhem sacred forest in the Himalayas stores 775 metric tonnes of carbon per hectare. Many of these sacred forests have so far been spared by loggers and developers, but Professor Prasit Wangpakapattanawong of Thailand’s Chiang Mai University says that is beginning to change. India’s sacred Arvali forest has been earmarked for development and niobium miners have their sights on Kenya’s Mrima sacred hill forest. Wangpakapattanawong is concerned about this trend: “Many communities have deep indigenous knowledge that, if integrated with science, will help the world improve forest cover,” he says.

–>Note that unit above is carbon, not CO2

 

No get out of jail free card

The Landscape Game, developed by scientist Herry Purnomo of the Center for International Forestry Research, recently joined a new genre of board games (í  la Settlers of Catan) that challenges players to consider natural resources and development in a fresh way. The game involves six players interacting on a landscape of different land uses, from dense forest to mines and farms. It shows players the outcomes of long-term investments, even including an option to put funding into REDD+. “Almost a billion people in the world have played Monopoly, but it’s outmoded in the sense that there’s no component considering the impact of property purchases on the ecosystem, global warming or sustainability,” Purnomo says. “I wondered what would happen if a billion people were to learn a game that considered an alternative view of investments and landscape management.”

 

Science & Technology Review

Don’t let the bed bugs bite

While increased temperatures and carbon dioxide boost tree growth, they also allow insects to flourish. Recent findings from a Dartmouth University study discovered that the latter often outpaces the former, leaving North American trees more vulnerable to insects and disease. The report reviewed almost 500 other studies to examine the effect of climate change on forests since the 1950s. Researchers discovered 27 insects and 22 diseases that have made notable disturbances to forests in the region. However, they added that warming past a certain level may actually destroy some insects and allow greater tree growth. “We need to also start focusing on what could be — I don’t want to say ‘benefits,’ but the opportunities here,” says Aaron Weed, a Dartmouth postdoctoral researcher in ecology.

 

Houston, we have a project

NASA just funded a three-year project to support implementation of REDD+ in Mexico. The project involves researchers from the University of Delaware, the U.S. Forest Service, six institutions in Mexico, and the National Forestry Commission of Mexico (CONAFOR) and aims to analyze carbon stocks at a regional level to improve MRV. The research will use NASA satellites, MexFlux sites and forestry inventory plots established by CONAFOR to collect MRV information useful for REDD+ activities. Rodrigo Vargas, the project’s principle investigator, explains that, “MRV models are important as they lend credibility to REDD+ activities concerning forest dynamics and carbon sequestration potential.” Research will start with a few selected sites and then begin to scale up.

 

Don’t mess with Texas

A new study by Texas A&M revealed that forests may be worth $93 billion each year in the Lone Star state. The figure was gathered through a compilation of environmental benefits from the Texas Statewide Assessment of Forest Ecosystem Services. Researchers also surveyed residents across the state to understand cultural values of forests. Forester Hughes Simpson, a researcher involved in the study, notes that cultural values “are more esoteric,” but are given the highest monetary values (estimated at $60.4 billion per year). In addition to cultural values, the study identified watershed regulation, biodiversity services, climate regulation and air quality services as those important to forests. This assessment only studied forested, rural lands, but the agency hopes to analyze benefits from trees in urban areas in the future.

 

Publications

Feeding a forest

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) just released a publication that highlights the importance of forests for food, agriculture and fuel to local communities. The report, “Towards Food Security and Improved Nutrition: Increasing the Contribution of Forests and Trees,” came at the heels of the International Conference on Forests for Food Security and Nutrition. It suggests that greater coordination is needed across agriculture, forest and mining, and other sectors to ensure complete policy alignment and shared data.

 

Tooling around

The FAO also just released a report on “Improving Governance of Forest Tenure,” a technical guide written for policy makers and civil society stakeholders. The guide identifies and summarizes 86 tools that may be used to identify and improve forest governance. It also describes nine tools in depth to provide a core set of practical, commonly used tools.

 

REDD lessons learned

With the recent completion of a three-year project, World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has just released a report on “Building REDD+ for People and Nature: From Lessons Learned across Indonesia, Peru and the Democratic Republic of Congo to a New Vision for REDD+”. The project, funded by the Norwegian government, sought to develop scalable REDD+ models and engage local communities. Three locations were chosen in the DRC, Indonesia and Peru totaling up to 15.5 million hectares. The resulting report shares impacts, challenges and lessons learned from this work and its implications for REDD+.

 

A separate WWF report called “Environmental Service Incentives in the State of Acre, Brazil: Lessons for Policies, Programmes and Strategies for Jurisdiction-Wide REDD+” recognizes Acre’s status as a leading state in REDD+ policies and describes its Environmental Service Incentives System (SISA in Portuguese), which has a developed REDD+ program. The report analyzes the design and construction of ISA Carbon and identifies strengths and challenges to provide insights to further SISA projects. The NGO has also updated its “WWF Guide to Building REDD+ Strategies — A toolkit for REDD+ Practitioners Around the Globe,” which uses WWF’s REDD+ experience and the latest literature to outline emerging REDD+ best practices.

 

Jobs

Environmental Policy and Natural Resources Management Researcher – German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut fí¼r Entwicklungspolitik

Based in Bonn, Germany, the Environmental Policy and Natural Resources Management Researcher will research market-based mechanisms for the Climate Change and Development project. Candidates should have a Master’s degree in economics, public policy or human geography and proven knowledge in the fields of payments for ecosystem services, REDD+ and/or other market-based mechanisms. Relevant scientific publication or policy experience is a plus.

– Read more about the position here.

 

Natural Resource/Agricultural Economist – Earth Innovation Institute

Based in San Francisco, California, the Natural Resource/Agricultural Economist will conduct policy and economic analysis to support the transition of states and sub-national regions to a Low Emissions Rural Development model. Specifically, the work will involve compiling economic data and performing analysis of agricultural commodity supply chains, with a focus on palm oil, soy, sugar cane, and beef. Candidates should hold a PhD in natural resource, agricultural, forest or environmental economics and have at least two years of experience in land and natural resource economics, agricultural economics, sustainable supply chains, and/or land use in tropical regions.

– Read more about the position here.

 

Project Manager – ECODIT

Based in Washington, D.C., the Project Manager will provide leadership on natural resource management (NRM) activities, including biodiversity conservation, climate change, sustainable forestry, REDD and ecosystem services. The Manager shall also manage and provide technical input for proposal development efforts and cultivate strategic relationships with clients, partners, and international experts. Candidates should have at least seven years of international experience in NRM and at least five years’ experience working on USAID-funded NRM projects and assignments.

– Read more about the position here.

 

Governance of Forests Initiative Project Manager/ Senior Associate – World Resources Institute

Based in Washington, D.C., the Senior Associate will lead project administration activities and help develop and implement country-specific strategies for Brazil, Indonesia, and Cameroon. The Senior Associate will also provide leadership for the development and implementation of work focused on international and multilateral processes, such as UNFCCC, FCPF, Forest Investment Program, UN-REDD Programme, and the REDD+ Partnership. Candidates should have a Master’s degree or higher in public policy, environmental resource management, or other relevant field and a minimum of five years relevant experience working on issues related to forest governance and policy processes in developing countries.

– Read more about the position here.

 

Initiative for Conservation for the Andean Amazon Intern – Engility Corporation

Based in Washington, D.C., the intern will report to the Initiative for Conservation for the Andean Amazon Program Coordinator and will assist with project implementation, coordination and communication. Interns should have a Bachelor’s degree and Spanish fluency. Experience in Latin America and a demonstrated interest in environmental issues are a plus.

– Read more about the position here.

 

Communications Officer – ForestEthics

Based in Vancouver, Canada, the Communications Officer will develop, coordinate and implement strategic communications and media plans for ForestEthics Advocacy’s campaigns. The position will involve working with campaigners and coalition partners, developing relationships with reports and producing written materials including op-eds and press releases. Candidates should have at least three years of experience working in a media outlet or communications department of an NGO and experience creating social media campaigns and metrics-based strategies.

– Read more about the position here.

ABOUT THE FOREST CARBON PORTAL

The Forest Carbon Portal provides relevant daily news, a bi-weekly news brief, feature articles, a calendar of events, a searchable member directory, a jobs board, a library of tools and resources. The Portal also includes the Forest Carbon Project Inventory, an international database of projects including those in the pipeline. Projects are described with consistent ‘nutrition labels’ and allow viewers to contact project developers.

ABOUT THE ECOSYSTEM MARKETPLACE

Ecosystem Marketplace is a project of Forest Trends, a tax-exempt corporation under Section 501(c)3. This newsletter and other dimensions of our voluntary carbon markets program are funded by a series of international development agencies, philanthropic foundations, and private sector organizations. For more information on donating to Ecosystem Marketplace, please contact [email protected].

Additional resources

This Week In Water: A Good Month For Green Infrastructure

The past month saw movement in the green infrastructure space with an assessment on green infrastructure valuation tools and a $50 million fund slated to implement natural infrastructure upgrades in Chicago. Also this month, two papers from Forest Trends offering thoughts on the social impact assessment of investments in watershed services programs.

This article was originally published in the Water Log newsletter. Click here to read the original.

24 October 2013 | Greetings! A new pair of papers from Forest Trends offers initial thoughts on guidance for social impact assessment (SIA) for investments in watershed services (IWS) projects. In addition to the intended environmental outcomes, IWS can have unplanned social or equity impacts. The papers include recommendations for IWS-specific SIA, and a literature review on gender and social impacts related to watershed investments. We invite you to take a look here.  

 

As far as the news, well – sometimes you just have to stop and contemplate your navel. In China, despite success in cleaning up the Xin’an River, officials are wondering whether “eco-compensation” levels were really high enough. A fascinating study of PES projects in Africa suggests that a buyer-seller structure might only work for carbon: for watershed services, perhaps it’s better to use a co-investment model that links different stakeholders and their respective assets (such finance, labor, or land). Another paper asks why valuation studies don’t seem to be influencing policy.


“Natural” or “green” infrastructure has had a good few weeks, with a new guidance report on source water protection, an assessment of green infrastructure valuation tools, and a $50 million pot announced to green up Chicago.

 

We wanted to let you know that Valorando Naturaleza, sister site to Ecosystem Marketplace, will host the second webinar in its report launch series Considering Compensations in Latin America: Carbon Management, Communities And Corporate Responsibility on Friday Oct 25th at 12pm EST. The webinar focuses on green decision making and south-south marketplace developments and will be presented in Spanish.

 

VN.org brings together private sector speakers including Keyvan Macedo of Natura (Brazil), Carlos Berner of the Santiago Climate Exchange (Chile), Valentina Lira of Concha y Toro Winery (Chile) and Sylvia Chaves of Florex (Costa Rica), to discuss how forest carbon offsets fit into their strategies and what their experience has been engaging in such deals. Register here to reserve your place.

— The Ecosystem Marketplace Team

For questions or comments, please contact [email protected]

Forest Trends’ Fundraising Challenge

Forest Trends’ work doesn’t grow on trees – we rely on readers’ generosity to help keep them standing.

Now through November 22, (and for the cost of a typical lunch!), donations to Forest Trends’ Crowdrise campaign could leverage up to $1 million in matching awards through the Skoll Foundation’s Social Entrepreneurship Challenge. Help Forest Trends expand our vital services to communities and experts on the front lines of ecosystem conservation. $10 will go a long way!

Support us on Crowdrise

EM Headlines

GENERAL

Julio Tresierra: Transforming Lives With Investments In Watershed Services

Julio Tresierra has always been obsessed with change. That’s what lured him from his native Peru five decades ago, and it’s what keeps him going at 71. Since then, he’s been traveling the world – both geographically and philosophically – in search of real-world solutions to our deepest societal problems. He found the answers living with the poorest of the poor and working on over 60 social development projects with various civil society organizations and government agencies across Asia, Latin America, and Africa. Eight years ago, Tresierra went to work for the environmental NGO World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in cooperation with CARE, a humanitarian organization specializing in assisting marginalized populations. The result is a global network of pilot projects called Equitable Payments for Watershed Services.

 

Tresierra reasoned that if farmers and ranchers improved the areas upstream of a watershed by preventing sedimentation and erosion, then residents, businesses and landowners downstream, who rely on healthy watersheds to conduct business, would be willing to pay for the service. It would help lift farmers out of poverty, he thought, and also generate a sustainable cycle: farmers in upland areas, which are usually those who live in extreme poverty and grow food for consumption, would benefit from better crops to restore water quality. This would also enable them to sell their crops to local markets or even trade with foreign buyers. Ultimately, an investments in watershed services (IWS) scheme would allow for cooperation between the water sector and other stakeholders operating in a basin, instead of conflict and competition.

Keep reading at Ecosystem Marketplace.

Restoration vs. Renewable Energy: Amateurism Doesn’t Pay

Critics of renewable energy investments usually focus on the relatively high cost of the power they generate. New project proposals require sophisticated financial models that compare permitting, manufacturing, and operating costs against projected power generation rates and pricing over time. On the other hand, environmental restoration proposals are rarely assessed using return on investment calculations. In fact, project developers may need only a before-and-after illustration and a willing land owner to receive funding for a new project. Restoration investments may face criticisms, but not due to their estimated output being more expensive than alternatives. Output is rarely measured using metrics that the public can understand and thus frequently not valued at all.

So why is it, asks Damon Hess of Sitka Technology Group, that the requirements for funding renewable energy are so much more onerous than those for environmental restoration? Public investments in renewable energy projects are meant to spur larger private investments and thus are held to a higher standard, he writes. Public investments in environmental restoration are meant to make us feel good about our commitment to “mother nature” and thus are given treated with kid gloves.

Read Hess’s opinion piece here.

Understanding Social Impacts of Watershed Investments

A new pair of papers from Forest Trends offers initial thoughts on guidance for social impact assessment (SIA) for investments in watershed services (IWS) projects. IWS, like any intervention, likely will result in some negative social or equity impacts, as well as hopefully some positive ones.


The main paper provides recommendations for carrying out SIA in the watershed investment context. The paper draws on an extensive literature on the theory and practice of SIA, on the authors’ experiences of applying SIA in other natural resource contexts, and on discussions from a workshop with IWS program practitioners. It sets out the case for SIA as an issue of self-interest for IWS interventions. “Good practice” SIA can strengthen the design of IWS programs in terms of social sustainability, reduce risk levels, increase capacity for adaptive management, and (if done in a participative way) increase stakeholder participation and ownership of project objectives. An accompanying literature review of gender and other social impacts of IWS projects looks at what the existing literature has to say about wider social impacts of IWS, and examines gender issues specifically in greater detail.

Read the paper.
Read the literature review.

A Changing Climate: Implications for Business

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis is the most detailed assessment of climate science ever. Over 2,000 pages of scientific consensus make clear that climate change is real, that it is happening now and that human influence on the changing climate is more certain than ever.

To help the business community better understand the implications of climate change for their business model, the European Climate Foundation, which promotes energy and climate policy that reduces carbon emissions in Europe, have produced a digestible summary of the IPCC report. Published by the University of Cambridge’s Judge Business School and the Programme for Sustainability Leadership and supported by the ECF, Climate Change: Actions, Trends and Implications for Business distills key findings into an easily readable, but non-the-less scientifically accurate document. The report summarizes scientific basis of climate change projections and anticipated impacts and includes infographics charting the “pathway to two degrees,” i.e. the targeted maximum increase in global temperatures.

Learn more here.

In The News

POLICY UPDATES

A Post-2015 Goal on Water?

There’s a growing drumroll to include a water goal in the post-2015 development agenda’s sustainable development goals; the Millennium Development Goals noticeably lacked one. At a high-level meeting in Budapest earlier this month, a ‘Budapest Statement‘ was developed calling for a dedicated water goal. Targets would include universal access to safe drinking water and sanitation, a shift to integrated basin-level management, reducing pollution and scaling up collection, treatment, and re-use, and increased resilience against the water-related impacts of global changes. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon says he supports a water goal as well: “Water holds the key to sustainable development.”

Read more from IISD News.

Judge Forces EPA’s Hand on Water Pollution Standards in the Mississippi

A decision handed down by a federal judge last month gives the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) six months to set numeric (i.e. quantitative) nutrient standards in the Mississippi River basin, or explain why standards aren’t needed. The EPA has since 2008 taken the position that numeric standards should be developed by states, as it did in the case of Florida. But the agency declined to comment on whether it believed standards were needed at all. Environmentalists challenged that in court. Now the EPA has to either find that water quality issues in the 31-state basin don’t merit pollution standards (even though the agency has long said these problems are severe), or undertake a formal rulemaking. That determination need not be limited to the scientific basis for standards, but can consider other factors such as social impacts – an outcome welcomed by farm groups who had taken the EPA side against environmentalists.

E&E News has the story.

The Fate of All Those Valuation Studies

Ecosystem services valuation methodologies are, after two decades of sustained academic attention and debate, finally (reasonably) well-accepted in the environmental economics community. But are they translating into policy change? A recent Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI) project examined hundreds of journal articles on ecosystem services valuation (ESV) in search of evidence of influence on decision making. What they found: in just 2% of cases, ESV clearly influenced a decision.


Even for the “same half-dozen” examples repeatedly cited, it’s not clear that ESV drove decision-making. “The case that came up most often was New York City paying to protect the Catskills watershed,” explains Raphaí«l Billé, the project’s coordinator. “As the story goes, this was done after an economic valuation showed that it would be cheaper than letting the watershed degrade and building a sophisticated water treatment plant. There is evidence, however, that the decision was made first, and that an economic valuation was commissioned later to strengthen its legitimacy.”

Read an interview with Billé in the latest Marine Ecosytems and Management newsletter (page seven).
Read a paper on IDDRI’s findings.

GLOBAL MARKETS

World’s Largest Brewer Looks Beyond the Fence

In its efforts to manage water and energy consumption, Anheuser-Busch InBev, the world’s biggest brewer, has found it needs to think beyond its own walls, at both its supply chain and the watersheds in which it operates. “Access to safe water is critical for our business and the communities where we live and work, so we need to have sustainable water resources in the areas where we operate,” says Daniel Navaresse, global director of energy and fluids for the company. He says the company plans to support watershed protection efforts around its facilities in seven countries, implement best management practices in key barley-growing areas, and improve efficiencies in beermaking – all by 2017.

Read more at E&E News.

New Report Charts the Path to Natural Infrastructure Investments

A new report from the World Resources Institute, Earth Economics and Manomet Center for Conservation offers a roadmap to investing in natural infrastructure as a complement or supplement to engineered solutions. Natural Infrastructure: Investing in Forested Landscapes for Source Water Protection in the United States sets out the economic and scientific basis for source water protection for water managers. The focus is on concrete lessons, with case examples of successful programs, a review of available tools and approaches, and additional resources for developing a source-water protection strategy in your own watershed. “Natural infrastructure has long been recognized by state drinking water administrators as a powerful and sustainable approach for protecting sources of drinking water and thereby, public health,” said Jim Taft, Executive Director of the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators in a press release. “This guide will be of considerable value to states by providing comprehensive information about innovative tools that will help bring the use of natural infrastructure approaches to scale.”

Read a press release.
Access the report.

Nutrient Trading Eyed in Georgia

Calhoun Utilities may be the site of Georgia’s first nutrient trading program. Plant upgrades to control phosphorus pollution in Weiss Lake would cost several million dollars upfront and another $800,000 annually, according to Jerry Crawford, the utilities’ director of water and wastewater. “With nutrient trading we find a way to remove the phosphorous a cheaper way,” Crawford said. “We would spend $800,000 a year at the waste water plant, or we can spend $200,000 dealing with the poultry farmers.” Participating poultry farmers could sell their nutrient-rich chicken litter to other agricultural producers for fertilizer, rather than letting it run off into the lake – a double win, says Crawford. The utility is currently engaging farmers in the area for pilots.

Read more at the Calhoun Times.

Florida Nitrogen Trade Awakens the Additionality Monster

A proposed purchase by the city of Jacksonsville, FL from a utility is being criticized for a lack of additionality – in other words, the trade lets Jacksonville get credit for nutrient reductions that would have happened anyway. “You’re using money to buy a credit for [pollution] reductions that have already been made. It’s not an addition,” said St. Johns Riverkeeper Lisa Rinaman. “We’re not going to move the needle if we use that [money] to buy water-quality trading credits.” But the utility says under the terms of the sale, its permitted allowance for nitrogen loading will be reduced by 67,000 lbs (i.e. the amount of the trade), meaning that the pollution reductions are real. Water quality trading in Florida was just expanded statewide in June 2013, after a pilot in the Lower St. Johns River basin.

Keep reading at the Florida Current.

Are Eco-Compensation Levels in Anhui-Zhejiang Deal High Enough?

In 2011, Anhui and Zhejiang provinces in China entered into an unusual bet. If water quality in Anhui reached basic standards, then Zhejiang province would pay Anhui 100 million yuan (US $16.4 million). But if pollution persisted, then Anhui would have to pony up. The central government contributed another 300 million yuan (US $49 million) in support of efforts. An article from Xinhua News offers an update: 2012 levels exceeded water quality standards, so Anhui won the bet (though downstream Zhejiang likely considered themselves winners as well).

 

Still, some say the pilot could be improved. Many industrial facilities and agricultural producers were required to cease operations along the Xin’an River. They were compensated for doing so, but many feel the compensation was not high enough. “After two years of treatment, water quality in Xin’an River has improved a lot. But residents in the upper reaches who sacrificed their own interests to protect the ecological environment have not got substantial returns,” said Gu Jiawen, a senior political advisor in Huangshan. “500 million yuan (US $82 million) is not much and even could not pay for the costs of the current environmental protection projects,” added Lu Haining, deputy head of the Huangshan Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau. “The amount of the compensation fund should be increased annually. Otherwise, it cannot be called compensation.”

Read more at XinhuaNet.

ADB Issues High-Level Guidance on Managing the Nexus

The water-food-energy nexus has gotten a lot of press recently, but solutions to nexus issues aren’t always clear. A new report from the Asian Development Bank (ADB) scopes the nexus in Asia and the Pacific and offers guidance on increasing water, food, and energy security. Recommendations include reforming governance, improving data and information, protecting freshwater resources, increasing agricultural water use productivity, and investing in strategic storage (including aquifer recharge). A core suggestion in Thinking About Water Differently: Managing the Water-Food-Energy Nexus – that governments need to take a much longer-term view of water management – isn’t new, but bears repeating.

Read a press release.
Read the report (PDF).

Who Needs a Buyer for PES Projects?

Recent work by the World Agroforestry Centre offers a different way of thinking about program design for payments for ecosystem services (PES). Lead researcher Sara Namirembe looked at 50 “tree-based” PES projects in Africa. She found that efforts based on a high degree of commodification of an ecosystem service, and the identification of a buyer for that service, tended to work only in the carbon space. Instead, “co-investment” models that establish partnerships between stakeholders with different assets (such as land, labor, or finance), instead of buyer-seller relationship, seem to be more successful on the continent. Namirembe suggests this is because have lower requirements for “proving” benefits, since there is no buyer: all participants are on a level playing field.

Read a blog post about the study here.

$4.5m for Marine Ecosystem Valuation in the Coral Triangle

A $4.5 million grant from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) will support efforts in the Philippines and Malaysia to value mangrove, sea grass and coral reef ecosystems services and inform policies and projects aimed at protecting these ecosystems. The “Coral Triangle” that lies between the two countries is the world’s biodiversity epicenter, say project funders. “This wealth of natural capital has the potential to be a major driver of inclusive green growth in the region, if we overcome some huge challenges. We especially need better resource governance regimes, measures to adequately value the environment for current and future generations when calculating economic benefits, and good scientific information to inform decision making and tradeoffs,” says Marea Hatziolos, Senior Environmental Specialist and the World Bank’s team leader for the project.

The Manila Bulletin has coverage

A $50m Green Infrastructure Fund for Chicago

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced earlier this month that a $50 million fund has been dedicated to green infrastructure in the city, to be spent over the next five years. It’s welcome news, given that a previous stormwater settlement – the terms of which have been compared to Boston deciding to trade Babe Ruth to the Yankees – between the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District and the EPA included just $325,000 for green infrastructure. Chicago’s aging infrastructure network currently struggles to cope with even small volumes of stormwater. The fund puts Chicago back in the big league with cities like Philadelphia, Milwaukee, New York and Seattle – all of which are making serious investments in green installations. Work is set to start this fall.

Read more here.

Assessing Tools for Green Infrastructure Valuation

A new report from Natural England offers a useful review of valuation tools that estimate monetary benefits of green infrastructure. Nine different examples – including tools like NatCap’s INVEST and the Center for Neighborhood Technology’s ‘Guide to Valuing Green Infrastructure’ – are assessed against research standards for natural science and economics. Summaries of each tool are provided, as well as recommendations for appropriate use. The authors also report on the gaps they find: for example, the tools evaluated don’t seem to cover cultural and provisioning ecosystem services well, nor do they offer methods for valuing ponds, grass verges, or hedges.

Access the report here.

EVENTS

CDP Global Water Forum 2013

CDP’s Global Water Forum will bring together institutional investors, corporations and policy makers to discuss one of the most pressing issues facing the world today: water security. This virtual roundtable will be broadcast live online using cutting edge TelePresence technology, where leaders in their field will apply expert insights on the topic of water security. 31 October 2013. Online.

Learn more here.

Peoples, Land, and Water: The Natural Connection

Land and water has always been the immediate surroundings of peoples in all existences and continents. It has always been the base on which Man depends on for his existence. Land serves as home, a nutrient-filled and agricultural base, a thoroughfare, a religious base, et cetera. Water is all important beginning with the human body made up of water, water also serves as nourishment, used for cooking and the rivers, streams and oceans are home for very many habitats necessary for life. Wars have been fought to protect and preserve land and water space meaning that they are fundamental resource for human survival. Prevailing civilizations and epochs are chronicled with the effects these constituents have on human life. The conference therefore would like to explore these great connections from the humanities, science and social science perspectives. The hope of the conference is to discuss the interconnectedness or relatedness of these three theatres of life for existence/ living and chart a model or value system for the preservation of the resources and sustainable use by the human society. 3-6 November 2013. Contonou, Republic of Benin.

Learn more here.

Irrigation and Water Forum: Water and the Green Economy

The Irrigation and Water Forum (the new name for ICID.UK) and UEA Water Security are hosting a one day conference on Water and the Green Economy. The term ‘green economy’ implies economic growth alongside a decreasing consumption of natural capital. (UNEP’s working definition considers a green economy to be one which results in improved human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities). However the conference will mainly be from an agricultural water point of view, and the interpretation of agriculture, water and the economy will be wide; including water and environmental conservation, productivity, the food chain and the role of the private sector. Guidance on attendance and pricing is given below. The final programme is subject to adjustments. The conference is followed by a complimentary networking event. The event will be available to watch on-line to registered participants using the ICE website – contact Tim Fuller for further details. [email protected]. London, UK. 8 November 2013.

Learn more here.

Webinar – Green Infrastructure as a catalyst to economic growth

Over the summer Defra and Natural England published a report on the role Green Infrastructure plays as a catalyst to economic growth. This study pulled together evidence from the UK and around the world demonstrating how investment in GI encourages inward investment and attracts increased visitor spending at a local level and saves environmental costs and provides health benefits which in turn boost productivity. As part of the work of the Green Infrastructure Partnership, Natural England will be running a webinar to introduce and discuss the findings of this report. The webinar will be held on 18th of November running from 10:00 until 11:30. If you would like to join this webinar please email [email protected]. 18 November 2013. Online.

Learn more here.

Sustainable Water Management Conference

Presenting solutions for balancing the benefits of conservation with the costs, managing infrastructure, developing robust supply models and watershed management plans, water reuse, resource management, green infrastructure and more. 30 March – 2 April 2014. Denver CO, USA.

Learn more here.

CONTRIBUTING TO ECOSYSTEM MARKETPLACE

Ecosystem Marketplace is a project of Forest Trends a tax-exempt corporation under Section 501(c)(3).The non-profit evaluator Charity Navigator has given Forest Trends its highest rating (4 out of 4 stars) recognizing excellence in our financial management and organizational efficiency.


Additional resources

A Changing Climate: Implications For Business

A collaboration between the University of Cambridge and an European initiative working to curb climate change has produced a summary of the IPCC’s report that came out last week and confirmed man’s influence on the changing climate. Directed at the business community, the summary is perhaps more easily readable than the report while remaining scientifically accurate.

4 October 2013 | “Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system,” said Thomas Stocker of the IPCC, when releasing the first installment of the panel’s Fifth Assessment Report on Friday, 27 September in Stockholm.

The IPCC’s report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis is the most detailed assessment of climate science ever. Over 2,000 pages of scientific consensus make clear that climate change is real, that it is happening now and that human influence on the changing climate is more certain than ever.

The impacts of climate change will present growing challenges for the governments of the world – and unforeseen risks for the global business community. Rising temperatures, changes in rainfall patterns, rising sea levels, disappearing glaciers and acidifying seawater will all have direct impacts on many industrial sectors.

A Document for Business

To help the business community better understand the implications of climate change for their business model, the European Climate Foundation, which promotes energy and climate policy that reduces carbon emissions in Europe, have produced a digestible summary of the IPCC report.

Published by the University of Cambridge’s Judge Business School and the Programme for Sustainability Leadership and supported by the ECF, Climate Change: Actions, Trends and Implications for Business distils the key findings of the report into an easily readable, but non-the-less scientifically accurate document.

Encouraging industry to act on ‘the challenge of the century’

The ECF have circulated this document across a variety of industrial sectors, but need more help to disseminate it further. By spreading this document as far and wide as possible, they hope to create a common understanding of the climate threat among the business community, thus encouraging industry to act on what world leaders refer to as the most significant challenge of the 21st century.

Share this open-source publication with business networks, post them online or use them for presentations and at events.

The full guide and infographic are available for download here.

This Week In V-Carbon: Cooking Up New Solutions

A new report written by Ecosystem Marketplace for the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves (GACC) highlights the growing role of carbon finance in driving clean cookstove distribution in developing countries around the world. More than half of the clean efficient stoves distributed in 2012 were financed in part by carbon offset. Cookstoves were also the third most popular offset project on the voluntary market in 2012.

This article was originally published in the V-Carbon newsletter. Click here to read the original.

3 October 2013 | A new report written by Ecosystem Marketplace for the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves (GACC) highlights the growing role of carbon finance in driving clean cookstove distribution in developing countries around the world, where cookstove smoke still kills four million people a year. More than half of the clean efficient stoves distributed in 2012 were financed in part by carbon offsets, which contributed $167.3 million to the sector.

“We think it’s working,” former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said of the GACC’s goal to distribute 100 million clean cookstoves by 2020. “More than 8 million clean cookstoves were distributed last year alone, that’s more than double the number in 2011.”

Ecosystem Marketplace surveyed the Alliance’s 800+ partners, finding that cookstove projects are typically funded by a mix of public, private-sector, and not-for-profit financing, with carbon offsets covering 16.9 million tonnes (MtCO2e) in carbon emissions supporting the dissemination of at least 4.1 million stoves. About half of the demand for these carbon offsets came from European buyers subject to compliance cap-and-trade program. The other half came from buyers on the voluntary market.

Because of their joint health and environmental benefits – and because they primarily benefit the women who use them – cookstoves were the third most popular offset project on the voluntary market in 2012. Offsets from clean cookstove projects sold for an average of $9.9 per tonne (/tCO2e). Though this is lower than the average 2011 price for cookstove offsets ($13.2/tCO2e), it is much higher than the average voluntary market price across project types ($5.9/tCO2e) and the average certified emissions reduction (CER) price ($3/tCO2e).

Cookstove projects are “charismatic” indeed. However, the future is uncertain: some project developers fear that prices will fall as more cookstove projects begin to sell offsets, especially if compliance markets falter.

Read Ecosystem Marketplace’s full coverage of the issue here and access the full report from the Alliance. These and other stories from the voluntary carbon marketplace are summarized below, so keep reading!

 

—The Editors

For comments or questions, please email: [email protected]

Forest Trends’ Fundraising Challenge

Forest Trends’ work doesn’t grow on trees – we rely on readers’ generosity to help keep them standing.

Now through November 22, (and for the cost of a typical lunch!), donations to Forest Trends’ Crowdrise campaign could leverage up to $1 million in matching awards through the Skoll Foundation’s Social Entrepreneurship Challenge. Help Forest Trends expand our vital services to communities and experts on the front lines of ecosystem conservation. $10 will go a long way!

Support us on Crowdrise

V-Carbon News

Voluntary Carbon

Help us rise to the challenge!

Ecosystem Marketplace’s parent organization Forest Trends is embarking today on its first-ever crowd-funding campaign to raise the resources for the work we do best – providing groundtruthing information and support to ecosystem conservationists and investors around the world. Every dollar contributed by readers like you brings us closer to winning additional matching funds from Skoll Foundation as we compete with 57 other NGOs in Skoll’s Social Entrepreneurship Challenge. How can you help? Give $10 (that’s not much, right?) or more via our Crowdrise fundraising page now through November 22nd. Here at Ecosystem Marketplace, we believe in strength in numbers – join the ranks of our many supportive readers and  DONATE NOW!

 

 

Thailand tees it up

This month, the Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management Organization (TGO) is slated to introduce the long-anticipated Thailand Voluntary Emission Reduction (T-VER) scheme, with actual offsets open for domestic trading in 2014. The standard will cover energy efficiency, alternative and renewable energy, solid waste and transport management, forestry and green areas, and agriculture. While T-VER adapts elements from regional programs like the Japanese Verified Emissions Reduction and Korean Verified Emissions Reduction programs, Thailand uniquely recognizes domestic credits using international standards like “Crown Standard” VCS projects. Carbon programs in Asia are being designed to be comparable so credits can eventually be traded, comments Dirk Forrister of the International Emissions Trading Association.

 

   – Read more

 

In the land of lemurs, REDD with a plus

The March 2009 coup in Madagascar didn’t only displace the country’s democratically-elected president – it also cut off key conservation funds, spurring an “orgy” of illegal rosewood logging. The Makira Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) project, verified in September under the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), aims to reverse that trend. The 400,000-hectare project will prevent 32 MtCO2e over the next 30 years in a forest that provides for people as well as 20 species of lemurs. The project is run by the Wildlife Conservation Society and marks the first time that credits generated by a government-owned project in Africa have been put on the voluntary carbon market. Makira is part of the Code REDD Campaign, and 50% of the revenue from the project’s offsets (assuming it finds a buyer) will go towards sustainable agriculture training, health, and education for local people – the plus part of REDD+.

 

   – Read more in Mongabay
   – Read more in TIME

 

Peering into Microsoft’s windows

Clinton Announces Doubling of Cookstove Distribution, Buoyed by Carbon Markets

Carbon offsets financed half of the 8 million clean or efficient stoves distributed in 2012, as high offset prices and corporate demand to enable stove projects drove $167.3 million into the sector. This from a new report by Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace tracking progress among partners of the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves.

September 30, 2013 | NEW YORK | “I would be invited into someone’s home, and I would go in and I couldn’t breathe,” former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tells of her experience with household air pollution from traditional cooking techniques, at an event held last week marking the third anniversary of the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves.

“My eyes were starting to water,” she continues, “I was having trouble because the stove was billowing out fumes which were something I had not had to live with for more than thirty minutes but that the women and children in the home lived with every day.”

In light of her experiences and recognition that an estimated four million people die each year from the use of traditional cookstoves and open fire pits that pollute indoor air, Clinton – alongside donor governments, businesses and NGOs – launched the Alliance in 2010. Its mission? To spur the adoption of more efficient or clean cooking solutions in 100 million households by 2020.

“We think it’s working. More than 8 million clean cookstoves were distributed last year alone, that’s more than double the number in 2011,” says Clinton, unveiling findings from the Alliance’s 2012 Results Report, written by Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace to track progress among the Alliance’s 800+ partner community.

The study tracks Alliance’s partners’ progress in the clean cookstove sector, finding that partners distributed 8.2 million stoves in 2012, up from 3.6 million stoves in 2011 and accounting for nearly half of all stoves distributed since tracking was initiated by the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air in 2006.

Clean cooking fueled by carbon finance

Switching to clean cookstoves can slash hazardous emissions as well as conserve fuel, benefitting both individuals and the environment – a fact not lost on the world’s aid agencies, which have been supporting their distribution as fast as they can afford to.

Because traditional cookstoves emit hundreds of millions of tons of carbon emissions, clean or efficient cookstove distribution projects – which significantly reduce emissions – can access carbon finance as one of several sources of funding that makes distribution more feasible and stoves more affordable.

Leveraging this type of finance has improved stove access to more people who need them. The 2012 Results Report finds that in 2012, 16.9 million carbon offsets were sold from cookstove projects. Of the 8.2 million cookstoves that the report tracked as distributed, 4.1 million received some support from carbon finance, which is up from 15% of all stoves distributed in 2011.

These emissions reductions, belying offset transactions valued at $167.3 million, achieve the equivalent of closing four or five coal-fired power stations for one year.

The report finds that the average price of offsets from clean cookstove projects was significantly higher than the average verified or certified emissions reduction ($9.9/ton versus $3-$5.9/ton in 2012). The authors note that maintaining this above-average price of cookstove project offsets, as well as the number of offsets sold and stoves distributed as a result, hinges on European countries’ intervention in support of more favorable offset pricing in the region’s emissions trading system. Compliance buyers in the European Emissions Trading System picked up around half of all cookstove offsets transacted last year.

The remaining half was purchased by voluntary buyers seeking offsets to meet corporate social responsibility targets or otherwise demonstrate environmental leadership within their industry. Based on new data collected since the June 2013 launch of Ecosystem Marketplace’s State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets report, offsets from clean cookstove projects were the third most popular emissions reduction activity voluntarily supported by the corporate community, after wind installations and tree planting activities.

The report comes on the same day as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the first installment of its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), which confirms and refines previous findings and underlines the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Other report findings

While funding from the carbon market increased last year, it wasn’t the primary source of finance. Other sources of project finance came from government and foundation grants, revenues obtained from the sale of stoves and fuels to end users, individual donations, and multilateral grants.

Private equity investment – and the private sector, generally – also played a significant role in the sector in 2012. This continues in the current year, last week seeing Shell step up to commit $6 million to support the Alliance’s continuation. Deutsche Bank simultaneously announced the launch of a $4 million Working Capital Fund to provide loans and loan guarantees to enterprises that are unable to access traditional forms of debt financing.

On the public end of the spectrum, Clinton also noted that the US State Department commitment to the Alliance and its partners has increased to $125 million over five years, up from her catalytic commitment of $50 million three years ago.

The report also focuses on other issues of concern in the cookstove sector. One of those issues is gender, as women are predominantly the users of cookstoves and therefore the most impacted by the harmful effects of indoor air pollution – and the benefits of cleaner technology and fuels adoption. The report found that most cookstove and fuel programs engaged women with 172 partners prioritizing women’s empowerment in their missions. However, a large number of partners don’t yet collect or didn’t report sex-disaggregated data, which is key to truly understanding the gender dynamics of the sector, the report notes.

Urban and peri-urban communities were the dominant end users of distributed stoves and fuels, representing 33% of recipients/buyers, though rural residents were close behind at 32%. Users receiving stoves as a result of humanitarian aid or living in an emergency aid context made up just 1% of the 8.2 million cookstoves distributed. Report authors note the unmet need for better cooking technologies for the 42 million people living in those settings.

Additional resources

Figueres Calls For Action As IPCC Reaffirms Man’s Role In Climate Change

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change today has confirmed that human influence has played a big part in warming temperatures and urges the global community to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prevent the situation from getting worse. The UNFCCC supports this saying the world has made significant progress and has the technology and funds to scale up their efforts.

27 September 2013 | Christina Figueres, the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) Executive Secretary says the most recent IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report is a clarion call for the global community to ramp up efforts to combat climate change.

The report, the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment (AR5) includes a portion where over 600 contributing authors from 32 countries concluded that, “human influence on the climate system is clear.” The panel assessed over 9,000 peer-reviewed studies and roughly 54,000 comments before coming to this conclusion.

“The report shows that there is more clarity about human-generated climate change than ever before,” says Figueres. “We know that the total effort to limit warming does not add up to what is needed to bend the emissions curve. To steer humanity out of the high danger zone, governments must step up immediate climate action and craft an agreement in 2015 that helps to scale up and speed up the global response.”

The findings appear in the Summary for Policymakers part of the Working Group I: Climate Change 2013: the Physical Science Basis. IPCC’s assessment confirmed at a 95% likelihood that human impacts are the dominant cause of global warming. Report authors increased their level of confidence to extremely likely.

They also confirmed that the rate of climate change impacts has increased. The assessment notes, “over the last decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent.”

In a universal climate agreement, governments in the UNFCCC have agreed to limit warming past 2 degrees Celsius and to measure the adequacy and progress of this goal. This agreement will end in 2015 with the start of a new agreement that will set new goals based on the previous progress.

Limiting warming and reducing emissions is needed as the IPCC report notes that, “substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gases,” is necessary to curb climate change. Climate models have improved since IPCC’s last assessment in 2007. “Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system,” report authors say.

Figueres believes this knowledge allows the global community to act on climate change.

“As the results from the latest and best available science become clearer, the challenge becomes more daunting, but simultaneously the solutions become more apparent,” she says. “These opportunities need to be grasped across society in mutually reinforcing ways by governments at all levels, by corporations, by civil society and by individuals.”

The IPCC is the most comprehensive and robust assessment on climate change research to date. The UN Environmental Programme and the World Meteorological Organization launched it in 1988 to analyze not only the scientific and environmental aspects of a changing climate but also the socioeconomic impacts of climate change.

The next UN climate change talks will take place in Warsaw, Poland in November where these scientific findings on climate change will be discussed. Then in March of next year, the IPCC will release the second installment of AR5 which will address impacts and vulnerabilities. The following month, a third part outlining options to curb rising greenhouse gases will come out and the final installment will be published in October 2014 before the UN Climate Change Conference in Lima, Peru. That assessment will be an overall summary of the issues for policymakers.

“Thankfully, momentum to fight climate change is building,” Figueres says. “We know that success is possible. We have the technology, funding and ability to respond. The many successes at domestic, international and private sector levels to build a low-carbon society shine light on the way forward, but we do need to quickly go to scale.”

Additional resources

Can Financing Mechanisms Bridge The REDD+ Money Gap?

Private-sector REDD projects have proactively saved roughly 20 million hectares of endangered forest, and the number is growing. Public-sector buyers, however, are putting their money into programs that don’t yet exist, and true compliance buyers are years away. Here’s a look at two discussion papers focusing on new financing mechanisms that might help bridge the gap.

25 September 2013 | Measles, meningitis, and yellow fever. These and scores of other preventable diseases take the lives of children across the developing world every day, but the tragedy is nowhere near as severe as it used to be. That’s partly because a global alliance of businesses and governments called the GAVI Alliance (formerly the “Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation”) developed an innovative financing mechanism called an Advance Market Commitment (AMC), which guaranteed the existence of a market for vaccines meeting certain requirements. That gave biotech and pharmaceutical companies the confidence to ramp up production of new vaccines for the developing world, and more than 300 million children have been immunized as a result.

Donald Kanak and Iain Henderson believe a similar mechanism can be used to fill the short-term funding gap for carbon projects that save endangered rainforest and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD+). That funding gap came into sharp relief with the publication of Ecosystem Marketplace’s 2012 report “Leveraging the Landscape: State of the Forest Carbon Market”. Conservation International (CI) highlighted it more recently in a white paper called “REDD+ Market: Sending Out an SOS”, which came out last week and is built on our report and other sources – key among them a discussion paper from Kanak and Henderson called “Closing the REDD+ Gap: The Global Forest Finance Facility”.

The CI paper offers a clear and concise summary of the supply and demand factors impacting the REDD+ market, and also summarizes various solutions in the air. Here is a quick overview of some of the ideas both papers highlight:

Diversification

Until REDD+ scales up, countries can focus on activities that are less destructive than current methods but also less lucrative – such as low-impact logging, sustainable agriculture, and even palm oil on degraded lands. CI cites the Brazilian State of Acre as an example of a jurisdiction that is doing just that.

Price Supports and Insurance Mechanisms

Just as governments provide price supports for agriculture, they can provide price supports for REDD+ – a step, however, that would require some sort of political will. It’s also possible to develop insurance policies or hedging vehicles, but these would have to be implemented when prices are high, not when they are low.

Expand Existing Programs

The most obvious solution is to scale up existing programs like the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility’s Carbon Fund or somehow coordinate funding efforts among various bilateral approaches currently underway. Kanak and Henderson, however, point out that the World Bank and the bilateral funding efforts suffer from the same flaw that has hindered the whole process: namely, they “rely on diplomacy, reshaping government bureaucracy and changing budgeting methods in an international setting, which will probably take years, assuming that it is possible at all.”

Advance Market Commitments

Kanak and Henderson clearly come down in favor of AMCs, and when you look at the GAVI Alliance’s experience, you can see why.

“Partners include WHO, UNICEF, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Bank,” they wrote. “It has quantifiable and measurable targets and makes multi-year, long-term commitments to partner countries. It also works closely to stimulate effective private sector participation. It has a vigorous commitment to transparency and a strong internal audit discipline. With its partnerships and unique operating model, GAVI has contributed to the immunisation of 326 million children and committed USD 7.8 billion since 2000, including USD 7.2 billion to 71 low-income countries through 2016. It encourages country ownership and co-financing, and works with existing institutions, including national health systems. It has a headquarters staff of only 125 people.”

CI points to research from Bloomberg New Energy Finance showing that 87% of global solar and 64% of global wind projects get their funding in part from feed-in tariffs, which are a type of AMC.

The Global Forest Finance Facility

Kanak and Henderson propose the creation of a new financing body called the Global Forest Finance Facility (GFFF), which would use AMCs to screen, select, and finance “large-scale national and/or sub-national REDD+ programmes.”

Such a program could easily be expanded to support private-sector projects – if they are located within trusted REDD jurisdictions.

“To be eligible for funding from the GFFF, REDD+ programmes would not only have to be subject to a national legal framework for REDD+, but would also have to be on a very large scale and meet rigorous social and environmental standards,” they write. “Payments would be according to binding contractual commitments to pay upon verified performance, and not subject to annual budget cycles of donor governments or further political negotiations.”

Additional resources

This Week In Forest Carbon: State Of The Forest Carbon Markets Returns!

Ecosystem Marketplace’s annual State of the Forest Carbon Markets report is due out November 6 and with it the latest findings on forest carbon projects’ structure, standards and finance. Focus points include the changing dynamics of forest finance and global market activity. Join Ecosystem Marketplace in London for a presentation on these findings. RSVP today!

This article was originally published in the Forest Carbon newsletter. Click here to read the original.

25 October 2013 | Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace will unveil its most recent State of the Forest Carbon Markets report on November 6, 2013. The report, which details our latest findings on the state of forest carbon projects’ structure, standards, and finance, will be freely available on both the Ecosystem Marketplace and Forest Carbon Portal websites on and after this date.  

In 2012, the State of the Forest Carbon Markets report was Ecosystem Marketplace’s most widely-accessed research product. This year’s edition explores topics ranging from global market activity; to the time-cost of the project cycle; to the changing dynamics of forest finance. Supported by more data points and representing projects in more locations than ever before, we’re confident that our 2013 report will inform a broad range of policy, practitioner and investment discussions.
 

Join us to learn about the results first-hand at our London launch event! Hosted by Ecoinvest Services/Bunge Environmental Markets, we will host a panel of experts to present and discuss report findings from 4:30-6pm, followed by cocktails. RSVP here to reserve a space – and act fast, space is limited to 50 seats!



When: 4:30-6pm

Where: Bunge Environmental Markets/Ecoinvest

3 More London Riverside SE1 2AQ

London, United Kingdom

RSVP: By COB November 4, 2013

Ecosystem Marketplace wishes to thank our 2013 report Premium Sponsors: Face the Future, the World Bank BioCarbon Fund and The Program on Forests (PROFOR); and sponsors Althelia Ecosphere and New Forests; all of which enable Ecosystem Marketplace to explore developments on the frontier of ecosystem service finance.

 

Valorando Naturaleza Webinar

Valorando Naturaleza, sister site to Ecosystem Marketplace, will present the second webinar in its report launch series,Considering Compensations in Latin America: Carbon Management, Communities And Corporate Responsibility on Friday Oct 25th at 12pm EST. The event brings together private sector speakers from Brazil – Keyvan Macedo of Natura, Chile – Carlos Berner of the Santiago Climate Exchange and Valentina Lira of Concha y Toro Winery – and Costa Rica – Sylvia Chaves of Florex – to discuss how forest carbon offsets fit into their strategies and what their experience has been engaging in such deals. The webinar will be conducted in Spanish.

To register, click here.

 

 

From the Editors

Forest Trend’s REDDX website launched earlier this year to track the more than $7.3 billion pledged to support REDD+ readiness in developing countries. Information transparency around the financing of REDD+ activities remains murky, but by tracking disbursements with local in-country civil society groups, REDDX seeks to follow the money through the entire supply chain.


REDDX is working to disseminate information about 14 countries, with Colombia, Liberia and Tanzania now joining the four other countries whose REDD+ information was already available online. In addition, the data for Ecuador and Vietnam was recently updated.

 

Colombia’s REDD+ financing shows that donor government agencies, particularly USAID, are the primary contributors. USAID has committed 70% of the total funding flowing to Colombia, the majority of which goes to U.S.-based consultancy firm Chemonics International. Overall, a total of $44 million has been committed, with $25 million of that disbursed.

 

Similar to Colombia, donor governments account for 95% of all REDD+ finance flowing to Tanzania. Unlike the former, most of that money then goes to other donor government agencies. In general, donor governments are not recipients of international REDD+ finance. However in some instances, specific donor government agencies receive funds from another agency within their own government. In this case, the Government of Norway is directing 95% of REDD+ finance commitments through the Royal Norwegian Embassy in Tanzania.

 

Liberia has a more diverse set of funding: a majority of the money stems from multilateral institutions but donor government agencies and private foundations also supply a fair amount. The money is also split among recipients: the Government of Liberia receives a bit more than international and Liberian NGOs/academia. Liberia currently receives about $9.5 million for REDD, with $5 million of that disbursed.

 

These and other stories from the forest carbon marketplace are summarized below, so keep reading!

—The Ecosystem Marketplace Team

If you have comments or would like to submit news stories, write to us at [email protected].

Forest Trends’ Fundraising Challenge

Forest Trends’ work doesn’t grow on trees – we rely on readers’ generosity to help keep them standing.

Now through November 22, (and for the cost of a typical lunch!), donations to Forest Trends’ Crowdrise campaign could leverage up to $1 million in matching awards through the Skoll Foundation’s Social Entrepreneurship Challenge. Help Forest Trends expand our vital services to communities and experts on the front lines of ecosystem conservation. $10 will go a long way!

Support us on Crowdrise

News

International Policy

Turning over the same LEAF

Earlier this October, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry attended the Association of Southeast Asian Nations – U.S. Summit. Discussions there reaffirmed cooperation on several environmental programs, including U.S. support for USAID’s Lowering Emissions in Asia’s Forests (LEAF) project. LEAF promotes collaboration between regional governments, forestry and climate mitigation specialists and universities with technical capacity building focused on REDD programs. The U.S. also encourages emissions reductions activities in Southeast Asia through its Enhancing Capacity for Low Emission Development Program, the Department of State’s LEDS Global Partnership, and USAID’s Low Emissions Asian Development program.

 

Project Development

REDDy…Olé!

The Climate Action Reserve’s (CAR) Board of Directors just adopted the organization’s Mexico Forest Protocol. The protocol marks several years of collaboration between California, Mexico and CAR and was created with special attention given to ejidos’ (local communities) involvement. The Mexican Forest Protocol uses a standardized approach for measuring avoided deforestation and enhanced carbon sequestration while enhancing Mexican environmental and social safeguards. It was designed for integration within evolving Mexican REDD+ policies and could play an important role if California seeks REDD offsets for its cap-and-trade program. The protocol will “spur innovation in Mexico… and support California’s ongoing efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while expanding business opportunities and job creation,” explains Senator Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana), chair of the Select Committee on California-Mexico Cooperation.

 

A wasteland, transformed

In the wasteland of Deramandi, India outside of New Dehli, the grasslands and native flora that once flourished are beginning to make a comeback after a century of degradation from urbanization and open cast quartzite mining. The revegetation project launched in 2008 after the government handed the land over to the Eco-Task Force of the Indian Territorial Army, members of which did most of the planting. It was recently accepted under the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism as an urban forestry project–the only of its kind in India. The project is expected to save 12,138 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) per year, but the forest department says it is too early to say how much money the sale of the Certified Emissions Reductions will generate, which depends partly on whether they find a buyer in the compliance or voluntary markets.

 

Starting small

The Micro and Small Enterprise Development and Building Alternative Livelihood for Vulnerable Groups initiative has just launched in Guyana. The project is a joint effort between the Minister of Tourism, Industry and Commerce and the Inter-American Development Bank and has $10 million in funding from the Guyana-Norway forest carbon partnership agreement. It will make loans available below a 6% interest rate and offer a maximum of $1,500 for entrepreneurs interested in ecotourism, fruit and vegetable farming, and aquaculture and sustainable forestry initiatives. An estimated $5 million will be released the first two years of the program and could create as many as 2,200 jobs.

 

Flying off the map

An $8 million project funded by Germany has just taken off, with planes starting to map forest cover in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). NASA remote scientist Sassan Saatchi is one of the participants flying the planes, which will collect 100 meter forest cover resolutions. The scientist has already mapped forests across the tropics at a 1 kilometer resolution in the past, but enhanced accuracy could prove instrumental for the DRC to gain greater legitimacy for REDD projects. Saatchi estimates the DRC’s forests could contain up to 22-24 billion tCO2e. The project will use planes to collect data via laser at sample locations, which will then be used to estimate the entire country’s forest cover.

 

Ecuador Gets REDDer

The governments of Norway and Germany recently signed an agreement with Ecuador to contribute $2.6 million to build national capacity for REDD over four years. The money will be used to strengthen forest governance and develop measurement, reporting and verification (MRV). Ecuador has 10 million hectares of forest covering 55% of the country across the Amazon, Andean highlands, and coast. Its Ministry of Environment estimates the rate of deforestation is 61,764 hectares per year. After joining the UN-REDD Programme in October 2009, Ecuador officially launched its REDD program in August 2012.

 

Intent on buyers

Earlier this month, Costa Rica signed a Letter of Intent with the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), which resulted in a first of its kind Emissions Reductions Payment Agreement to allow a country large-scale access to performance based payments, as it guarantees FCPF will negotiate the purchase of carbon offsets up to $63 million. This ensures demand for Costa Rica’s efforts to protect forests on 340,000 hectares of land and help the country meet its 2021 carbon neutrality goal. The plan also targets indigenous participation with a goal of 10% of the land to be indigenous territories. “It’s the first time that the indigenous territories will have access to the information on REDD+ in their languages and according to their worldview,” adds Carlos Cascante, a representative of the Bribri indigenous territory.

 

Praying for carbon guidance

Last week, Finite Carbon registered 4,000 acres of the Shannondale Tree Farm with CAR. The farm belongs to the Missouri Mid-South United Church of Christ and marks the first religious organization in the U.S. to complete a carbon offset for CAR. The project qualifies for more than 120,000 offsets and can supply early action offsets to California’s cap-and-trade program. “One of my personal hopes is that the churches will use this moment to inventory their own emissions of carbon through travel, heating and cooling, and plastic purchases, and to commit to reduce our church-wide carbon footprint.” said Rev. Dr. Davida Foy Crabtree, UCC Missouri Mid-South Acting Conference Minister.

 

Train heading West

Developer Finite Carbon and transportation company Norfolk Southern have registered the Brosnan Forest Improved Forest Management carbon project in South Carolina under CAR’s forest project protocol. The project has resulted in more than 282,000 compliance-eligible carbon offsets at initial registration and is being transitioned as an early action project for the California cap-and-trade program.

 

National Standards and Capacity

REDD money just out of reach

With 40% of forested land, Zimbabwe holds great potential for REDD. However, all REDD+ initiatives located in the African country are small scale, with the exception of the private sector-funded Kariba project. The Bio-Hub Trust, a coalition of local and environmental organizations, seeks to change that. Working with Zimbabwe’s environmental ministry, the coalition hosted the country’s first REDD+ Stakeholders Consultative Workshop earlier this year, which found that Zimbabwe has still not taken steps to encourage REDD adoption. Bio-Hub Trust estimates that more than $1.2 billion REDD+ support financing is waiting for applicants, but the country needs to establish a national REDD+ plan to access the money.

 

Turning to the Dark Side

When Harrison Ford arrived in Indonesia last month, he spoke with President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Forestry Minister Zulkifli Hasan about his concerns over deforestation in a Central Kalimantan peatland restoration project. However, in spite of promised support from the President, Zulkifli has now proposed reducing the reserve in half. The 203,000 hectare Katingan Peatland Restoration and Conservation project is a potential REDD site, and Hartono Dharsono, the president and director of forest conservation company P.T. Rimba Makmur Utama, has spent millions trying to bring his ecosystem restoration license in front of the minister. Dharsono has worked on the application for five years and generated the support of the local community for the REDD project, which would be the country’s largest if successful. Despite the Forestry Ministry’s approval of the project proposal, Zulkifili hasn’t signed the restoration license. His newest statement – announcing a 100,000 hectare cut to the area – is reportedly due to his worry about Dharsono’s ability to manage the area.

 

Methodology and Standards Watch

A promise to keep

In February this year, Asia Pulp and Paper (APP) declared that it would cease clearing natural forest land in Indonesia. However, green groups were reluctant to applaud APP until they saw actual results. Eight months later, the company opened its doors for reporters to come learn about their progress. Phil Covington from the Triple Pundit reports: “First things first – is the deforestation moratorium holding up? In short, the answer is yes.” He explains that the moratorium affects 38 concessions – 2.6 million hectares – so APP is working with the organizations Ekologika and The Forest Trust to assess each concession’s ecological importance. Both organizations agree that, despite a few breaches, the moratorium and transparency are being upheld. The assessments are due to be completed in 2014, with recommendations on how to manage each concession.

 

Tracking progress

The 18-month “National Forestry Monitoring System” project by the Central African Forest Commission (COMIFAC) is coming along nicely, according to the experts and stakeholders meeting from October 7-11. The project has already created two thematic working groups and placed COMIFAC members into each to learn to pilot local projects. What remains is to iron out the project details for activities and budget. Cameroon, one COMIFAC member, has been placed into the detection and geographic information system group, which will help the country create a national forest inventory. After 18 months, the resulting plan of action will be submitted to the African Development Bank and the Congo Basin Forest Fund for funding to implement a National Forest Monitoring System in each member country.

 

Human Dimension

Striving to adapt

Indian Country Today Media Network last week recognized eight tribes that are “way ahead of the climate-adaptation curve.” One of the highlighted tribes is the Nez Perce of the Columbia River Plateau of northern Idaho who a decade ago developed a carbon strategy to market offsets from a 400-acre afforestation project. These efforts have since expanded to 33 different projects over 3,375 acres that convert former agricultural land to forest or restore forests damaged by wildfire. The projects employ tribal members through activities such as seed-planting and thinning, improve water quality, and reduce soil erosion, therefore improving fish habitat in the river below. A profile of the carbon finance effort cites the challenges that the Nez Perce encountered along the way: understanding carbon market terminology, the “convoluted” process for validating offsets, and the reluctance of many tribal members to trust outside firms to develop forest plans on tribal land.

 

Nothing is sacred

All over the world, indigenous communities quietly protect some of the most biodiverse forests on Earth. In Kenya, the Massai people have a belief system that condemns deforestation. They use only branches for firewood and roots for herbs. India has hundreds of sacred groves protected by followers of Buddhism. One study estimated that the Sem Mukhem sacred forest in the Himalayas stores 775 metric tonnes of carbon per hectare. Many of these sacred forests have so far been spared by loggers and developers, but Professor Prasit Wangpakapattanawong of Thailand’s Chiang Mai University says that is beginning to change. India’s sacred Arvali forest has been earmarked for development and niobium miners have their sights on Kenya’s Mrima sacred hill forest. Wangpakapattanawong is concerned about this trend: “Many communities have deep indigenous knowledge that, if integrated with science, will help the world improve forest cover,” he says.

–>Note that unit above is carbon, not CO2

 

No get out of jail free card

The Landscape Game, developed by scientist Herry Purnomo of the Center for International Forestry Research, recently joined a new genre of board games (í  la Settlers of Catan) that challenges players to consider natural resources and development in a fresh way. The game involves six players interacting on a landscape of different land uses, from dense forest to mines and farms. It shows players the outcomes of long-term investments, even including an option to put funding into REDD+. “Almost a billion people in the world have played Monopoly, but it’s outmoded in the sense that there’s no component considering the impact of property purchases on the ecosystem, global warming or sustainability,” Purnomo says. “I wondered what would happen if a billion people were to learn a game that considered an alternative view of investments and landscape management.”

 

Science & Technology Review

Don’t let the bed bugs bite

While increased temperatures and carbon dioxide boost tree growth, they also allow insects to flourish. Recent findings from a Dartmouth University study discovered that the latter often outpaces the former, leaving North American trees more vulnerable to insects and disease. The report reviewed almost 500 other studies to examine the effect of climate change on forests since the 1950s. Researchers discovered 27 insects and 22 diseases that have made notable disturbances to forests in the region. However, they added that warming past a certain level may actually destroy some insects and allow greater tree growth. “We need to also start focusing on what could be — I don’t want to say ‘benefits,’ but the opportunities here,” says Aaron Weed, a Dartmouth postdoctoral researcher in ecology.

 

Houston, we have a project

NASA just funded a three-year project to support implementation of REDD+ in Mexico. The project involves researchers from the University of Delaware, the U.S. Forest Service, six institutions in Mexico, and the National Forestry Commission of Mexico (CONAFOR) and aims to analyze carbon stocks at a regional level to improve MRV. The research will use NASA satellites, MexFlux sites and forestry inventory plots established by CONAFOR to collect MRV information useful for REDD+ activities. Rodrigo Vargas, the project’s principle investigator, explains that, “MRV models are important as they lend credibility to REDD+ activities concerning forest dynamics and carbon sequestration potential.” Research will start with a few selected sites and then begin to scale up.

 

Don’t mess with Texas

A new study by Texas A&M revealed that forests may be worth $93 billion each year in the Lone Star state. The figure was gathered through a compilation of environmental benefits from the Texas Statewide Assessment of Forest Ecosystem Services. Researchers also surveyed residents across the state to understand cultural values of forests. Forester Hughes Simpson, a researcher involved in the study, notes that cultural values “are more esoteric,” but are given the highest monetary values (estimated at $60.4 billion per year). In addition to cultural values, the study identified watershed regulation, biodiversity services, climate regulation and air quality services as those important to forests. This assessment only studied forested, rural lands, but the agency hopes to analyze benefits from trees in urban areas in the future.

 

Publications

Feeding a forest

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) just released a publication that highlights the importance of forests for food, agriculture and fuel to local communities. The report, “Towards Food Security and Improved Nutrition: Increasing the Contribution of Forests and Trees,” came at the heels of the International Conference on Forests for Food Security and Nutrition. It suggests that greater coordination is needed across agriculture, forest and mining, and other sectors to ensure complete policy alignment and shared data.

 

Tooling around

The FAO also just released a report on “Improving Governance of Forest Tenure,” a technical guide written for policy makers and civil society stakeholders. The guide identifies and summarizes 86 tools that may be used to identify and improve forest governance. It also describes nine tools in depth to provide a core set of practical, commonly used tools.

 

REDD lessons learned

With the recent completion of a three-year project, World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has just released a report on “Building REDD+ for People and Nature: From Lessons Learned across Indonesia, Peru and the Democratic Republic of Congo to a New Vision for REDD+”. The project, funded by the Norwegian government, sought to develop scalable REDD+ models and engage local communities. Three locations were chosen in the DRC, Indonesia and Peru totaling up to 15.5 million hectares. The resulting report shares impacts, challenges and lessons learned from this work and its implications for REDD+.

 

A separate WWF report called “Environmental Service Incentives in the State of Acre, Brazil: Lessons for Policies, Programmes and Strategies for Jurisdiction-Wide REDD+” recognizes Acre’s status as a leading state in REDD+ policies and describes its Environmental Service Incentives System (SISA in Portuguese), which has a developed REDD+ program. The report analyzes the design and construction of ISA Carbon and identifies strengths and challenges to provide insights to further SISA projects. The NGO has also updated its “WWF Guide to Building REDD+ Strategies — A toolkit for REDD+ Practitioners Around the Globe,” which uses WWF’s REDD+ experience and the latest literature to outline emerging REDD+ best practices.

 

Jobs

Environmental Policy and Natural Resources Management Researcher – German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut fí¼r Entwicklungspolitik

Based in Bonn, Germany, the Environmental Policy and Natural Resources Management Researcher will research market-based mechanisms for the Climate Change and Development project. Candidates should have a Master’s degree in economics, public policy or human geography and proven knowledge in the fields of payments for ecosystem services, REDD+ and/or other market-based mechanisms. Relevant scientific publication or policy experience is a plus.

– Read more about the position here.

 

Natural Resource/Agricultural Economist – Earth Innovation Institute

Based in San Francisco, California, the Natural Resource/Agricultural Economist will conduct policy and economic analysis to support the transition of states and sub-national regions to a Low Emissions Rural Development model. Specifically, the work will involve compiling economic data and performing analysis of agricultural commodity supply chains, with a focus on palm oil, soy, sugar cane, and beef. Candidates should hold a PhD in natural resource, agricultural, forest or environmental economics and have at least two years of experience in land and natural resource economics, agricultural economics, sustainable supply chains, and/or land use in tropical regions.

– Read more about the position here.

 

Project Manager – ECODIT

Based in Washington, D.C., the Project Manager will provide leadership on natural resource management (NRM) activities, including biodiversity conservation, climate change, sustainable forestry, REDD and ecosystem services. The Manager shall also manage and provide technical input for proposal development efforts and cultivate strategic relationships with clients, partners, and international experts. Candidates should have at least seven years of international experience in NRM and at least five years’ experience working on USAID-funded NRM projects and assignments.

– Read more about the position here.

 

Governance of Forests Initiative Project Manager/ Senior Associate – World Resources Institute

Based in Washington, D.C., the Senior Associate will lead project administration activities and help develop and implement country-specific strategies for Brazil, Indonesia, and Cameroon. The Senior Associate will also provide leadership for the development and implementation of work focused on international and multilateral processes, such as UNFCCC, FCPF, Forest Investment Program, UN-REDD Programme, and the REDD+ Partnership. Candidates should have a Master’s degree or higher in public policy, environmental resource management, or other relevant field and a minimum of five years relevant experience working on issues related to forest governance and policy processes in developing countries.

– Read more about the position here.

 

Initiative for Conservation for the Andean Amazon Intern – Engility Corporation

Based in Washington, D.C., the intern will report to the Initiative for Conservation for the Andean Amazon Program Coordinator and will assist with project implementation, coordination and communication. Interns should have a Bachelor’s degree and Spanish fluency. Experience in Latin America and a demonstrated interest in environmental issues are a plus.

– Read more about the position here.

 

Communications Officer – ForestEthics

Based in Vancouver, Canada, the Communications Officer will develop, coordinate and implement strategic communications and media plans for ForestEthics Advocacy’s campaigns. The position will involve working with campaigners and coalition partners, developing relationships with reports and producing written materials including op-eds and press releases. Candidates should have at least three years of experience working in a media outlet or communications department of an NGO and experience creating social media campaigns and metrics-based strategies.

– Read more about the position here.

ABOUT THE FOREST CARBON PORTAL

The Forest Carbon Portal provides relevant daily news, a bi-weekly news brief, feature articles, a calendar of events, a searchable member directory, a jobs board, a library of tools and resources. The Portal also includes the Forest Carbon Project Inventory, an international database of projects including those in the pipeline. Projects are described with consistent ‘nutrition labels’ and allow viewers to contact project developers.

ABOUT THE ECOSYSTEM MARKETPLACE

Ecosystem Marketplace is a project of Forest Trends, a tax-exempt corporation under Section 501(c)3. This newsletter and other dimensions of our voluntary carbon markets program are funded by a series of international development agencies, philanthropic foundations, and private sector organizations. For more information on donating to Ecosystem Marketplace, please contact [email protected].

Additional resources

Understanding Carbon Accounting Under The UN Framework Convention

COP 19 Coverage

We covered the COP from beginning to end, with a narrow focus on REDD and those issues still under discussion. Here is the bulk of our coverage, with a few breaking stories omitted.

Demand For Forest Carbon Offsets Rises As Forestland Under Carbon Management Grows sets the stage for Warsaw with a deep dive into the state of forest carbon markets around the world.

REDD, CDM Likely To Find A Place In New Climate Agreement: UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres offers hope that the troubled CDM market and REDD projects will be included in the international climate deal expected to be finalized in 2015.

Understanding Carbon Accounting Under The UN Framework Convention is a work in progress designed to explain in simple terms the complexity of carbon accounting under the emerging “REDD Rulebook”.

Indigenous Leaders Stand Up For Active Role In REDD relates what indigenous leaders expect from forest-carbon finance

REDD Reference Levels Share Stage With Broader Land-Use Issues In Warsaw outlines the issues on the table at the beginning of the talks.

In Warsaw As In California, Forest Carbon Carrot Needs Compliance Stick  explores the need for compliance drivers to boost demand for forest carbon offsets.

Forest, Ag Projects Can Combine Adaptation And Mitigation: CIFOR Study  highlights the missed opportunities to link multiple benefits in projects that aim to tackle the impacts of climate change.

Dutch Platform Turns Landscapes Talk Into REDD Reality examines a new platform unveiled in Warsaw that could serve as a model for future public-private partnerships for financing REDD+ projects.

The REDD Finance Roundtable: A Quick Chat With EDF, WWF, and UCS takes stock of the talks on the eve of the final REDD agreement.

For REDD Proponents, No Regrets  examines the early success of REDD pilot projects despite sluggish progress made in securing policy and financial support at the national and international levels.

US, UK, Norway Launch Next-Stage REDD Finance Mechanism Under World Bank examines a financing mechanism designed to support performance-based payments down the road.

After the talks, we began digging into the decisions and themes of the two-week talk, and will be rolling these stories out as they take shape.

Unpacking Warsaw, Part One: The Institutional Arrangements explores the last-minute deal that lays rules for governing REDD finance through 2015.

Unpacking Warsaw, Part Two: Recognizing The Landscape Reality explores the thinking behind the growing emphasis on “landscape thinking” in climate finance.

Unpacking Warsaw, Part Three: COP Veterans Ask, ‘Where’s The Beef?’ explores the reaction of carbon traders to the Warsaw outcomes and offers a peek into the year ahead.

Further stories in this series will explore the impact of individual decisions within the rulebook, the role that the rulebook can play in helping existing projects nest in jurisdictional programs, and the impact of the rulebook on the private sector.

Please note this is a work in progress, and will expand, contract, and crystalize in the days ahead. Although far from finished, complete, I felt it worth posting in its current form because it deals with issues that are critical to understanding this week’s talks. I apologize for any confusion.

12 November 2013 | WARSAW | Poland | India has a Constitution; Germany has a Grundgesetz; and the Terrestrial Carbon Accounting world has its Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry (LULUCF) – a 5,000-page compendium of science-based rules for measuring, monitoring, and accounting for the carbon captured in forests, farms, and prairies. Every standard that harnesses carbon finance to save endangered rainforest and Reduce greenhouse gas Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) is built on these Guidelines, and any agreement forged under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) must adhere to them.

If you don’t know the relevant sections of the Good Practice Guidance, you don’t really know carbon accounting – and most of us don’t know them.

That’s bad news for anyone looking to rationally explore these issues, and it’s especially bad news for developing countries looking to harness REDD income to save their rainforests. That’s because developed countries have set aside billions of dollars for REDD, but they won’t start spending it in a big way until they see trustworthy reference levels that tell them both how much carbon is captured in the forests, farms, and prairies of recipient countries and how that carbon content is changing. To earn the trust of investors and environmentalists, those reference levels must have been developed in accordance with the Good Practice Guidance.

To date, however, no developing countries have published reference levels – largely because few people outside a very small cadre of scientists, negotiators, and project developers understand the Guidance. Without that understanding, developing countries can’t establish trustworthy reference levels; and without those reference levels, developed countries won’t start paying for REDD.

In the end, we all lose – because carbon finance is emerging as one of the most powerful tools for reducing greenhouse gasses in the near term and saving endangered rainforest in the long term. In fact, our most recent “State of Forest Carbon Markets” report shows that carbon finance is being used to support the conservation of more than 26.5 million hectares of rainforest. That’s more than all the forests of the Democratic Republic of the Congo combined, and it’s based only on voluntary markets.

Further growth is limited in part by the lack of understanding, and it was to end this stalemate that the University of California at San Diego (UCSD) and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) launched an intensive month-long course in advanced terrestrial carbon accounting at UCSD’s La Jolla campus. My aim here is to try and re-create the epiphanies I experienced over the course of that month and share them with the larger world. I’ll try to go deep enough into each issue to provide a general reader with enough understanding to follow relevant discussions in Warsaw, but not so deep that I get lost. My aim is to be a conduit between the experts and the larger world, and I invite any real experts who wish to offer feedback to do so. Eventually, I’d like to harvest this to create a simple yet comprehensive and fully indexed overview of carbon accounting – one that can be freely available to anyone looking to understand these issues, and that covers both the voluntary and compliance mechanisms. Think of it as an online “Carbon Accounting for Dummies”.

First Principles

Like most things related to climate science, the Guidelines were developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which gathers research from scientists around the world and distills the essence. Quick history here, segue to:

  • Transparency: There is sufficient and clear documentation such that individuals or groups other than the inventory compilers can understand how the inventory was compiled and can assure themselves it meets the good practice requirements for national greenhouse gas emissions inventories.
  • Completeness: Estimates are reported for all relevant categories of sources and sinks, and gases.
  • Consistency: Estimates for different inventory years, gases and categories are made in such a way that differences in the results between years and categories reflect real differences in emissions.
  • Comparability: The national greenhouse gas inventory is reported in a way that allows it to be compared with national greenhouse gas inventories for other countries.
  • Accuracy: The national greenhouse gas inventory contains neither over- nor under-estimates so far as can be judged.

Like constitutions, these apparently simple Principles are open to interpretation and subject to debate, as I was to learn as over the course of the next four weeks.

The Basics of Measuring

For a solid introduction to the mechanics of carbon accounting, I suggest dipping into our pre-class assignment: a 2007 paper called “Monitoring and Estimating Tropical Forest Carbon Stocks: Making REDD a Reality”. Written in a year when expectation for remote-sensing were high, it lays out a procedure that combines crawling around on the ground to see what’s there and then mixing it with satellite imagery to see if the pictures from the sky tell us what’s on the ground. It’s a process called ground-truthing, and I’d written about it before. Now I was to learn how it’s done for real.

Week One: The Foundation

The first thing we learned was to differentiate between counting carbon and accounting for carbon. It’s one of those apparently obvious distinctions that still needs to be emphasized if you’re to understand anything that comes next, because it defines everything that reasonable people still disagree over when it comes to REDD in particular and carbon accounting in general.

Carbon counting deals with the science: how you measure the amount of carbon captured in forests, farms, and prairies, as well as the changes in that amount (the carbon flux).

Carbon accounting deals with the politics: how to take those measurements and the factors impacting them and create a global set of rules for translating the changes in carbon stocks and the factors impacting them into ledger entries on which people can make decisions. Like all accounting methods, it will not be perfect. Some scientific issues won’t fit into accounting methods, or some data will be too expensive or even impossible to gather.

Broadly speaking, the IPCC addresses the issue of carbon counting, but only at the behest of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFCCC, which deals with carbon accounting. In other words, if the politicians who comprise the UNFCCC have a scientific question, they submit it to the IPCC, which culls the world’s scientific papers for an answer.

Lecture 1: The Basics

The first lecture offered a brief history of carbon counting, beginning with a look at late American scientist Charles Keeling’s 1958 attempt to measure the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The “Keeling Curve” begins then and slants rhythmically upward, like an ascending heartbeat.

That heartbeat reflects the rhythm of is the world’s forests, which sponge up carbon dioxide in the summer. It turns out there are more seasonal forests in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern Hemisphere, so the northern summer sponges up more carbon in the spring and winter, while equatorial forests sponge it up all year long and the few southers seasonal forests sponge it up in the southern spring and winter. The upward slant reflects the increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as forests decrease and the burning of fossil fuels increases.

This simple observation offers a springboard into the science of carbon sequestration and the politics of carbon accounting and why we are here – for, although scientists have a pretty good idea of how much carbon goes into oceans and the atmosphere and how much comes from factories, they’re far from sure how much comes from or goes into forests, farms, and prairies.

The Keeling Curve

The Keeling Curve

Lecture 2: Field Measurements and Carbon Inventories

We spent the second day with Conservation Fund Forest Carbon Analyst Jordan Golinkoff, who explained the mechanics of measuring forests before taking us out to the Dawson Los Monos Canyon Reserve to apply our learning.

The take-home is that you want to most aggressively sample the areas that are most likely to have the most carbon. We learned all about how to separate your forest into similar chunks, how to select plots, and how to measure the trees in them. The most common method is to measure the trees in “nested fixed area plots”, which are plots inside plots. In this method, you make a larger plot where you measure only the larger trees, and inside this, a smaller one where you measure the smaller t
Golinkoff, however, says he prefers variable radius plots, which means you use a nifty little prism to measure the probable size of trees in your plot, and then only measure those above a certain radius. It’s the method we’ll be using in the Canyon, and it’s complicated. Golinkoff, however, says it’s more cost-effective and ultimately more accurate because you can survey more plots this way.

Lecture 3: The UNFCCC and Terrestrial Carbon Accounting

Peter Graham co-chairs the UNFCCC REDD+ negotiations, and he led us on a day-long excursion into the history and current state of REDD+ within the UNFCCC. Here is our pre-course reading:

He explained why the opening plenaries of climate talks are so boring (because delegates are just reciting their positions) and how they become more interesting and productive as negotiations break into smaller groups that actually negotiate and then to smaller groups in smaller and smaller rooms, more technological issues come under the gun.

After that, he offered a detailed walk-through of negotiations from 2005, when REDD was introduced, to the present:

Montreal

REDD was formally introduced into the UNFCCC process.

Bali Action Plan 2007

In Bali, negotiators let degradation into the equations for the first time – and left the door open to what later became the “plus” in REDD+: namely, “conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries”.

They established two negotiating tracks – one focused on the existing Kyoto Protocol, and one focused on creating a replacement. REDD talks took place in the replacement track — formally the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA).

Copenhagen

This was the year everything fell apart – except REDD+. For the first time ever, the COP recognized REDD as “crucial” in combatting climate change, and called for the creation of mechanisms “including REDD-plus” to get performance-based finance flowing to developed countries. It called on the UNFCCC to use the most recent IPCC guidance and guidelines as a basis for estimating anthropogenic forest-related greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks, forest carbon stocks and forest area changes.

And there was money, too. It even established the Green Climate Fund to xx. On the sidelines, countries like the United States, Norway, and Germany were pledging billions towards REDD – and that figure now stands at xx and counting.

But North Korea sent a ripple of fear through the REDD community when it introduced the concept of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Activities (NAMAs). The idea was to identify activities that developing countries could undertake to earn credit by reducing emissions, and REDD clearly fit into that category. The trouble is that NAMAs were a whole new mechanism needing a whole new set of agreements. Proponents immediately tried to distance REDD from the new financing mechanism on the block – largely because REDD was so advanced and they feared it would backslide if thrown into this new concept.

Cancun

Sub-national still requires reporting of leakage at national level.

Durban

In Durban, the central question for REDD was how to define a forest – which is no easy task. EXPAND.
If you are applying a different forest definition, you have to explain why. It was recognized by negotatiors that the definition being applied for annex 1 was too restrictive. It was a concern. Durban gives you the leeway to define forests in a way that is most suitable for country circumstances, but must be national one.
For our work, the big deal was that to reduce the burden of explaining great detail every aspect, for practical purposes, a summary would be provided.
if using a different definition for REDD+ than in inventory, will be running two books, and will not serve youwell in long term…   Canada had that problem at first, but now can define them the same way…   it says you can do it, but

Doha

Here we bogged down – but not because REED. Global talks stalled, and we’re all waiting for Warsaw.

If higher level issues – verification related to NAMAs… financing discussions going on and heated. At a technical level, did make progress, but o reflected in a decision.
Sometimes REDD gets held hostage.

Lectures 4 and 5: IPCC Good Practice Guidance

Thelma Krug is Brazil’s lead climate negotiator and a mathematician with the country’s National Institute for Space Research (INPE). More importantly, she was one of the founding mothers – having co-authored the Good Practice Guidance on which we were building all of this.

She walked us through the history of the IPCC, beginning with its first assessment report in 1990 and progressing through the creation of the UNFCCC on Earth Day in Rio two years later and the subsequent Good Practice Guidelines that began flowing in 1996 (after a draft in 1995).

The first focused on Land-Use Change and Forestry (LUCF). It followed what Krug called a “cookbook” approach terrestrial carbon accounting. Accountants loved it, but scientists felt it was too prescriptive. As a result, the 2000 guidance followed a more principles-based approach and introduced a concept that would become a major theme in the coming weeks: how to deal with uncertainty.

By 2003, the term had changed to Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry (LULUCF) and suggested that only managed land should be accounted for – raising the question of what, exactly, constitutes “managed land”. In the end, they decided that managed land is any land that either meets certain definitions or the government declares as managed land – on the condition that once it’s declared managed, it can’t be undeclared. Introduce the double-jeopardy aspect.

Finally, in 2006, the term shifted again – this time to Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use (AFOLU). The new name reflected the growing understanding of emissions from agriculture, as well as a reshuffling of categories for farm emissions.

This is also when the principles were introduced.

MUCH MORE TO FOLLOW, FOLKS!!!
Keep checking back to see how this evolves, and if any experts out there have suggestions, feel free to offer them.

Week Two: Applying the Principles

The second week, Anup Joshi came down from the University of Minnesota to explain the intricacies of remote sensing and GIS.

Outline of Remainder
I. Overview of GIS
II. Overview of findings from Costa Rica and the Democratic Republic of Congo
III. Harvesting of lessons from Nepal and Indonesia
V. Guide to statistical analysis
VII. Summary and conclusion

 

Additional resources

A Six-Step Approach To Determining
What Can And What Cannot Be Offset

Little guidance is provided on the complex issue of biodiversity offsetting and considering which impacts are offsetable. That is why a group of thought leaders from the biodiversity space have outlined an offsetability evaluation process that determines the success and appropriateness of specific offsets. The process was recently presented in a webinar.

14 August 2013 | Biodiversity offsetting can be a tremendous tool for saving the habitat of endangered species, but they are not a panacea. Everyone agrees, for example, that you can’t offset an extinction.

But what about habitat of animals that are only vulnerable to extinction or ecosystems that are threatened but not destroyed?

These and other topics were the focus of the working paper, “A Process for assessing the offsetability of biodiversity impacts,” as well as a recent webinar hosted by Forest Trends’ collaborative initiative on biodiversity offsets and conservation banking systems, the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). Both outlined a process based on six steps that would evaluate the offsetability of different biodiversity impacts utilizing a burden-of-proof framework which would obligate developers to prove there is limited danger to biodiversity when they alter an area with development.

Two of the paper’s 12 authors spoke during the webinar as well as Jeff Manuel from the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI).

View the Webinar Here

Limits to Biodiversity Offsets 18 July 2013 from Patrick Maguire on Vimeo.

Creating The Framework

While there is a general acknowledgement that there are limits on the types of impacts that should be offset, there is little policy guidance defining these limits. The process developed in the paper, says co-author and BBOP Science Coordinator Amrei von Hase, is designed to be globally applicable but locally tailored.

“It’s a good starting point,” says von Hase. “That means local adaptation is possible and important.”

Because of the lack of guidance, the authors made a few assumptions regarding offsetting. First, they started with a clear no-net-loss definition to reference and a target of no net loss on a global scale. Second, they assume like-for-like offsetting where the offset is conserving the same type of biodiversity lost by a development project. Third, they consider the existence value, or recognizing biodiversity’s value just by knowing it exists, because the value of ecosystem services varies depending on region and people. Incorporating other types of values would have been complex and difficult to evaluate.

“In order to achieve the no-net-loss goals, decision makers will generally find it necessary to set up a limit to offsetability,” von Hase says.

The framework draws on existing ideas on environmental impacts assessments and offset approaches as well as conservation planning.

The Process

The six steps of the process were grouped into three sections. The first two are in a development area while step three is in the offset area and four is in implementation. The last two steps combine the former steps to evaluate if an impact is offsetable and create the burden of proof framework.

Biodiversity features were organized into categories ranging from vulnerable to irreplaceable. And the first step in the process is to organize the biodiversity of a potential project area into one of these categories. This step assesses the biodiversity conservation concern. Proper classification of species and ecosystems is needed, the authors say, and should be based on data from local conservation plans.

The second step, assessing the residual impact magnitude, is based on three elements-severity, duration and extent. As in an environmental impact assessment, severity measures the intensity of an impact and extent measures the proportion of a biodiversity feature that will be impacted. Duration weighs how long the expected impacts will last. Development projects that don’t cause considerable residual impacts on an area’s biodiversity do not require offsets.

Moving out of development and into the offset area, the third step assesses offset opportunity. Essentially this means having the availability of the right areas and actions to deliver suitable offsets, says von Hase.

“They are the practical opportunities for achieving biodiversity gains that are comparable, additional and lasting,” she says.

This step explores questions like whether there are offset opportunities in species and ecosystems’ natural areas and if the affected biodiversity plays key functional roles in the impacted ecosystem. These factors are external influences and developers have no control over them.

After offset opportunities have been assessed, developers can then appraise the feasibility of an offset. This is also the implementation phase of the process so developers have control over factors such as finance and timing and can improve the chances of an offset’s success. The capacity of the developer as well as the offset implementer matters here as well. The success of a project and offset depends on how well they design and implement it.

The fifth step combines the feasibility appraisal with offset opportunities and the residual impacts to create a number of classes that rank the likelihood of offset success. Success is measured by the no net loss target.

The sixth step is also part of the integration phase. It pulls together the conservation concern with the likelihood of success to form the burden of proof framework.

“The burden of proof framework is fundamental to the polluter pays and the precautionary principles which are well established in environmental law and decision making,” von Hase says. “It should really be a central consideration of development decisions.”

Using the two steps, the framework assesses the level of proof required for an offset. It should be applied during the design and implementation phase and will produce incentives to reduce residual impacts, according to von Hase.

Limits to Offsets in South Africa

Looking at the case in South Africa, SANBI’s Manuel explains that biodiversity is assessed using systematic biodiversity planning. Basically the planning works by using the available knowledge on biodiversity patterns and ecological processes to assess how much of the natural area needs to be maintained in order for it to function properly. The plan includes a scale that rates the status of ecosystems ranging from critically endangered to least threatened. A biodiversity target helps determine the level of an ecosystem.

The plan also helps decide if a biodiversity feature can be offset. The base assumption is development that causes negative residual impacts are unacceptable and not offsetable. This situation usually occurs in the critically endangered ecosystem category. Offsets are most likely to be needed when development occurs in the vulnerable and least threatened ecosystem groups. Manuel notes that it’s a common misconception that offsets aren’t needed when development occurs in least threatened areas.

The categories are broken down further with situations involving endangered species habitat and natural areas delivering ecosystem services. Ecosystems containing irreplaceable habitat and services-called critical biodiversity areas, or CBA 1- have no offsetability. But there are also CBA 2s and, depending on project design and conservation, those can be offsetable.

South Africa is a developing nation with high development potential and human need, Manuel says. This can affect how decisions are made regarding project approval. Regulators are reluctant to make controversial decisions and according to a 2010 survey, 98% of EIA applications are approved. But there is also a high success rate for appeals, Manuel says.

As conservation agencies, developers and regulators are the drivers of offsets in South Africa, Manuel sees problems and potential challenges with the current situation. One of those being underfunded conservation agencies start to view offsets as an income stream. Another, Manuel says, is the majority of impacts currently being offset are such serious threats to biodiversity that they shouldn’t be considered offsetable.

Manuel also note the process’ positive results. Developers have been forced to re-evaluate their projects after they found biodiversity impacts weren’t offsetable. And the limits to offsets have helped strengthen other mitigation steps.

“We will move in the direction where the limits are more consistently implemented and the exceptions are less,” says Manuel.

Manuel as well as von Hase noted that offsetability is one of several issues that need to be addressed when discussing biodiversity offsetting, but believe it can help assess risks and inform decision makers in various situations.

Additional resources

Building A More Resilient Gulf

31 July 2013 | Charlie Broussard, a shrimper on the docks in Cocodrie, Louisiana, has seen the wetlands he paddled through as a kid shift dramatically – literally. In fact, the Louisiana coastline is changing so quickly that fisherman and oil rig workers who have spent their lives navigating the bayou by boat sometimes get lost as familiar landmarks are drowned. In Louisiana, 1,880 square miles of land has vanished since the 1930s, and the current rate of land loss is equivalent to a football field every 38 minutes.

“The state almost views land loss as an existential threat,” says Alex Kolker, a coastal geologist at the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, a research center located ‘at the end of the Earth’—or, more specifically, at the end of LA Highway 56 in Cocodrie.

Charlie Broussard

Charlie Brussard, a shrimper in Concodrie, Louisiana, has seen the coastline change dramatically in his lifetime.

 

Wetlands restoration ‘at the end of the Earth’

Many Gulf Coast residents—especially those who lived through Hurricane Katrina in 2005—are acutely aware of the fragility of ‘hard’ infrastructure, such as the levee that broke and the floodwalls that failed to stop inundation during the storm. ‘Soft’ natural infrastructure, such as wetlands, can absorb flooding, break waves, and slow storm surge, taking some of the pressure off of levees and other ‘hard’ structures. Without wetlands, coastal areas are much more exposed to hurricanes.

To begin to address these vulnerabilities, Louisiana’s 2012 Coastal Master Plan prioritizes 109 coastal restoration projects, at a price tag of $50 billion. But, with 85% of Louisiana’s coast controlled by private landowners, others are looking to the private sector to support wetland restoration.

Louisiana Map

A ‘less optimistic’–but plausible–scenario of land loss from Louisiana’s 2012 Coastal Master Plan.

 

“There is a lot of potential for large-scale impact by working with industry,” says Sarah Mack, the founder and CEO of wetland restoration project developer Tierra Resources.

Wetlands sequester carbon both in life and in death. Like forests, they build carbon as they grow. When the plants die and decay, organic material compacts into soil, permanently storing carbon belowground. In September 2012, the American Carbon Registry approved a wetlands methodology—authored by Mack and two contributors from Louisiana State University—that will allow landowners to quantify the carbon sequestered by restoration projects and then sell verified emissions reductions (i.e. carbon offsets) to voluntary offset buyers.

The first pilot project using the wetlands methodology is now underway at the Luling Oxidation Wetlands Assimilation Pond, a 950-acre wetland 20 miles west of New Orleans that is threatened by subsidence (regional sinking) and saltwater intrusion. To restore the wetland, the project diverts treated municipal wastewater that once flowed into a canal into the wetland, which is thirsty for nutrients and freshwater. Thus, the project turns municipal trash (wastewater) into treasure (wetland food).

With the influx of nutrients, wetland plants will grow, and Tierra Resources estimates that the Luling project will sequester 1,000 to 7,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide (MtCO2e) annually. They are planning to transact offsets in one to two years.

A utility builds its resilience

Entergy, a utility with 2.8 million customers in the Gulf and the company that invested $150,000 to help develop the wetlands methodology, has the right of first refusal on the Luling project and is planning to purchase some of the carbon offsets produced by the restoration work. The company sees wetlands as a kind of natural insurance that will buffer their infrastructure in an uncertain climate future.

“We’re uniquely at risk due to the geographic location of our company and our customers,” says Brent Dorsey, director of corporate environmental programs at Entergy. “Every few years, taking a direct hit from a hurricane is difficult to recover from. Our customers can’t afford for us to keep rebuilding the system.”

In 2010, Entergy hired McKinsey to quantify climate risk across the company’s assets. They used a statistical model by the reinsurance company Swiss Re to simulate 10,000 possible hurricane ‘years,’ looking at the multitude of different pathways that hurricanes could take across the Gulf and how the likelihood and strength of storms might change under different climate scenarios.

Drivers of land loss in the Louisiana Gulf

The largest driver of land loss in coastal Louisiana is subsidence–or sinking due to:

(1) natural sediment compaction and

(2) oil and gas drilling, which sucks out pockets of liquid offshore, creating space for the land to settle.

(3) The channelization of the Mississippi River also means that about 50 percent less sediment is reaching the Gulf, therefore slowing the only process that naturally builds land.

(4) On top of that, climate change is leading to rising sea levels globally and more intense storms, both of which eat away at the Gulf Coast.

Dead Cypress

Dead cypress trees cover tens of thousands of acres in the Gulf. Without wetlands restoration, even more of the landscape will turn to open water.


The analysis found that Entergy’s infrastructure—which includes 500,000 miles of transmission lines and 300 generation facilities—is vulnerable to storms even without climate change. Under a moderate climate change scenario, cumulative losses from wind, sea level rise, and storm surge could cost Entergy $370 billion (in 2010 dollars) over the next two decades.

Entergy has already been adapting its infrastructure to the impacts of more intense and frequent storms: The company is elevating substations, replacing damaged wooden structures with metal and concrete, and strengthening transmission and distribution lines and conductors. But the severity of climate risks has changed Entergy’s calculus around some of the resiliency measures that might otherwise be considered too expensive.

For instance, wetland restoration comes out at 3.31 on the company’s cost-benefit analysis, meaning that for every $3.31 invested, Entergy would get $1.00 worth of ‘casualty loss reduction’ value. However, when all of the co-benefits of wetlands—water purification, fisheries, recreation, and carbon sequestration—are included, the true value of this natural infrastructure begins to emerge.

Bayou

Companies such as Entergy are beginning to price out the true value of wetlands, which includes services like carbon storage and storm protection.


“If you can add an economic value, or ‘internalize,’ the environmental services that wetlands provide, then wetland restoration begins to pencil out a little better [on the cost-benefit analysis],” Dorsey says. “This is really the sweet spot to start to bring all of the co-benefits together.”

Entergy’s Environmental Initiatives Fund commits $1 million annually to greenhouse gas reduction projects such as wetland restoration, methane capture, nitrous oxide destruction, and landfill gas-to-energy. Projects such as Luling allow Entergy to invest in climate change mitigation and adaptation at the same time.

Acres to go before we sleep…

Entergy is now working to get other private sector actors interested in leveraging carbon financing for wetland restoration. Tierra Resources’ newest pilot project is a wetland planting initiative with ConocoPhillips. The company has 640,000 acres of wetlands to their name, making them one of the largest private wetland landowners in the United States.

Restoring an acre of wetland can cost up to $150,000—an expense “beyond the capacity of most private landowners,” Mack explains. While carbon financing may not be able to cover all of the per-acre costs for capital-intensive restoration techniques such as river diversions, it may leverage other financing, and ultimately make the difference in restoration decisions. Tierra Resources is also developing other types of restoration techniques that may be able to be fully funded using carbon finance.

Shrimper

Shrimpers in Cocodrie, Louisiana rely on coastal ecosystems for their livelihoods. Carbon finance could give a boost to restore wetland habitat important for shrimp fisheries.span>


Tierra Resources estimates that a healthy wetland sequesters as much as 15 MtCO2e per acre per year, and that 4 million acres of wetlands in the Mississippi River Delta are eligible for carbon-accounted restoration. If future carbon projects were to cover 1 million acres in the Gulf (a quarter of the potential), Tierra Resources estimates that carbon financing could leverage between $5 and $15 billion for wetlands restoration, based on modeling using an offset price of $12-25 per tonne.

The organization is pushing for the wetlands methodology to be included in California’s cap-and-trade compliance market, where wetlands offsets could fill a projected gap in offset supply. Inclusion of the wetlands methodology in the compliance market could mean a steadier demand for wetlands offsets, and higher prices. In 2012, the average carbon offset sold for $5.90 on the voluntary market, compared to an average price for California-bound offsets of $9.30/t, a 16% increase over the previous year. Though companies such as Entergy have stepped up to purchase wetlands offsets voluntarily, a wetlands protocol under California cap-and-trade would create a much larger market for the offsets—and the potential to leverage more financing for restoration.

Sober optimism

Louisiana’s 2012 Coastal Master Plan recognizes for the first time that the state will not be able to save every acre.

“It’s a very big step to come out and say, ‘we can’t save the entire coast,’” Morgan Crutcher, a Technical and Policy Analyst at the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana says. “We’re watching coastal communities go through the grieving process.”

Protest Sign

A protest sign in the Louisiana bayou reads: “It’s worth saving.” Gulf residents are losing land at a rapid rate.span>


Kolker, the coastal geologist, views the reality in Louisiana as a precursor for the kind of tough decisions that other states may soon face as ice sheets melt and sea level rise accelerates: “In some ways, we’re already the climate future,” he says.

In the meantime, with every storm in the Gulf, the need for robust coastal wetlands becomes more apparent, the costs of inaction more devastating. The impacts of climate change and the efficacy of natural infrastructure in absorbing some of the impacts of storms have caught the attention of the private sector, and companies such as Entergy are beginning to take action. And on a coast that is disappearing before people’s eyes, (tempered) optimism may be the only way forward.

 

 

Allie Goldstein is traveling around the US this summer uncovering stories of climate resilience.
Additional resources

This Week in Forest Carbon: Lessons From Vietnam

A new Forest Trends brief compares and contrasts case studies from two villages in Vietnam to highlight the implications of illegal logging on REDD+ and FLEGT as well as the role of community participation and land tenure agreements in forest governance. Meanwhile the Ecosystem Marketplace Carbon Program gears up for its final round of data collection in preparation for the 2013 State of the Forest Carbon Markets report.

This article was originally published in the Forest Carbon newsletter. Click here to read the original.

15 July 2013 | Hot off the Forest Trends press, a  new brief  explores the implications of small-scale illegal logging on REDD+ and Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) initiatives in Vietnam.

The brief highlights the rationale of clear and secure tenure rights for local people living near forests containing timber – not just to occupy them, but also to sustainably harvest forest assets if they so choose.  Without these rights, locals are excluded from forest benefits and more likely to illegally log. According to the brief, “increasing resources dedicated to law enforcement in the absence of changes in incentive structures” is not enough to stop illegal logging.

To contrast what hasn’t worked in  forest governance in small-scale forest management  and what has worked, Forest Trends presents case studies from the villages of Ban Y and Phuc Minh (whose names have been changed) in Hoa Binh and Binh Dinh provinces. In Ban Y, forest tenure rights granted to villagers by the government excluded tree harvesting rights. As a result, community members were barred from extracting timber from these forests, despite their historical claims on the forests, legal tenure rights, and livelihood needs. Harmful illegal logging ensued, with Ban Y villagers taking on the largest risk and least benefits while government officials, brokers, and traders captured most of the benefits.

 

Conversely in the village of Phuc Minh, while villagers received similar tenure rights as in Ban Y, their forest was not under the prohibitive protection category and instead received support from the German Development Bank for a community forestry project that combined forest protection with sustainable harvest techniques. Villagers actively participated in decision-making on how to distribute timber revenues and remaining harvested timber, prioritizing community members in need and those who complied with forest protection responsibilities.

 

The lessons learned from Vietnam’s forest governance experience have direct implications for FLEGT and REDD+, whose missions both prioritize actions against illegal logging. For forest carbon in particular, the brief stresses that the effectiveness of community-based REDD+ efforts relies on the reorientation of law enforcement to support rather than oppose small-scale forest management. In addition, the brief says the design of REDD+ should combine performance-based payments for forest protection with active use and management by smallholders, since REDD+ payments alone are unlikely to provide sufficient incentives for forest protection.

 

Learn more about Forest Trends’ recommendations on FLEGT and REDD+ in Vietnam  here and keep reading below for the inside scoop on other important forest carbon developments!

 

Here at Ecosystem Marketplace, we are in the final stages of data collection in preparation for our 2013 State of the Forest Carbon Markets report. If your organization has developed forest carbon projects for the voluntary or compliance carbon market in 2012, we invite you to describe your project and any 2012 transactions by participating in our survey before July 31, 2013. This will be the final deadline for organizations wishing to take part in this year’s report.  

 

Forest carbon project developers that provide project-level information – whether or not you have transacted credits yet – can also choose to have their project profiled as the Forest Carbon Portal’s Featured Project. You can also specify your preferred level of confidentiality – from completely open (including transaction prices and volumes) to completely confidential. Create a profile and submit your responses here!

 

—The Ecosystem Marketplace Team

If you have comments or would like to submit news stories, write to us at [email protected].


News

International Policy

Mission accomplished

After a mission to Panama in early June, an independent investigation and evaluation team  recently published its initial findings regarding Panama’s withdrawal from the UN-REDD+ Programme. After receiving input from a range of in-country stakeholders, the report was compiled by the investigation and evaluation team and later presented at the UN-REDD Policy Board meeting in Lombok, Indonesia at the end of June. Preliminary findings confirm faults in the National Programme design as well as the absence of a participatory process, leading to the exclusion of indigenous peoples in program activities. The investigation and evaluation team plans to return to Panama and release a final report in August.

 

US Policy

Follow the golden rule?

Following a  ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit  in  Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA), forest owners are encouraging the EPA to prioritize the completion of amendments to its greenhouse gas regulations in order to take advantage of the carbon benefits of forest bioenergy. The ruling concluded that the EPA “did not adequately justify its decision to temporarily defer biogenic emissions from its greenhouse gas regulations”, but did not clarify whether the EPA could finalize “permanent amendments to its rules regarding the treatment of such emissions.”  The greenhouse gas amendments are expected to greatly impact the degree to which private forest owners in the U.S. are able to provide forest carbon offsets.  

 

Project Development

Disney helps dreams come true

A new  article  translated from Ecosystem Marketplace’s  Valorando Naturaleza  provides an in-depth look into Conservation International’s VCS/CCB-validated Alto Mayo REDD+ project in Peru, and Disney’s $3.5M contribution to the project. Tracing its roots back to 2008, the project has resulted in the mainstreaming of sustainable agriculture practices in the area, preservation of local biodiversity, and the generation of 3 MtCO2 in emissions reductions to date. Of that, 400,000 tCO2e has been attributed to Disney’s contribution and gone toward offsetting the company’s carbon footprint. Disney has since agreed to provide a second grant of $3.5M to Conservation International’s work in Alto Mayo.  

 

A rumble in the jungle

Greenomics Indonesia, a non-governmental conservation organization, recently  accused the Rimba Raya Conservation project for its alleged false claim  of obtaining approval from the Indonesian government for a 64,000-hectare carbon project, reportedly the world’s largest. Vanda Mutia Dewi, national program coordinator for Greenomics Indonesia, asserted that Rimba Raya conservation received an ecosystem restoration permit in March 2013 for only 36,331 hectares of land and believes that of the remaining hectares, 18,642 hectares are in the possession of the Tanjung Putting Conservation Park. Indonesia’s Forestry Ministry said that a cooperation plan agreed to by the Tanjung Putting Conservation Park and Rimba Raya Conservation could not yet accommodate carbon market activities.

 

A minor setback  

Elsewhere in Indonesia, AusAid – the Australian government’s foreign development assistance agency – recently announced its  plan to end its support for a major forest restoration project on the island of Borneo. The $47-million project, known as the Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership (KFCP), aimed to restore 200,000 hectares of peatland and reduce 700 MtCO2e over 30 years. However, it encountered approval delays and objection from officials and local communities. Australia’s withdrawal, along with the challenges of Indonesia’s bureaucracy and opposition from multiple parties, could potentially set back Indonesia’s REDD Programme. While the “main thrust” of KFCP has ended, both the Australian and Indonesian governments are discussing which parts of the project could benefit from additional work over this next year.

 

Yunnan in the thicket of it

While seven pilot emissions trading schemes are in various stages of initiation across China,  Yunnan Province launched its own carbon sequestration program  on June 17, when China debuted its National Low-Carbon Day. Yunnan Forestry Investment Company (YFI) sold 17,800 tCO2e worth of carbon credits at 1.07M yuan (US$174,000) to the Guangdong-based Friends of Iron and Steel. The Yunnan Development and Reform Commission brokered the deal. The offset purchase will help finance YFI’s work to plant and maintain forest and bamboo groves, supported by a 30-year lease granted by the provincial government to manage 3,500 ha of unused land in Xishuangbanna Dai Autonomous Prefecture. The project is expected to sequester 550,000 tCO2e over three decades.

 

Judgment day for co-benefits

The following Climate Community & Biodiversity Alliance projects, Abote Community-Managed Reforestation Project, Buffelsdraai Landfill Site Community Reforestation Project, REDD+ de la Concesií³n para Conservacií³n Alto Huayabamba Project, and the New Leaf Carbon Project are  now accepting public comments  on whether their project documents meet CCB requirements. The first two projects will accept comments through July 24, while the latter two will accept comments through July 28.  

 

National Strategy & Capacity  

Binh there, done that  

An Ecosystem Marketplace  article  summarizes Forest Trends’ recent paper on Vietnam’s Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) and REDD+ initiatives, exploring policies pertaining to illegal logging. Through two case studies in the provinces of Hoa Binh and Binh Dinh, the paper discusses the history behind deforestation in the two regions and examines the lack of clear and secure tenure and land use rights, which has further contributed to deforestation and aggravated an already corrupt forest governance system. According to the paper, in order for FLEGT and REDD+ to succeed, forest governance must support small-scale community forest management with equitable distribution of tenure rights and other benefits to local people.

 

Bridging the Great Wall

As China rolls out seven domestic pilot emissions trading schemes this year – with the city of Shenzhen’s debuting last month – market actors are wondering how carbon offsets will fit into the picture.  A new Ecosystem Marketplace article  provides a breakdown of the types of offsets eligible for trading, existing supply and potential demand, as well as what’s on the horizon. Offset methodologies approved for use by China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) do not yet cover forestry and land use, which is still in the process of being vetted. Domestic initiatives like the Panda Standard, China’s first voluntary carbon standard, are seeking NDRC approval for their afforestation/reforestation methodologies.  

 

Beyond the forest

In the district of Tanjung Jabung Barat on the Indonesia island of Sumatra, a  Reducing Emissions from All Land Uses (REALU) project  is in full swing. REALU, an initiative funded by the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, “operates in several countries to find out how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions within an entire landscape rather than just from a particular activity or sector.” The REALU project provides technical assistance to help support the Indonesian government’s low-emissions development plans, currently concentrating its efforts on a 16,000-hectare plot of protected peat forest. Central to the work is a low-carbon land-use planning method developed by the World Agroforestry Centre in collaboration with the government’s district planning and development agency.

 

To log or not to log

A new report by The Australia Institute  asserts that it makes more financial sense to conserve the native forests of southern New South Wales for carbon credit generation than to continue logging, valuing forest carbon abatement opportunities at $222 million over the next 25 years. The government of New South Wales does not agree, stating that the report used incorrect assumptions and is based on an unrealistically high carbon price. While the federal government’s Carbon Farming Initiative could broaden its reach in the future, to date, native forestry logging operations are not yet eligible under the scheme.  

 

Ethiopia off on good foot

The REDD Desk recently added  Ethiopia to its collection of REDD+ readiness profiles. As part of the Climate Resilient Green Economy Strategy (CRGE), Ethiopia joins the ranks of the Guyana, Vietnam and Indonesia in building a development plan intended to reduce emissions from the forestry sector and encourage a low-carbon development path. In addition to developing a green economy, the CRGE Strategy intends to help Ethiopia achieve a middle income country status by 2025. Ethiopia is in its second phase of REDD+ readiness with two pilot projects, Bale Mountains Eco-Region REDD+ Project and the Oramia Region REDD+ Pilot Programme, currently underway.  

 

Columbian consultations

At a recent UN-REDD Programme Policy Board meeting, Colombia presented its Readiness Preparation Plan, highlighting both government and non-government participation and consultations with woman and youth. In response, the Policy Board approved  $4 million in funding earmarked for Columbia’s National Programme, as well as another $4 million for a community grant initiative that will provide resources and build capacity in local communities while empowering them to engage in REDD+ activities. Last year, Colombia held an inception workshop for the creation of a Colombia-based market platform for voluntary carbon offset transactions, to have an initial focus on forest carbon.

 

The crown jewel

Over the last ten years, wildfires and mountain-pine beetle infestations have taken their toll on forest land in British Columbia. The B.C. provincial government recently announced a partnership with the Carbon Offset Aggregation Cooperative to plant trees on Crown land,  allowing private-sector companies to engage in carbon offset activities through reforestation efforts. Through the B.C. Forest Carbon Partnership Program, more than one million trees could be planted in the next five years. According to Ben Parfitt, a resource policy analyst with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, “the success of the private-sector project will likely hinge on the market value of carbon offsets.

 

Science & Technology Review

Seeing hotspots

Recently launched, the  Mitigation Lab, a new laboratory under the World Agroforestry Centre’s Climate Change Unit,  is intended to help researchers identify and quantify GHG emissions from “hotspots” across a variety of ecosystems including forests, agriculture, and dairy farming. The lab’s gas chromatographs are capable of analyzing 120 GHG samples over an eight-hour time period, allowing researchers to compare GHG emissions between landscapes on which climate-smart agriculture has been practiced and those on which it has not – ultimately expected to provide evidence that climate-smart agriculture in fact contributes to climate change mitigation while increasing farm production.

 

Speaking volumes

Scientists and climate change experts are now able to access tree models for forest volume, biomass and carbon stock through an online platform for the first time.  GlobAllomeTree, launched by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, uses allometric equations to evaluate different forest services like timber production and bioenergy strategies involving forest volume, biomass, and forest carbon, and is expected to support REDD+ efforts. “This is the first time that countries have access to an extensive database of tree models used to evaluate resources worldwide,” says FAO Forestry Officer Matieu Henry. “It allows them to get a clear picture on their forests’ capacities to store carbon.”

 

Publications & Tools

REDD+y to integrate

Integrating Communities into REDD+ in Indonesia, a PROFOR working paper, addresses how REDD+ can tackle underlying community issues such as lack of access to forest land. The report provides background on REDD+ in Indonesia and highlights the need to integrate community development approaches into a REDD+ framework, the role of communities in Indonesia’s forestry sector, as well as mechanisms for addressing a multitude of community-level funding needs.

 

Keep your options open

Published by Forest Carbon Asia,  REDD+ Biodiversity Safeguards: Options for Developing National Approaches  explores the potential to develop a national safeguard approach that would comply with both international policy commitments and national policy frameworks. In light of the Cancun Safeguards and Aichi Biodiversity Targets, this brief discusses REDD+ readiness activities in relation to biodiversity across 20 Asian countries, including a discussion of Vietnam’s national safeguard approach.  

 

Jobs

2 Positions– The Nature Conservancy  

Based in Mexico, the  Agricultural Economist, Yucatan Peninsula  will contribute to the establishment of Mexico’s REDD+ Program on the Yucatan Peninsula and develop the regional/local assessments, tools, and frameworks for the design and implementation of sub-national REDD+ strategies. Candidates should have a Bachelor’s and 5+ years’ experience in conservation practice. Based in Brazil, the Coordinator, Amazon Forest  will provide technical and political leadership and support for The Nature Conservancy’s REDD+ work in the Amazon and will build strategic, scientific and technical capacity among staff and partners on REDD+. Candidates should have a Bachelor’s and experience in REDD+, forest conservation and/or sustainable agricultural production.  

 

Global Climate Change Specialist – ECODIT  

Based in Washington, D.C., the Global Climate Change Specialist will identify ways to integrate clean energy, land use and carbon sequestration, and adaption to climate change and development efforts. Candidates should have a Master’s Degree in a field relevant to climate change-related science and policy and 5+ years of experience in environmental management. Read more about the position  here.

 

Technical Specialist – Plan Vivo Foundation

Based in Edinburgh, the Technical Specialist will select and prepare approved methodologies for projects to use under Plan Vivo Standard 2013 and coordinate and conduct technical reviews of project documents. Candidates should have a Master’s in ecosystem services or a related discipline such as environmental management or forestry. Read more about the position  here.  

 

Junior REDD+ Policy Consultant – Climate Focus

Based in Thailand, the Policy Consultant will support the USAID funded “Lowering Emissions in Asia’s Forests” (LEAF) project and will help coordinate work and prepare advice on issues affecting REDD+ policy design. Candidates should have a Bachelor’s Degree and 3+ years of experience in natural resource management, forest policy, or the carbon markets. Read more about the position  here.  

 

2 Positions – Conservation International

Based in Botswana, the  Manager, Government Liaison and Environmental Policy  will be responsible for liaising with the Government of Botswana on matters related to the Gaborone Declaration and supporting policy research on Natural Capital Accounting, PES and REDD. Candidates should have a Master’s or PhD in environmental, political or social sciences and 2+ years’ experience in environmental policy. Based in Indonesia, the  Deputy, Chief of Party  will oversee a team in the North Sumatra program area and will be responsible for local coordination, monitoring and development of the annual Sustainable Landscapes Partnership program workplan. Candidates should have a Bachelor’s in natural resource management or a related field and 7+ years’ experience with public-private partnerships.  

 

2 Positions – World Wildlife Fund

Based in Zambia, the  Community Forest Lead, Community-Based Forest Management Program  will be responsible for leading efforts to sustainably manage 700,000 hectares of Participatory Forest Management Areas in Zambia. Candidates should have a Master’s in rural development, forestry, natural resource management or a related field and 7+ years’ experience. Based in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the  Chief of Party, Central Africa Forest Ecosystems Conservation  will direct staff, oversee grant, sub-grants and consulting contracts and coordinate with staff from WWF and partner organization on a daily basis. Candidates should have at least a Master’s in forestry, conservation biology or a related field and 8+ years’ field experience.  

 

Chief of Party – CARE  

Based in Zambia, the Chief of Party will contribute to the USAID/Zambia’s Climate Change Program Objective and the Community-Based Forest-Management Program for REDD+ Readiness. Candidates should have at least a Master’s Degree in forestry, ecosystem services, natural resource management, or international development and 10+ years of leadership experience in managing international development programs. Read more about the position  here.

 

ABOUT THE FOREST CARBON PORTAL

The Forest Carbon Portal provides relevant daily news, a bi-weekly news brief, feature articles, a calendar of events, a searchable member directory, a jobs board, a library of tools and resources. The Portal also includes the Forest Carbon Project Inventory, an international database of projects including those in the pipeline. Projects are described with consistent ‘nutrition labels’ and allow viewers to contact project developers.

 

ABOUT THE ECOSYSTEM MARKETPLACE

Ecosystem Marketplace is a project of Forest Trends, a tax-exempt corporation under Section 501(c)3. This newsletter and other dimensions of our voluntary carbon markets program are funded by a series of international development agencies, philanthropic foundations, and private sector organizations. For more information on donating to Ecosystem Marketplace, please contact [email protected].


Additional resources

A Six-Step Approach To Determining What Can And What Cannot Be Offset

Little guidance is provided on the complex issue of biodiversity offsetting and considering which impacts are offsetable. That is why a group of thought leaders from the biodiversity space have outlined an offsetability evaluation process that determines the success and appropriateness of specific offsets. The process was recently presented in a webinar.

14 August 2013 | Biodiversity offsetting can be a tremendous tool for saving the habitat of endangered species, but they are not a panacea. Everyone agrees, for example, that you can’t offset an extinction.

But what about habitat of animals that are only vulnerable to extinction or ecosystems that are threatened but not destroyed?

These and other topics were the focus of the working paper, “A Process for assessing the offsetability of biodiversity impacts,” as well as a recent webinar hosted by Forest Trends’ collaborative initiative on biodiversity offsets and conservation banking systems, the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). Both outlined a process based on six steps that would evaluate the offsetability of different biodiversity impacts utilizing a burden-of-proof framework which would obligate developers to prove there is limited danger to biodiversity when they alter an area with development.

Two of the paper’s 12 authors spoke during the webinar as well as Jeff Manuel from the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI).

View the Webinar Here

Limits to Biodiversity Offsets 18 July 2013 from Patrick Maguire on Vimeo.

Creating The Framework

While there is a general acknowledgement that there are limits on the types of impacts that should be offset, there is little policy guidance defining these limits. The process developed in the paper, says co-author and BBOP Science Coordinator Amrei von Hase, is designed to be globally applicable but locally tailored.

“It’s a good starting point,” says von Hase. “That means local adaptation is possible and important.”

Because of the lack of guidance, the authors made a few assumptions regarding offsetting. First, they started with a clear no-net-loss definition to reference and a target of no net loss on a global scale. Second, they assume like-for-like offsetting where the offset is conserving the same type of biodiversity lost by a development project. Third, they consider the existence value, or recognizing biodiversity’s value just by knowing it exists, because the value of ecosystem services varies depending on region and people. Incorporating other types of values would have been complex and difficult to evaluate.

“In order to achieve the no-net-loss goals, decision makers will generally find it necessary to set up a limit to offsetability,” von Hase says.

The framework draws on existing ideas on environmental impacts assessments and offset approaches as well as conservation planning.

The Process

The six steps of the process were grouped into three sections. The first two are in a development area while step three is in the offset area and four is in implementation. The last two steps combine the former steps to evaluate if an impact is offsetable and create the burden of proof framework.

Biodiversity features were organized into categories ranging from vulnerable to irreplaceable. And the first step in the process is to organize the biodiversity of a potential project area into one of these categories. This step assesses the biodiversity conservation concern. Proper classification of species and ecosystems is needed, the authors say, and should be based on data from local conservation plans.

The second step, assessing the residual impact magnitude, is based on three elements-severity, duration and extent. As in an environmental impact assessment, severity measures the intensity of an impact and extent measures the proportion of a biodiversity feature that will be impacted. Duration weighs how long the expected impacts will last. Development projects that don’t cause considerable residual impacts on an area’s biodiversity do not require offsets.

Moving out of development and into the offset area, the third step assesses offset opportunity. Essentially this means having the availability of the right areas and actions to deliver suitable offsets, says von Hase.

“They are the practical opportunities for achieving biodiversity gains that are comparable, additional and lasting,” she says.

This step explores questions like whether there are offset opportunities in species and ecosystems’ natural areas and if the affected biodiversity plays key functional roles in the impacted ecosystem. These factors are external influences and developers have no control over them.

After offset opportunities have been assessed, developers can then appraise the feasibility of an offset. This is also the implementation phase of the process so developers have control over factors such as finance and timing and can improve the chances of an offset’s success. The capacity of the developer as well as the offset implementer matters here as well. The success of a project and offset depends on how well they design and implement it.

The fifth step combines the feasibility appraisal with offset opportunities and the residual impacts to create a number of classes that rank the likelihood of offset success. Success is measured by the no net loss target.

The sixth step is also part of the integration phase. It pulls together the conservation concern with the likelihood of success to form the burden of proof framework.

“The burden of proof framework is fundamental to the polluter pays and the precautionary principles which are well established in environmental law and decision making,” von Hase says. “It should really be a central consideration of development decisions.”

Using the two steps, the framework assesses the level of proof required for an offset. It should be applied during the design and implementation phase and will produce incentives to reduce residual impacts, according to von Hase.

Limits to Offsets in South Africa

Looking at the case in South Africa, SANBI’s Manuel explains that biodiversity is assessed using systematic biodiversity planning. Basically the planning works by using the available knowledge on biodiversity patterns and ecological processes to assess how much of the natural area needs to be maintained in order for it to function properly. The plan includes a scale that rates the status of ecosystems ranging from critically endangered to least threatened. A biodiversity target helps determine the level of an ecosystem.

The plan also helps decide if a biodiversity feature can be offset. The base assumption is development that causes negative residual impacts are unacceptable and not offsetable. This situation usually occurs in the critically endangered ecosystem category. Offsets are most likely to be needed when development occurs in the vulnerable and least threatened ecosystem groups. Manuel notes that it’s a common misconception that offsets aren’t needed when development occurs in least threatened areas.

The categories are broken down further with situations involving endangered species habitat and natural areas delivering ecosystem services. Ecosystems containing irreplaceable habitat and services-called critical biodiversity areas, or CBA 1- have no offsetability. But there are also CBA 2s and, depending on project design and conservation, those can be offsetable.

South Africa is a developing nation with high development potential and human need, Manuel says. This can affect how decisions are made regarding project approval. Regulators are reluctant to make controversial decisions and according to a 2010 survey, 98% of EIA applications are approved. But there is also a high success rate for appeals, Manuel says.

As conservation agencies, developers and regulators are the drivers of offsets in South Africa, Manuel sees problems and potential challenges with the current situation. One of those being underfunded conservation agencies start to view offsets as an income stream. Another, Manuel says, is the majority of impacts currently being offset are such serious threats to biodiversity that they shouldn’t be considered offsetable.

Manuel also note the process’ positive results. Developers have been forced to re-evaluate their projects after they found biodiversity impacts weren’t offsetable. And the limits to offsets have helped strengthen other mitigation steps.

“We will move in the direction where the limits are more consistently implemented and the exceptions are less,” says Manuel.

Manuel as well as von Hase noted that offsetability is one of several issues that need to be addressed when discussing biodiversity offsetting, but believe it can help assess risks and inform decision makers in various situations.

Additional resources

Peru Will Look For Global Commitment
On Climate Change During COP 20

It has recently been determined that the 20th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC will take place in Lima, Peru with Peru aiming for a global agreement on mitigating the impact of climate change as well as advancing adaptation strategies based on environmental compensation and natural infrastructure that will aid developing countries struggling with the effects of climate change.

This article was originally published in Spanish by the Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN). Click here to view the original.

2 July 2013 | The Ministry of Environment of Peru (MINAM) received the news that Peru will host the 20th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) in 2014 with optimism and expectation. The department believes this meeting (where more than 190 countries of the world will convene) represents a step towards a 2015 global agreement with concrete and binding commitments to address the impacts of climate change.

“Peru is a country absolutely committed to the negotiations and its progress in dealing with climate change. We are committed to the Durban Platform agreement and we know that in Warsaw 2013, Lima 2014 and Paris 2015 we will come to a binding climate agreement, for the planet, for the people and for our citizens. Those of us who serve the public are aware that our fundamental priority is our people, especially the most vulnerable-those who suffer the consequences of climate change,” says Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, Minister of Environment, in a speech he delivered at a Climate Conference in Bonn.

According to Pulgar-Vidal, choosing Peru to host COP 20 is a sign of recognition from the world that Peru is a country committed to the wellbeing of its people as well as development based on low carbon emissions.

The Negotiation Agenda

The importance of achieving a binding global agreement under the principals of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capacities,” following the outlines of the Durban Platform, is an important issue for Eduardo Durand, Director of Climate Change, Desertification and Hydric Resources for MINAM. He says that while there are countries like Peru, who has voluntarily committed to reduce emissions, other nations have not and continue to generate unchecked emissions. Those are the places Durand aims to influence.

To do this, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Panama, Guatemala and Peru will work together to enforce recognition and implementation of the Durban Platform while fighting “hard positions” that impede global agreements. This group of Latin American countries will work to build bridges between the different positions and interests of diverse countries.

Another issue important to developing countries is adaptation to climate change. Little emphasis has been put on it in past negotiations amounting to little advancement made in the sector, especially when compared to mitigation efforts.

Pedro Solano, Executive Director of the Peruvian Society of Environmental Law (SPDA), considers creating a climate change adaptation strategy based on ecosystems and environmental compensation, sustained by natural infrastructure, an essential part of the negotiations.

“It is hoped that at a national level there is a priority given to the management of woods and meeting the zero deforestation goal, coupled with updating binding concepts such as the role of the protected areas on climate change issues and the actual internalization of an oceanic strategy for the sustainable provision of food,” he says.

Solano also will be pushing the issue of preserving glaciers at a regional and national level over the next 40 years.

Climatic justice is another important concept to focus on. “Climatic justice, added to nation’s vulnerability, should allow a better mapping of what responsibility corresponds to each country,” Solano says. “It should allow that the goals and responsibilities (of COP 20) are viable and seek equilibrium of roles, which will in turn allow equilibrium on the planet.”

The Fundamental Role of Civil Society

The participation of civil society organizations in previous conferences has been fundamental to position key themes and promote the importance of the agreements generating at the same time a healthy alternative and complementary vision, which is no mean feat. The role of civil society organizations, according to Solano, is “to generate and share information, such as establishing spaces for previous dialogues to aid decision making, and also to monitor and advise the coherence of the party’s positions.” Civil society participation is essential to the transparency of the process and its legitimacy, Solano says.

An Interesting Aspect

The G8 summit meeting in Northern Ireland recently finished culminating with the Lough Erne Declaration. In the document, countries recognize that climate change increases economic risk and global insecurity and encourages them to work together at the UNFCCC to achieve a new protocol by 2015.

Next year, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) will release its latest report-Fifth Evaluation Report-an update on scientific, technical and socio-economic data regarding climate change. This report presents the current situation and provides guidelines on measures to curbing climate change in the future.

Finally, we have to remember that BanKi-Moon announced at Doha his intention to convene a meeting of leaders in 2014 to hold the world’s attention on climate change.

This Week In Forest Carbon:
President Obama’s Climate Action Plan Includes REDD+

This week, President Barack Obama announced his decision to create new pollution standards for power plants. In addition to limiting greenhouse gas emissions from large emitters, the president’s Climate Plan also addresses the role of domestic forests in mitigating climate change as well as REDD and the administration’s commitment to reducing global land-use-related emissions.

This article was originally published in the Forest Carbon newsletter. Click here to read the original.

29 June 2013 | President Barack Obama recently gave the Environmental Protection Agency his blessing to propose and implement regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from new and existing power plants in the United States. While the President’s Climate Action Plan will have obvious repercussions for large emitters, its effects on REDD+ and forest carbon are less concrete.
   

The latest Ecosystem Marketplace coverage unearths the implications of limiting carbon and its potential effect on the formation of cap-and-trade programs and “state leadership”, which the President referred to explicitly in his speech. David Antonioli, CEO of the Verified Carbon Standard believes “the Obama plan is unlikely to have a direct impact on the voluntary carbon markets,” however, it will likely encourage “countries and companies to start taking concrete action against climate change.”

The President’s Climate Action Plan reports that “greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation, agriculture, and other land use constitute approximately one-third of global emissions.” It also highlights REDD+ and addresses the United States’ role in mitigating carbon emissions by reducing agriculture-driven deforestation. The Obama Administration has already partnered with developing countries to develop the framework needed to reduce global emissions stemming from land use, as well as to implement new programs to support sustainable development and improved livelihoods. The Plan acknowledges USAID’s contribution to reducing more than 140 MtCO2e through the World Bank’s Forest Investment Program and Forest Carbon Partnership Facility.

 

Furthermore, the plan recognizes the role of domestic forests in mitigating climate change and in “removing nearly 12% of total U.S greenhouse gas emissions each year.” The Administration is striving to identify new methods to conserve America’s forests, grasslands and wetlands despite increasing pressures to convert forest land to support agricultural or urban capacity, as reported in the plan.  

 

Switching gears, we are pleased to announce the successful launch of the State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2013 report! The event, which took place on June 20 here in D.C., was well attended by carbon stakeholders from across the D.C. metropolitan area and the U.S.  

 

Thank you to everyone who attended the launch event and to those who contributed to this year’s report! We look forward to working with you again next year!  
 

—The Ecosystem Marketplace Team

If you have comments or would like to submit news stories, write to us at [email protected].


News

 

Announcements

A one-stop shop

A new Ecosystem Marketplace article covers the recent marketing agreement between CO2OL, a Forest Finance Group subsidiary, and the Forest Carbon Group. Together, the two Germany-based organizations will offer forest carbon projects involving REDD+, improved forest management, reforestation and afforestation and serve clients in the events, transport, energy and manufacturing industries. To date, CO2OL has three forest carbon projects certified under the CarbonFix standard, a landfill project under the Gold Standard, and several projects under the Forest Stewardship Council, while Forest Carbon Group has five projects jointly certified to the Verified Carbon Standard and the Climate, Community & Biodiversity (CCB) Standard.

VCS now accepting comments

The Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) is now accepting public comments on draft tools for jurisdiction-wide programs crediting REDD+. The Tool for the Estimation of Jurisdictional Leakage in VCS Jurisdictional and Nested REDD+ (JNR) Programs outlines an approach for jurisdictional programs to deal with leakage as a result of activity shifting, market and deforestation-to-degradation leakage. The Jurisdictional Non-Permanence Risk Tool outlines procedures to account for natural disasters and economic and political risks to the carbon store within the jurisdiction.

 

International Policy

REDD+ on the move

While many REDD-related policies may not be solidified until COP19 in November, several policies are making headway. Negotiators at the UN climate change conference in Bonn discussed the verification of carbon emissions under REDD+, proposing an international analysis of reported emissions reductions. Additionally, governments came to a consensus over national forest monitoring systems and reporting requirements, which will require REDD+ countries to eventually report emissions every two years using Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines. REDD+ finance mechanisms covering both market and non-market financial mechanisms, agriculture, and high-carbon ecosystems such as mangroves and peatlands were key points of discussion.

 

Transparency, a key principle within IPCC guidelines, has become increasingly important for countries developing methodologies for estimating forest carbon stocks. To comply with these bylaws, the Ministry of Environment of Peru recently published data on national deforestation from 2009 to 2011, as well as the methodology behind the analysis, marking a significant turning point for the Government of Peru in its transparency efforts related to national forest monitoring, a necessary precursor for REDD+. Leading the way in transparency efforts, Brazil has published deforestation statistics through studies conducted by the National Institute for Space Research since the 1990s, showcasing the results of REDD+.

 

US Policy

When push comes to shove

A recent Ecosystem Marketplace article unravels the story behind President Barack Obama’s proposal to limit carbon pollution from heavy polluters as part of a comprehensive climate plan. While the president’s speech did not provide explicit details on future EPA regulations, his announcement may encourage the private sector to take tangible action on climate change. The climate plan also discusses REDD+, acknowledging high-levels of emissions stemming from the land use sector in developing nations. “It’s encouraging to see President Obama put forward a bold plan to address the challenges of climate change and embrace key provisions like carbon finance and REDD to achieve these goals,” states David Antonioli, CEO of VCS.

 

Strength in numbers

In California, a group of offset project developers came together to form the newly-minted Compliance Offset Developers Association (CODA), a forum for project developers to share technical knowledge and ideas regarding emissions reductions projects under California’s cap-and-trade program. CODA intends to connect project developers in order to gain a better understanding of the rules and regulations of the offset market on a collaborative basis. A “member-driven and transparent organization,” CODA is open to companies that have three or more projects in forestry, ODS or livestock, project types that are eligible for California compliance. Current members include A-GAS RemTec, Camco, Coolgas, Inc., Diversified Pure Chem, Environmental Credit Corp, and Terrapass.

 

Project Development

Madre nature

The Madre de Dios Amazon REDD+ Project recently garnered verification under VCS, offsetting 4.5 MtCO2e over a four-year period spanning from 2009 through 2012. Located in the Peruvian Amazon in “one of the world’s most important biodiversity hotspots”, the Madre de Dios project covers 100,000 hectares of rainforest developed by Greenoxx Global. The project was originally validated by SCS Global Services under VCS and CCB, earning Gold Level recognition by CCB. Income from the project is projected to fund increased satellite monitoring and field patrolling to mitigate illegal logging and deforestation as well as social programs in local communities.

 

Backing out

Just prior to gaining approval for a forest carbon project in Oddar Meanchey province in Cambodia, two buyers withdrew due to the forestry administration’s lack of commitment to the $1-million carbon credit deal which was slated to protect 68,000 hectares of forest. Pact country director Sarah Sitts vocalized her concerns for the greater market stating, “If buyers start to see Cambodia can’t sell those credits, buyers might stop coming to Cambodia.” When questioned, Cambodian government officials expressed confusion over the deadline.

 

National Strategy and Capacity

Where there’s smoke, there’s fire

In 2011, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono implemented a two-year forest moratorium under a $1 billion grant from the Norwegian government earmarked for REDD+. The forest moratorium aims to mitigate the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by prohibiting the award of new licenses to clear or convert primary natural forests and peat lands to agriculture or other uses. Although President Yudhoyono recently extended Indonesia’s forest moratorium plan, fires continue to burn on the Indonesian island of Sumatra causing the neighboring nations of Singapore and Malaysia to suffer the brunt of the consequences – thick smoke and heavy air pollution. The fires, principally due to illegal forest clearing, highlight Indonesia’s lack enforcement in the forestry sector. In addition, the absence of transparency and timely data related to Indonesia forest policy has further contributed to moratorium-related problems.

 

Investigating Indonesia

This week, Indonesia became the first country to launch a forest governance report. Providing an investigation of Indonesia’s forest and land governance policies and presenting recommendations for shortcomings related to REDD+, the 2012 Indonesia Forest, Land and REDD+ Governance Index (Participatory Governance Assessment Report) launched in Lombok, Indonesia. The study, covering 10 provinces across Indonesia, was spearheaded by UNDP Indonesia and UN-REDD in partnership with FAO and the UNDP Oslo Governance Center. UNDP Principal Technical Advisor for REDD+ Tim Clairs believes the report, along with baseline data are “important first steps towards improved governance systems and structures.”

 

It’s hip to be green

With the help of the South Korea-based Global Green Growth Institution (GGGI), Indonesia recently launched a two-year green growth initiative intended to devise a funding system for REDD+, galvanize the Indonesian Economic Development Acceleration Masterplan, and provide support for green growth at the provincial level. In 2009, Indonesia pledged to reduce its carbon emissions by up to 26 percent by 2020. The Indonesia government has since chosen the provinces of Central Kalimantan and East Kalimantan to host the Green Growth’s pilot projects, necessitating an estimated $1.5 million. Indonesia intends to have an operational REDD+ financial scheme in place in 2014.

 

Myanmar up to bat, Sri Lanka on deck

With additional funding from the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, the Center for People and Forests has added Myanmar to its portfolio of countries within the Grassroots Capacity Building for REDD+ Project. Project development in Myanmar is slated to mirror that of the other four focal countries, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Nepal and Vietnam, through collaboration with local organizations, both government and non-government alike. A planning workshop, attended by representatives from Myanmar’s Department of Forestry, civil society organizations and relevant organizations, was held at the end of May in Nye Pi Taw, Myanmar, to develop a plan for the REDD+ Grassroots Project and discuss national REDD+ policies.

 

In Sri Lanka, the Ministry of Environment and Renewable Energy recognized a growing pressure on its forest resources as a result of a growing national economy and called upon the assistance of UN-REDD. The Environment and Renewable Energy Minister, Susil Premajayantha, recently inaugurated the development of an in-country REDD+ program.

 

Finance & Economics

It’s all about the results

A recent CIFOR study, Key Issues in REDD+ Verification, discusses the issue of “aid conditionality”, or development aid funding based on attaining specified GHG emissions reductions. Discrepancies over REDD+ financing as well as a methodology for measuring, reporting and verifying (MRV) emissions are continuing to threaten technical work related to forest monitoring systems. While REDD+ was originally intended to be funded by carbon emissions trading, inadequate demand in the carbon markets has resulted in the majority of the $17.2 billion already committed to REDD+ coming from development aid budgets, resulting in funding connected to results-based actions.

 

Rise to the challenge

In a question-and-answer session with CIFOR, Arilid Angelsen, editor of Analyzing REDD+: Challenges and Choices, gives his take on REDD+’s future. Whether through national or regional level carbon market inclusion, an increase in development aid, or via domestic funding through NAMAs (Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions), Angelsen believes securing funds through a new global climate agreement in 2015 will be critical for REDD+. The amount of funding is also a key factor, which can be greatly influenced by factors such as in-country political instability and the economic crisis in Europe.

Human Dimension

¿Por qué, Panama?

Following the withdrawal of the National Coordinating Body of the Indigenous People of Panama (COONAPIP) in February, the UN-REDD Programme now has the potential to rectify REDD+’s collapse in Panama if new policies regarding the rights of Indigenous Peoples are implemented at the UN-REDD Programme’s Tenth Policy Board meeting, scheduled to take place in Indonesia this week. COONAPIP leader, Betanio Chiquidama, plans to attend the conference. Chiquidama believes REDD+’s failure in Panama was due to the absence of recognized indigenous rights and the exclusion of the indigenous peoples from the program design process. He hopes that UN-REDD will work “to design something better – with the indigenous peoples who own the forests.”

 

Science & Technology

Putting northern forests on the map

Part of the Biomasar-II project, scientists recently generated a map of the entire northern hemisphere’s forest biomass. The resulting images depict one kilometer per pixel, proving to be the highest resolution images of their kind to date. Biomass plays a crucial role in researchers’ understanding of the carbon cycle, aiding in predictions for future climate trends. The new imagery draws from “stacks of radar images” from the European Space Agency’s Envisat satellite, whereas previous technology relied on single Envisat radar images, which according to Maurizio Santoro of Gamma Remote Sensing, “cannot provide the sensitivity needed to map the composition of forests with high density.”

 

Publications & Tools

Case in point

The Role of the Private Sector in REDD +: The Case for Engagement and Options for Intervention discusses the importance of the private sector in REDD+ planning and implementation and highlights different types of interventions. The UN-REDD Programme policy brief argues for stronger private sector engagement and is intended to encourage public sector REDD+ planners and practitioners to connect with the private sector.

 

The poorest in the forest

Missing the Poorest for the Trees? REDD+ and the Links between Forestry, Resilience, and Peacebuilding, an outcome of the Humanitarian Consultancy Project at the London School of Economics and Political Science, analyzes forestry-related issues and conflict in Brazil, Indonesia and Uganda. Recommendations include the implementation of REDD+ safeguards, placing a greater emphasis on human rights, poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservation, and the alignment of REDD+ programmes with national development strategies.

 

Jobs

Coordinator, Amazon Forest & Climate – The Nature Conservancy

Based in Brazil, the Coordinator will provide technical and political leadership and support for The Nature Conservancy’s REDD+ work in the Amazon and will build strategic, scientific and technical capacity among staff and partners on REDD+. Candidates should have a college degree and experience in REDD+, forest conservation and/or sustainable agricultural production. Read more about the position here.

 

2 Positions – African Wildlife Foundation

Based in Zambia, the Program Officer, Forestry will coordinate daily operations and field activities within established jointly-managed forest areas and REDD+ project sites and closely liaise with government, research, community, and carbon consultants. Candidates should have an advanced degree in environmental sciences, natural resource management, or international development and 3+ years’ experience working on community-based forestry programs in Africa. Also based in Zambia, the Senior Policy Advisor will work with key government stakeholders, USAID policy representatives and the government to facilitate the development of a joint national REDD+ strategy. Candidates should have an advanced degree in public policy, environmental law, or a relevant field and 5+ years’ previous experience working in the development of public policies.

 

National Coordinator, Grassroots Capacity Building for REDD in Laos – The Center for People and Forests

Based in Laos, the National Coordinator will lead the development and revision of training and capacity building materials for REDD+ and deliver the REDD+ training and awareness program. Candidates should have a Bachelor’s Degree in Natural Resource Management and 5+ years of experience in teaching and developing training materials. Read more about the position here.

 

Intern, Communications – The Gold Standard Foundation

Based in Geneva, the Intern will assist the marketing and communications manager with the online building of, and advocacy for The Gold Standard and produce feature stories and other media materials for the website and newsletter. Candidates should be graduate students majoring in communications or marketing and have an interest in climate change, climate finance and development. Read more about the position here.

 

Project Manager – Honko Mangrove Conservation & Education

Based in Madagascar, the Project Manager will work with the onsite co-project manager to lead the first blue carbon project in Madagascar in tandem with community associations. Candidates should have a Master’s Degree in biology, sustainable development, bio-engineering, or conservation and knowledge of blue carbon and REDD+. Read more about the position here.

 

Deputy, Chief of Party – Conservation International

Based in Indonesia, the Deputy will oversee a team of up to ten positions within the North Sumatra program area and will be responsible for local coordination, monitoring and development of the annual Sustainable Landscapes Partnership program work-plan. Candidates should have a Bachelor’s Degree in natural resource management or a related field and 7+ years of experience with public-private partnerships. Read more about the position here.

Project Manager, Aceh – Fauna & Flora International

Based in Indonesia, the Project Manager will lead projects focusing on forest protection, wildlife management, climate change mitigation and marine and coastal resource management. Candidates should have a Master’s Degree in a relevant discipline and 5+ years’ experience working in fields of nature and conservation, ecosystem management and/or community engagement with an international conservation environment. Read more about the position here.

Researcher, Illegal Logging and Forest Governance Indicators Project – The Chatham House

Based in London, the Researcher will undertake research and analysis of data in collaboration with country partners to enable the national assessments of illegal logging. Candidates should have 8+ years of proven expertise in the forestry sector with particular experience analyzing timber trade and illegal logging. Read more about the position here.

 

ABOUT THE FOREST CARBON PORTAL

The Forest Carbon Portal provides relevant daily news, a bi-weekly news brief, feature articles, a calendar of events, a searchable member directory, a jobs board, a library of tools and resources. The Portal also includes the Forest Carbon Project Inventory, an international database of projects including those in the pipeline. Projects are described with consistent ‘nutrition labels’ and allow viewers to contact project developers.

 

ABOUT THE ECOSYSTEM MARKETPLACE

Ecosystem Marketplace is a project of Forest Trends, a tax-exempt corporation under Section 501(c)3. This newsletter and other dimensions of our voluntary carbon markets program are funded by a series of international development agencies, philanthropic foundations, and private sector organizations. For more information on donating to Ecosystem Marketplace, please contact [email protected].


Additional resources

Facts On Ground Contradict BC Auditor General

22 May 2013 | The Kootenay Land District – or “the Kootenays”, as people there call it – is the heavily-forested southeastern part of British Columbia. More than 90% of it is government-owned, and on this land, logging is kept to a minimum.

The rest of the land is in private hands, most of it in the form of tree farms. So when Duke Carl von Wí¼rttemberg announced he was putting a 54,792-hectare wilderness area known as Darkwoods up for sale, the Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC) swooped in to buy it and created the Darkwoods Forest Carbon Project to finance the upkeep in perpetuity. That project is built on the premise that a commercial logger would have practiced “liquidation” logging – which involves harvesting available timber as soon as it’s economically viable to do so. In creating the project, NCC followed step-by-step procedures laid out by the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) to earn credits for the carbon that stayed in those trees it saved.

In late April, the provincial Office of the Auditor General (OAG) slammed the carbon project, in part because it said commercial loggers in the region are more likely to practice “sustained-yield” logging – which involves harvesting slowly over time. That, the OAG said, meant NCC had exaggerated the number of trees it was saving.

It was a jarring claim, because standards are the foundation on which all carbon offsetting rests. They are designed to offer clearly-defined procedures for creating real and verifiable emission-reductions without having to reinvent the wheel with every new project. To deliver environmental benefits, such standards must stand up to scrutiny by disinterested third parties. If the OAG’s two-man team was right and the VCS and its hundreds of experts and years of review were wrong, then the carbon sector was in need of a major rethink.

So far, however, it’s the OAG’s own claims that aren’t standing up to scrutiny, while the VCS is looking better and better.

The OAG’s Arguments

The OAG dismissed the procedure and the project on two grounds. First, the OAG claimed that NCC hadn’t factored carbon finance into its purchase and was instead cashing in after the fact (an argument that proved to be built on false premises and incomplete information).

Second, the OAG claimed that NCC had exaggerated the number of trees it had saved – or, in carbon lingo, it had exaggerated the baseline. This argument had two components: one relating to the amount of harvestable timber on the property, and the other relating to the way commercial tree farmers typically manage their land.

The question of harvestable timber is highly technical, and even well-regarded timber consultants are divided over the best way to deal with it. We will review that in our next installment.

The question of typical practices, however, is fairly straightforward: the OAG claimed that “most private forest land owners in the area” don’t employ liquidation logging, but it offered no evidence to support this claim. We started calling timber consultants, contractors, landowners, and local authorities in the Kootenays to find out what the common procedures were.

The answers are revealing – not only with regard to the practice of tree farming in the Kootenays, but also with regard to process of reasoning in the OAG.

Which Properties are “Typical”?

Everyone we spoke to initially said that liquidation logging is, in fact, the norm across the Kootenays – just as NCC said it was. We even found two properties adjacent to Darkwoods that had been liquidation-logged, and we learned that the owner of one of those properties had shown an interest in purchasing Darkwoods.

Lead auditor Morris Sydor, however, told us we had been looking at the wrong properties – and, to be fair, we had been directed to one of them by 3GreenTree, which was NCC’s partner in the Darkwoods project. Sydor directed us to four properties that he assured us were more representative of the types of managers likely to purchase Darkwoods: specifically, he told us to look up Beaumont Timber, Almforest Timber, Erie Creek Timber, and Kelly Creek Timber. All of them, he said, follow the Private Managed Forest Land Act (PMFLA) to earn tax credits, and none of them, he assured us, practice liquidation logging.

“They’ve got a long-term outlook in mind,” he said. “I had a phone conversation with a consultant a while ago and he basically confirmed the same thing: If you look at small properties, yes, people are going to liquidate because it is a small property, but if you’re looking at the larger ones people tend to have a longer view in mind.”

At 28,000 hectares, Beaumont is by far the biggest of the four, and it’s just over half the size of Darkwoods. If it was, in fact, practicing sustained-yield harvesting and was, in fact, typical of the types of entities that would buy Darkwoods, then maybe the baseline was, as the OAG claimed, too aggressive.

But when we contacted British Columbia’s Corporate Registry and other authorities, we learned that all of the properties Sydor referenced are owned by German aristocrats like the Prince and Princess of Wied (see “Beaumont Ownership”, right). These aristocrats are cut from the same cloth as von Wí¼rttemberg, who had owned Darkwoods for 40 years before selling it. They are the last remnants of a wave that came over at the height of the Cold War, and they have been divesting since the 1990s. What’s more, every property that these aristocrats have sold has ended up being liquidation-harvested, subdivided, or otherwise treated the way a normal commercial developer would treat such properties.

So, yes, the owners of these four properties take a longer-term view than other private timberland owners in the area, but that’s because they are completely different from other private timberland owners in the area.

“These properties are far from typical,” says Rainer Mí¼nter, who has served as General Manager of Almforest and currently owns Monticola Forest Ltd, a consultancy that does business with three of the four properties. “The families that own them view these investments more as a form of capital preservation than capital appreciation, so their expectations are much more modest than are those of typical investors.”

Granted, that doesn’t preclude one of them buying Darkwoods, but we’ve learned that the owners of Darkwoods offered it to all four properties and were turned down.

“We looked at it,” says Mí¼nter. “But we concluded that there was no way we could make it work financially if we were to log sustainably – not at the price they were asking.”

And here’s the kicker: Beaumont – the largest of the four properties – has been harvesting at a rate consistent with the baseline that NCC picked, and every timber dealer in the region knows it, which means the OAG should have known it. That rate, it turns out, doesn’t violate the PMFLA, and neither does the baseline analysis that 3GreetTree created. In fact, while the Project Description Document does say that a commercial owner would probably opt out of the PMFLA to avoid the cost of replanting, the actual baseline included tree planting, which meant the baseline itself was consistent with the PMFLA. The reference to the PMFLA is, therefore, irrelevant.

What’s truly bizarre about the OAG’s report is that, on re-reading it after knowing the facts, you repeatedly see the auditors mostly (but not completely) understood the facts but wrote about them a way that appears intentionally vague and misleading, giving themselves the wiggle room to claim they weren’t technically wrong, even though they were very far from being right. Take, for example, this paragraph from the report:

The project assumed a “liquidation logger” would not follow the requirements of the Private Managed Forest Land Act (PMFLA), even though the project plan identified that most private forest land owners in the area followed these requirements. This is common practice in the area, as significant tax benefits are gained by registering a forest under the Act. The project documentation provided no explanation for omitting such registration from the baseline calculation. By not registering under the PMFLA, a liquidation owner would not follow the minimum forest management objectives for private land (e.g. for soil conservation, protection of water quality, fish habitat and critical wildlife habitat, and reforestation). The baseline assumed that areas classified as environmentally protected by the previous owner such as sensitive habitat for mountain caribou and other at-risk species, would be logged, and not replanted by a liquidation owner.

Well, yes – it’s mostly true, but it’s completely meaningless. The “areas classified as environmentally protected by the previous owner” are parts of the property that the Duke had set aside for his own use, and not areas that were protected for any scientific environmental reason. Furthermore, the project documentation does actually provide an explanation for omitting the registration (they mentioned that a liquidation logger would probably try to save the cost of replanting), but then 3GreenTree still factored replanting into its baseline calculation, meaning the baseline calculation wouldn’t have been disqualified from the PMFLA.

What About Wildlife and Activists?

Interestingly, in our interviews, Sydor quickly conceded the irrelevance of PMFLA on harvesting levels, but then said local people wouldn’t tolerate the destruction of valuable habitat.

“The problem with the baseline scenario is it wipes out all the habitat for mountain caribou and grizzly bears,” he says. “It has no consideration for environmental values.”

That, of course, is why NCC was so keen to buy the property, but he says it also makes the baseline scenario untenable because no one will do business with a company that chops down trees in environmentally-sensitive areas.

“There was a forest company five years ago that went public with some logging plans that it was going to log in mountain caribou habitat,” said Sydor. “What happened was there was such an uproar that its major purchasers in the US went public and said, ‘We’re not going to buy from this organization if this goes ahead.’ They had to pull back.”

Mike Vitt, who managed the project for 3GreenTree, points out that neighboring Porcupine Creek has chopped down more than 70% of its trees, and there has been no protest from the green community. What’s more, he says, the baseline scenario he chose doesn’t really decimate the caribou habitat.

“Caribou are high-altitude animals,” he says. “The two things that caribou care about are that you’re not logging the really high-elevation stuff and you don’t have open roads, because then wolves and other predators can get them.”

Finally, in cases where a green protest has emerged, logging has tended to increase rather than decrease. Take, for example, the case of Texada Logging on Salt Spring Island, near Vancouver. Like Darkwoods, Texada Logging had been owned by a German aristocrat, Prince Johannes von Thurn und Taxis. When he died in 1990, his heirs started looking for a buyer. In stepped Robert J. MacDonald and Derek M. Trethewey, who announced plans to start logging. Local nature-lovers put together an incredibly well-organized and well-documented community action, but instead of stopping, the owners sped up the logging until the government stepped in to buy the land at an inflated price.

Texada matters because MacDonald and Trethewey also own Porcupine Creek. We don’t know if they bid on the Darkwoods property, but we do know of three parties who showed an interest, and all of the either practiced liquidation logging or developed real estate.

That’s partly because the asking price was based on an assessment of the timber value conducted by Jim Thrower, one of the leading timber consultants in British Columbia. He looked at the timber on the land and concluded that a commercial operator would harvest between 180,000 and 380,000 cubic meters per year, depending on external factors. 3GreenTree then used a mid-range figure to come up with its asking price. Any commercial venture that paid the asking price would, therefore, have had to push the limit of timber extraction to make a profit.

This doesn’t mean there is unanimity among timber consultants on the baseline, which brings us to an issue we’ll explore in our next installment: namely, how timber assessments are made, and where timber consultants say carbon baselines can be improved.

 

Additional resources

This Week In Forest Carbon: President Obama’s Climate Action Plan Includes REDD+

This week, President Barack Obama announced his decision to create new pollution standards for power plants. In addition to limiting greenhouse gas emissions from large emitters, the president’s Climate Plan also addresses the role of domestic forests in mitigating climate change as well as REDD and the administration’s commitment to reducing global land-use-related emissions.

This article was originally published in the Forest Carbon newsletter. Click here to read the original.

29 June 2013 | President Barack Obama recently gave the Environmental Protection Agency his blessing to propose and implement regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from new and existing power plants in the United States. While the President’s Climate Action Plan will have obvious repercussions for large emitters, its effects on REDD+ and forest carbon are less concrete.
   

The latest Ecosystem Marketplace coverage unearths the implications of limiting carbon and its potential effect on the formation of cap-and-trade programs and “state leadership”, which the President referred to explicitly in his speech. David Antonioli, CEO of the Verified Carbon Standard believes “the Obama plan is unlikely to have a direct impact on the voluntary carbon markets,” however, it will likely encourage “countries and companies to start taking concrete action against climate change.”

The President’s Climate Action Plan reports that “greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation, agriculture, and other land use constitute approximately one-third of global emissions.” It also highlights REDD+ and addresses the United States’ role in mitigating carbon emissions by reducing agriculture-driven deforestation. The Obama Administration has already partnered with developing countries to develop the framework needed to reduce global emissions stemming from land use, as well as to implement new programs to support sustainable development and improved livelihoods. The Plan acknowledges USAID’s contribution to reducing more than 140 MtCO2e through the World Bank’s Forest Investment Program and Forest Carbon Partnership Facility.

 

Furthermore, the plan recognizes the role of domestic forests in mitigating climate change and in “removing nearly 12% of total U.S greenhouse gas emissions each year.” The Administration is striving to identify new methods to conserve America’s forests, grasslands and wetlands despite increasing pressures to convert forest land to support agricultural or urban capacity, as reported in the plan.  

 

Switching gears, we are pleased to announce the successful launch of the State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2013 report! The event, which took place on June 20 here in D.C., was well attended by carbon stakeholders from across the D.C. metropolitan area and the U.S.  

 

Thank you to everyone who attended the launch event and to those who contributed to this year’s report! We look forward to working with you again next year!  
 

—The Ecosystem Marketplace Team

If you have comments or would like to submit news stories, write to us at [email protected].


News

 

Announcements

A one-stop shop

A new Ecosystem Marketplace article covers the recent marketing agreement between CO2OL, a Forest Finance Group subsidiary, and the Forest Carbon Group. Together, the two Germany-based organizations will offer forest carbon projects involving REDD+, improved forest management, reforestation and afforestation and serve clients in the events, transport, energy and manufacturing industries. To date, CO2OL has three forest carbon projects certified under the CarbonFix standard, a landfill project under the Gold Standard, and several projects under the Forest Stewardship Council, while Forest Carbon Group has five projects jointly certified to the Verified Carbon Standard and the Climate, Community & Biodiversity (CCB) Standard.

VCS now accepting comments

The Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) is now accepting public comments on draft tools for jurisdiction-wide programs crediting REDD+. The Tool for the Estimation of Jurisdictional Leakage in VCS Jurisdictional and Nested REDD+ (JNR) Programs outlines an approach for jurisdictional programs to deal with leakage as a result of activity shifting, market and deforestation-to-degradation leakage. The Jurisdictional Non-Permanence Risk Tool outlines procedures to account for natural disasters and economic and political risks to the carbon store within the jurisdiction.

 

International Policy

REDD+ on the move

While many REDD-related policies may not be solidified until COP19 in November, several policies are making headway. Negotiators at the UN climate change conference in Bonn discussed the verification of carbon emissions under REDD+, proposing an international analysis of reported emissions reductions. Additionally, governments came to a consensus over national forest monitoring systems and reporting requirements, which will require REDD+ countries to eventually report emissions every two years using Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines. REDD+ finance mechanisms covering both market and non-market financial mechanisms, agriculture, and high-carbon ecosystems such as mangroves and peatlands were key points of discussion.

 

Transparency, a key principle within IPCC guidelines, has become increasingly important for countries developing methodologies for estimating forest carbon stocks. To comply with these bylaws, the Ministry of Environment of Peru recently published data on national deforestation from 2009 to 2011, as well as the methodology behind the analysis, marking a significant turning point for the Government of Peru in its transparency efforts related to national forest monitoring, a necessary precursor for REDD+. Leading the way in transparency efforts, Brazil has published deforestation statistics through studies conducted by the National Institute for Space Research since the 1990s, showcasing the results of REDD+.

 

US Policy

When push comes to shove

A recent Ecosystem Marketplace article unravels the story behind President Barack Obama’s proposal to limit carbon pollution from heavy polluters as part of a comprehensive climate plan. While the president’s speech did not provide explicit details on future EPA regulations, his announcement may encourage the private sector to take tangible action on climate change. The climate plan also discusses REDD+, acknowledging high-levels of emissions stemming from the land use sector in developing nations. “It’s encouraging to see President Obama put forward a bold plan to address the challenges of climate change and embrace key provisions like carbon finance and REDD to achieve these goals,” states David Antonioli, CEO of VCS.

 

Strength in numbers

In California, a group of offset project developers came together to form the newly-minted Compliance Offset Developers Association (CODA), a forum for project developers to share technical knowledge and ideas regarding emissions reductions projects under California’s cap-and-trade program. CODA intends to connect project developers in order to gain a better understanding of the rules and regulations of the offset market on a collaborative basis. A “member-driven and transparent organization,” CODA is open to companies that have three or more projects in forestry, ODS or livestock, project types that are eligible for California compliance. Current members include A-GAS RemTec, Camco, Coolgas, Inc., Diversified Pure Chem, Environmental Credit Corp, and Terrapass.

 

Project Development

Madre nature

The Madre de Dios Amazon REDD+ Project recently garnered verification under VCS, offsetting 4.5 MtCO2e over a four-year period spanning from 2009 through 2012. Located in the Peruvian Amazon in “one of the world’s most important biodiversity hotspots”, the Madre de Dios project covers 100,000 hectares of rainforest developed by Greenoxx Global. The project was originally validated by SCS Global Services under VCS and CCB, earning Gold Level recognition by CCB. Income from the project is projected to fund increased satellite monitoring and field patrolling to mitigate illegal logging and deforestation as well as social programs in local communities.

 

Backing out

Just prior to gaining approval for a forest carbon project in Oddar Meanchey province in Cambodia, two buyers withdrew due to the forestry administration’s lack of commitment to the $1-million carbon credit deal which was slated to protect 68,000 hectares of forest. Pact country director Sarah Sitts vocalized her concerns for the greater market stating, “If buyers start to see Cambodia can’t sell those credits, buyers might stop coming to Cambodia.” When questioned, Cambodian government officials expressed confusion over the deadline.

 

National Strategy and Capacity

Where there’s smoke, there’s fire

In 2011, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono implemented a two-year forest moratorium under a $1 billion grant from the Norwegian government earmarked for REDD+. The forest moratorium aims to mitigate the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by prohibiting the award of new licenses to clear or convert primary natural forests and peat lands to agriculture or other uses. Although President Yudhoyono recently extended Indonesia’s forest moratorium plan, fires continue to burn on the Indonesian island of Sumatra causing the neighboring nations of Singapore and Malaysia to suffer the brunt of the consequences – thick smoke and heavy air pollution. The fires, principally due to illegal forest clearing, highlight Indonesia’s lack enforcement in the forestry sector. In addition, the absence of transparency and timely data related to Indonesia forest policy has further contributed to moratorium-related problems.

 

Investigating Indonesia

This week, Indonesia became the first country to launch a forest governance report. Providing an investigation of Indonesia’s forest and land governance policies and presenting recommendations for shortcomings related to REDD+, the 2012 Indonesia Forest, Land and REDD+ Governance Index (Participatory Governance Assessment Report) launched in Lombok, Indonesia. The study, covering 10 provinces across Indonesia, was spearheaded by UNDP Indonesia and UN-REDD in partnership with FAO and the UNDP Oslo Governance Center. UNDP Principal Technical Advisor for REDD+ Tim Clairs believes the report, along with baseline data are “important first steps towards improved governance systems and structures.”

 

It’s hip to be green

With the help of the South Korea-based Global Green Growth Institution (GGGI), Indonesia recently launched a two-year green growth initiative intended to devise a funding system for REDD+, galvanize the Indonesian Economic Development Acceleration Masterplan, and provide support for green growth at the provincial level. In 2009, Indonesia pledged to reduce its carbon emissions by up to 26 percent by 2020. The Indonesia government has since chosen the provinces of Central Kalimantan and East Kalimantan to host the Green Growth’s pilot projects, necessitating an estimated $1.5 million. Indonesia intends to have an operational REDD+ financial scheme in place in 2014.

 

Myanmar up to bat, Sri Lanka on deck

With additional funding from the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, the Center for People and Forests has added Myanmar to its portfolio of countries within the Grassroots Capacity Building for REDD+ Project. Project development in Myanmar is slated to mirror that of the other four focal countries, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Nepal and Vietnam, through collaboration with local organizations, both government and non-government alike. A planning workshop, attended by representatives from Myanmar’s Department of Forestry, civil society organizations and relevant organizations, was held at the end of May in Nye Pi Taw, Myanmar, to develop a plan for the REDD+ Grassroots Project and discuss national REDD+ policies.

 

In Sri Lanka, the Ministry of Environment and Renewable Energy recognized a growing pressure on its forest resources as a result of a growing national economy and called upon the assistance of UN-REDD. The Environment and Renewable Energy Minister, Susil Premajayantha, recently inaugurated the development of an in-country REDD+ program.

 

Finance & Economics

It’s all about the results

A recent CIFOR study, Key Issues in REDD+ Verification, discusses the issue of “aid conditionality”, or development aid funding based on attaining specified GHG emissions reductions. Discrepancies over REDD+ financing as well as a methodology for measuring, reporting and verifying (MRV) emissions are continuing to threaten technical work related to forest monitoring systems. While REDD+ was originally intended to be funded by carbon emissions trading, inadequate demand in the carbon markets has resulted in the majority of the $17.2 billion already committed to REDD+ coming from development aid budgets, resulting in funding connected to results-based actions.

 

Rise to the challenge

In a question-and-answer session with CIFOR, Arilid Angelsen, editor of Analyzing REDD+: Challenges and Choices, gives his take on REDD+’s future. Whether through national or regional level carbon market inclusion, an increase in development aid, or via domestic funding through NAMAs (Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions), Angelsen believes securing funds through a new global climate agreement in 2015 will be critical for REDD+. The amount of funding is also a key factor, which can be greatly influenced by factors such as in-country political instability and the economic crisis in Europe.

Human Dimension

¿Por qué, Panama?

Following the withdrawal of the National Coordinating Body of the Indigenous People of Panama (COONAPIP) in February, the UN-REDD Programme now has the potential to rectify REDD+’s collapse in Panama if new policies regarding the rights of Indigenous Peoples are implemented at the UN-REDD Programme’s Tenth Policy Board meeting, scheduled to take place in Indonesia this week. COONAPIP leader, Betanio Chiquidama, plans to attend the conference. Chiquidama believes REDD+’s failure in Panama was due to the absence of recognized indigenous rights and the exclusion of the indigenous peoples from the program design process. He hopes that UN-REDD will work “to design something better – with the indigenous peoples who own the forests.”

 

Science & Technology

Putting northern forests on the map

Part of the Biomasar-II project, scientists recently generated a map of the entire northern hemisphere’s forest biomass. The resulting images depict one kilometer per pixel, proving to be the highest resolution images of their kind to date. Biomass plays a crucial role in researchers’ understanding of the carbon cycle, aiding in predictions for future climate trends. The new imagery draws from “stacks of radar images” from the European Space Agency’s Envisat satellite, whereas previous technology relied on single Envisat radar images, which according to Maurizio Santoro of Gamma Remote Sensing, “cannot provide the sensitivity needed to map the composition of forests with high density.”

 

Publications & Tools

Case in point

The Role of the Private Sector in REDD +: The Case for Engagement and Options for Intervention discusses the importance of the private sector in REDD+ planning and implementation and highlights different types of interventions. The UN-REDD Programme policy brief argues for stronger private sector engagement and is intended to encourage public sector REDD+ planners and practitioners to connect with the private sector.

 

The poorest in the forest

Missing the Poorest for the Trees? REDD+ and the Links between Forestry, Resilience, and Peacebuilding, an outcome of the Humanitarian Consultancy Project at the London School of Economics and Political Science, analyzes forestry-related issues and conflict in Brazil, Indonesia and Uganda. Recommendations include the implementation of REDD+ safeguards, placing a greater emphasis on human rights, poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservation, and the alignment of REDD+ programmes with national development strategies.

 

Jobs

Coordinator, Amazon Forest & Climate – The Nature Conservancy

Based in Brazil, the Coordinator will provide technical and political leadership and support for The Nature Conservancy’s REDD+ work in the Amazon and will build strategic, scientific and technical capacity among staff and partners on REDD+. Candidates should have a college degree and experience in REDD+, forest conservation and/or sustainable agricultural production. Read more about the position here.

 

2 Positions – African Wildlife Foundation

Based in Zambia, the Program Officer, Forestry will coordinate daily operations and field activities within established jointly-managed forest areas and REDD+ project sites and closely liaise with government, research, community, and carbon consultants. Candidates should have an advanced degree in environmental sciences, natural resource management, or international development and 3+ years’ experience working on community-based forestry programs in Africa. Also based in Zambia, the Senior Policy Advisor will work with key government stakeholders, USAID policy representatives and the government to facilitate the development of a joint national REDD+ strategy. Candidates should have an advanced degree in public policy, environmental law, or a relevant field and 5+ years’ previous experience working in the development of public policies.

 

National Coordinator, Grassroots Capacity Building for REDD in Laos – The Center for People and Forests

Based in Laos, the National Coordinator will lead the development and revision of training and capacity building materials for REDD+ and deliver the REDD+ training and awareness program. Candidates should have a Bachelor’s Degree in Natural Resource Management and 5+ years of experience in teaching and developing training materials. Read more about the position here.

 

Intern, Communications – The Gold Standard Foundation

Based in Geneva, the Intern will assist the marketing and communications manager with the online building of, and advocacy for The Gold Standard and produce feature stories and other media materials for the website and newsletter. Candidates should be graduate students majoring in communications or marketing and have an interest in climate change, climate finance and development. Read more about the position here.

 

Project Manager – Honko Mangrove Conservation & Education

Based in Madagascar, the Project Manager will work with the onsite co-project manager to lead the first blue carbon project in Madagascar in tandem with community associations. Candidates should have a Master’s Degree in biology, sustainable development, bio-engineering, or conservation and knowledge of blue carbon and REDD+. Read more about the position here.

 

Deputy, Chief of Party – Conservation International

Based in Indonesia, the Deputy will oversee a team of up to ten positions within the North Sumatra program area and will be responsible for local coordination, monitoring and development of the annual Sustainable Landscapes Partnership program work-plan. Candidates should have a Bachelor’s Degree in natural resource management or a related field and 7+ years of experience with public-private partnerships. Read more about the position here.

Project Manager, Aceh – Fauna & Flora International

Based in Indonesia, the Project Manager will lead projects focusing on forest protection, wildlife management, climate change mitigation and marine and coastal resource management. Candidates should have a Master’s Degree in a relevant discipline and 5+ years’ experience working in fields of nature and conservation, ecosystem management and/or community engagement with an international conservation environment. Read more about the position here.

Researcher, Illegal Logging and Forest Governance Indicators Project – The Chatham House

Based in London, the Researcher will undertake research and analysis of data in collaboration with country partners to enable the national assessments of illegal logging. Candidates should have 8+ years of proven expertise in the forestry sector with particular experience analyzing timber trade and illegal logging. Read more about the position here.

 

ABOUT THE FOREST CARBON PORTAL

The Forest Carbon Portal provides relevant daily news, a bi-weekly news brief, feature articles, a calendar of events, a searchable member directory, a jobs board, a library of tools and resources. The Portal also includes the Forest Carbon Project Inventory, an international database of projects including those in the pipeline. Projects are described with consistent ‘nutrition labels’ and allow viewers to contact project developers.

 

ABOUT THE ECOSYSTEM MARKETPLACE

Ecosystem Marketplace is a project of Forest Trends, a tax-exempt corporation under Section 501(c)3. This newsletter and other dimensions of our voluntary carbon markets program are funded by a series of international development agencies, philanthropic foundations, and private sector organizations. For more information on donating to Ecosystem Marketplace, please contact [email protected].


Additional resources

Peru Will Look For Global Commitment On Climate Change During COP 20

It has recently been determined that the 20th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC will take place in Lima, Peru with Peru aiming for a global agreement on mitigating the impact of climate change as well as advancing adaptation strategies based on environmental compensation and natural infrastructure that will aid developing countries struggling with the effects of climate change.

This article was originally published in Spanish by the Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN). Click here to view the original.

2 July 2013 | The Ministry of Environment of Peru (MINAM) received the news that Peru will host the 20th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) in 2014 with optimism and expectation. The department believes this meeting (where more than 190 countries of the world will convene) represents a step towards a 2015 global agreement with concrete and binding commitments to address the impacts of climate change.

“Peru is a country absolutely committed to the negotiations and its progress in dealing with climate change. We are committed to the Durban Platform agreement and we know that in Warsaw 2013, Lima 2014 and Paris 2015 we will come to a binding climate agreement, for the planet, for the people and for our citizens. Those of us who serve the public are aware that our fundamental priority is our people, especially the most vulnerable-those who suffer the consequences of climate change,” says Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, Minister of Environment, in a speech he delivered at a Climate Conference in Bonn.

According to Pulgar-Vidal, choosing Peru to host COP 20 is a sign of recognition from the world that Peru is a country committed to the wellbeing of its people as well as development based on low carbon emissions.

The Negotiation Agenda

The importance of achieving a binding global agreement under the principals of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capacities,” following the outlines of the Durban Platform, is an important issue for Eduardo Durand, Director of Climate Change, Desertification and Hydric Resources for MINAM. He says that while there are countries like Peru, who has voluntarily committed to reduce emissions, other nations have not and continue to generate unchecked emissions. Those are the places Durand aims to influence.

To do this, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Panama, Guatemala and Peru will work together to enforce recognition and implementation of the Durban Platform while fighting “hard positions” that impede global agreements. This group of Latin American countries will work to build bridges between the different positions and interests of diverse countries.

Another issue important to developing countries is adaptation to climate change. Little emphasis has been put on it in past negotiations amounting to little advancement made in the sector, especially when compared to mitigation efforts.

Pedro Solano, Executive Director of the Peruvian Society of Environmental Law (SPDA), considers creating a climate change adaptation strategy based on ecosystems and environmental compensation, sustained by natural infrastructure, an essential part of the negotiations.

“It is hoped that at a national level there is a priority given to the management of woods and meeting the zero deforestation goal, coupled with updating binding concepts such as the role of the protected areas on climate change issues and the actual internalization of an oceanic strategy for the sustainable provision of food,” he says.

Solano also will be pushing the issue of preserving glaciers at a regional and national level over the next 40 years.

Climatic justice is another important concept to focus on. “Climatic justice, added to nation’s vulnerability, should allow a better mapping of what responsibility corresponds to each country,” Solano says. “It should allow that the goals and responsibilities (of COP 20) are viable and seek equilibrium of roles, which will in turn allow equilibrium on the planet.”

The Fundamental Role of Civil Society

The participation of civil society organizations in previous conferences has been fundamental to position key themes and promote the importance of the agreements generating at the same time a healthy alternative and complementary vision, which is no mean feat. The role of civil society organizations, according to Solano, is “to generate and share information, such as establishing spaces for previous dialogues to aid decision making, and also to monitor and advise the coherence of the party’s positions.” Civil society participation is essential to the transparency of the process and its legitimacy, Solano says.

An Interesting Aspect

The G8 summit meeting in Northern Ireland recently finished culminating with the Lough Erne Declaration. In the document, countries recognize that climate change increases economic risk and global insecurity and encourages them to work together at the UNFCCC to achieve a new protocol by 2015.

Next year, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) will release its latest report-Fifth Evaluation Report-an update on scientific, technical and socio-economic data regarding climate change. This report presents the current situation and provides guidelines on measures to curbing climate change in the future.

Finally, we have to remember that BanKi-Moon announced at Doha his intention to convene a meeting of leaders in 2014 to hold the world’s attention on climate change.

Canadian Carbon Audit Report Delayed Amid Charges Of Bias And Overreach

UPDATED: 16:32 GMT Adds comment from Auditor General’s office

27 March 2013 | By all accounts, Duke Carl von Wí¼rttemberg loved Darkwoods and shared it with his neighbors.   After buying the 55,000-hectare Canadian wilderness as a refuge from the Cold War in 1967, he harvested just 57,000 cubic meters of timber per year and let the general public wander its trails.

But when he put the property on the auction block in 2005*, the Nature Conservancy Canada (NCC) feared the worst. After all, NCC reasoned, the odds of finding another eccentric German duke were slim at best, and this was prime timberland.

So NCC approached von Wí¼rttemberg with an offer to save large swathes of the land for posterity. In order to finance the deal, NCC then created the Darkwoods Forest Carbon Project which would earn carbon credits for the trees it saved and then use those credits to help finance both the purchase and upkeep of the land.

Many of those credits were then purchased by the Pacific Carbon Trust, a government-owned entity that uses carbon credits generated within British Columbia to offset emissions of schools, hospitals, and government agencies across the province.

Over the past year, provincial Auditor General John Doyle has been examining both the Project and the Trust as part of a performance audit or value for money audit that examines not just the accounting, but the management of an organization or program. Critics say that, in this case, the process ran amok, with inexperienced auditors either getting in over their heads or intentionally trying to discredit the program.

Assistant Auditor General Morris Sydor disputes the characterization, but says he’s prohibited from commenting until after the report is released.

“Once our report is public and you have had a chance to review it, I would be happy to talk to you to clear up the misinformation,” he says.

Originally slated for release on Tuesday, the audit report was shelved indefinitely by Bill Barisoff, the Speaker of British Columbia’s Legislative Assembly, after leaked letters revealed the degree of anger over the way the audit was being carried out. In a statement, Barisoff’s office said the report was being delayed not because of its content, but because of the leaks.

“Since a breach of Parliament may have occurred, the report will not be distributed until the Speaker has concluded his discussions with the Auditor General,” the statement said.

Ecosystem Marketplace spoke to people close to the audit and identified three areas of contention. First, say project proponents, the audit lacked transparency and expertise – with Doyle refusing to disclose which outside experts he’d contracted to support the audit and no known carbon experts being identified as participants. Second, project proponents say Doyle disregarded the rules of carbon accounting – a move akin to a corporate auditor discarding generally-accepted accounting principles and instead writing his own. Third, they say he ignored evidence – going so far as to conclude the discovery phase of the audit before all questions were answered.

To understand the accusations, it helps to examine the Trust and the Projects themselves

Carbon-Neutral Government

The audit focused on the Pacific Carbon Trust and its administration of British Columbia’s Carbon-Neutral Government program, which buys carbon offsets in the private market and then sells them to government entities across British Columbia. All of those offsets must originate in the province, and all must be verified and validated according to recognized third-party standards. Several governments around the world see the program as a template for their own initiatives, but it has drawn fire at home for the high price it charges government agencies.

“Back when the program was created, the Ministry of Environment set the price we charge at $25 per ton,” says Scott MacDonald, the Trust’s Chief Executive Officer. “They did this for two reasons: first, to provide an incentive for the public-sector to reduce emissions, and second, to give us enough flexibility to buy the kinds of quality offsets we need within British Columbia.”

Over time, however, the Trust has managed to buy credits well below C$25 per ton, at a cost that MacDonald says averages between C$11 and C$12 per ton – a differential that helped spark the audit over a year ago.

“There were reasons the price was set up the way it was, and all the money has been put back into government,” MacDonald says. “Now we’re four years in, and the Minister has committed to reviewing the price”

Within the Trust’s portfolio, the audit focused on two projects: Darkwoods and a gas-flaring project.

The Darkwoods Deal

The project began in 2008, when Darkwoods was on the block. NCC pre-empted regional loggers with a lowball offer of C$125 million. Their offer, however contained an embedded promise to manage the land sustainably. NCC then cobbled together external commitments of C$60 million, including C$25 million from the government, and used carbon credits to help cover its part of the purchase as well as provide for long-term upkeep.

To calculate the number of credits generated, they used rules prescribed by the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) to determine what another buyer would likely do with the land, and then they compared this to what they planned to do.

“These are rules that have evolved over 15 years of peer review and debate,” says David Antonioli, Chief Executive Officer of the VCS Association. “It’s how a standard works – whether it’s an accounting standard or a carbon standard: you get agreement on the rules, and you follow the rules, and you create a process for updating the rules over time. But you don’t just let anyone come in and arbitrarily change something that hundreds of people have already agreed on.”

In this case, NCC calculated its credits by following a common procedure used by forest-carbon projects around the world: it compared Darkwoods to similar properties in the same region, then it examined the financial demands of for-profit logging companies, and finally it determined the number of trees it would save by keeping the property out of the hands of loggers.

They found that if Darkwoods continued to harvest just 50,000 square meters per year, it would have to miraculously achieve a profit margin about twice that of surrounding logging operations to equal a rate of return comparable to surrounding timberland – and that’s assuming a 4% cost of capital, which in turn assumes a zero risk of default. Going a step further, they saw that, if the new owners did what every owner in the area had done, the older trees would be gone in about 15 years to jump-start a 100-year rotation period of planting and harvesting. Using the econometric model and the regional precedent, they projected a rate of deforestation that standard logging practices would generate, and used this as their baseline.

NCC then developed an improved forest management (IFM) strategy and calculated its own rate of tree loss. Then it drew up a project methodology that would generate carbon credits for the difference between the baseline approach and NCC’s IFM approach and sent the methodology through the VCS wringer – which meant sending it to groups of experts who try and poke holes in the methodology. After making a few adjustments, the project won approval and started issuing credits.

Specific Points of Contention

In letters to Doyle and interviews with Ecosystem Marketplace, project proponents identified several points of contention.

Additionality: Antonioli says that auditors either failed to understand or willfully ignored standard practices for determining whether a project is “additional”, meaning whether the carbon offsets actually caused the reductions. Specifically, he says auditors didn’t understand the concept of “regulatory surplus” – or whether the project was trying to earn credits for doing something it was already required to do by law.

In his letters and in an interview with Ecosystem Marketplace, he provided two examples. First, he says, auditors focused on a so-called “Eco-Gift” that NCC had received from the government to help it complete the purchase. The Eco-Gift came with conditions requiring it to preserve most of the land, but it also came after NCC had presented its carbon proposal to the government.

“The auditors kept saying that the conditions of the Eco-Gift were somehow a pre-existing regulation, which meant the project didn’t meet the criteria for regulatory surplus,” Antonioli says. “But that’s not what it was. The Eco-Gift was just another piece of the financing puzzle, and the conditions simply said that (NCC) had better do what they say they will do with it. The fact, however, is that if NCC had not purchased the land, then the grant would not have given, and if they didn’t have the carbon component, they would not have purchased the land.”

On another occasion, he says, the auditors criticized VCS for not following the same protocol as California’s Climate Action Reserve (CAR) – a different standard specific to the state of California.

“It was the last point of discussion after a very long day,” says Antonioli. “They pulled out this attestation form that CAR requires project developers to fill out. It basically says that I, the project proponent, hereby state that there are no regulations requiring me to take these actions, etc. Well, it’s echoes information we require as part of the project documentation, but CAR adds more legal language to it, and the auditors wanted (NCC) to sign this.”

Although not required under VCS, Antonioli asked NCC President and CEO John Lounds to draw up an affidavit stating that the project met the criteria of regulatory surplus, and Lounds complied. Then Antonioli sent it to the auditors and waited for a response.

“They ignored it,” he says. “We went to them and said, ‘Here you are. Is this what you need?’ Then we waited for a reply, but they completely ignored it.

The Baseline: Several project proponents said auditors questioned the methods used to determine the project baseline.

“The Auditor General seems to be saying that a rational forester would recognize the long-term benefits of a balanced harvest approach and would not pursue liquidation logging, but would instead pursue a sustainable harvest,” says James Tansey, an associate professor at the University of British Columbia’s Sauder School of Business and founder of Offsetters, one of the companies that purchased credits from Darkwoods.

“But there’s no basis and no precedent for that, and we have no idea why they think it’s defensible,” he says, adding that overreach on the part of government auditors adds an element of risk that puts all carbon markets at risk.

“If the carbon process is at risk because an unqualified auditor enters into the equation, it makes it difficult for us to enter in and take risk on the system,” he says. “This kind of audit activity is a real risk for something that you’re calling a market, and shouldn’t be within the scope of the program.”

Rules vs Methodology: Project proponents also said that auditors failed to differentiate between VCS’s rules and the individual project’s methodology. The rules are general guidelines for designing specific projects, but the methodology is the project’s own set of rules, which must be created in accordance with the more general rules.

Transparency: Finally, proponents said the process lacked transparency. Although Doyle claimed to be consulting various experts, he refused to offer names and also denied a freedom of information act request on the grounds that experts needed to remain confidential.

One of the few experts the Auditor General did cite was University of Ottawa Law Professor Stewart Elgie, who told MacDonald that he had not heard from the auditor in more than seven months.

* We initially stated the property had been put on the market in 2008, but in fact it was put on the market in 2005. NCC completed its purchase in 2008.

 

Additional resources

In Our World:
Food, Water And Mining

The International Institute of Environment and Development (IIED) has collected key environmental news stories that include Brazil’s rejection of gold mining at an Amazon dam site while farmers in India are producing record amounts of rice without herbicide and GM seeds as well as reports on sea-level rise and pollution related disease increases, in their latest post.

In Our World is a blog series from IIED covering the environment and development-some from the real world and some from the online world. Click here to read this article in its original format.

19 March 2013 | Fred Pearce — writing for Yale Environment 360 — examines whether 2012 was the worst year yet for violence against those working to protect the environment

Mining Matters

Mongabay.com reports that Brazil has rejected a Canadian company’s bid to mine a controversial Amazon dam site for gold.

Global Witness has welcomed the move by EU finance ministers to maintain sanctions against Zimbabwe’s diamond sector.

From the Blogs

Kirsty Newman gets beyond the hyperbole about science and development.

Rosebell Kagumire profiles Congolese journalists and activists whose freedom of expression is never certain.

South-to-South

China has overtaken the EU as Brazil’s top trading partner, says the Climate News Network, which explores what this means for the Amazon and agriculture.

Forest Crime

INTERPOL’s has arrested close to 200 people and seized of millions of dollars’ worth of timber in Latin America, in its first international operation targeting large-scale illegal logging.

Climate Action (or Inaction)

Edward Cameron explains why he thinks climate justice will dominate the UN talks this year in this piece for Responding to Climate Change.

Brazil, South Africa, India and China are disappointed over low ambition from industrialised nations.

Do you know what the world is getting wrong about China and climate change? Chinadialogue’s Xu Nan and Zhang Chung explain.

Opening Up

Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene is a new, non-profit, open-access journal.

The UN Environment Programme has opened up its governance to all nations rather than the minority that usually sit on its governing council.

Better Harvest

The UN treated government ministers and officials to a meal of blemished African fruit and vegetables to highlight how European supermarkets reject edible food.

In a village in India’s poorest state, Bihar, farmers are growing world record amounts of rice – with no GM seeds, and no herbicide, reports John Vidal.

Something in the Water?

The new State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals report by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Health Organization paints a complex picture of how pollution and factors such as age and nutrition could explain disease increases.

New Scientist’s Michael Marshall reports on a new study that says coastal areas in India, Bangladesh, Japan, South Africa, Argentina and Australia are likely to face more sea-level rise than other countries.

Land Grabs

Jonathan Glennie writes on the Guardian’s Poverty Matters blog about a report that makes the business case for companies investing in land to work with local communities.

Matt Collin responds on the Aid Thoughts blog to urge people to remember the roles of governments and governance in the great land story that is unfolding.

Mike Shanahan is IIED’s press officer.
Additional resources

In Our World: A Global Wrap Of Economy And Ecology

The In Our World series appears on the IIED website. Click here to read this post in its original format.

4 March 2013 | As China’s air pollution problems persist, people there are calling for more action – and the media is taking the rare step of amplifying those calls.

The Atlantic has a video that will let you take ten minutes to understand china’s environmental emergency.

China’s struggle with development and pollution is just one of the many topics concerning the environment. Below, are recent issues concerning the environment and development-some from the real world and some from the online world.

Enviro-philosophy

In this pair of posts, journalist Keith Kloor asks Is the Anthropocene doomed? and What Should the Anthropocene Look Like

Kloor refers to Jon Foley, director of the Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota, who challenges environmentalists with an essay that begins… We are supposed to be in the business of changing the world. The question is: are we?

Risk and Resilience

Garry Peterson at the Resilience Science blog, has been looking into the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks 2013 report, which he calls “an interesting, but one eyed view of the global risk landscape.

Communicating for Sustainability

Dan Kahan, who leads the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School, answers his own question: “What would I advise climate science communicators

Laurie Bennett creative director at Futerra says Telling stories is great for sustainability marketing.

Randy Olson says the “climate movement HAS to take the skeptics seriously (not ignore them), but should refuse to engage with climate skeptics in IRRATIONAL VENUES.” Read more in his blog post “Ignore or Boycott?”

Forests, People, Wildlife, Conservation

In The Guardian, John Vidal reports that the World Bank’s own evaluators say its investments support logging and do little to help rural poor people.

Researcher Maureen McCarthy wrote about conflict between chimpanzees and people in Uganda. SciDev.Net reports on the first meeting of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.

Keith Kloor reports on a new review paper in the journal Science about how many species there are and how fast they are going extinct – and how the media has interpreted it in different ways.

Southern Climate News

In Tanzania, Maasai herders breed fewer, stronger cattle to tackle climate change.

The Philippines makes climate change a top 2013 priority

New Voices

Anju Sharma has set up a new blog, called “It must be said!” She has already posted about the Green Climate Fund and the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

Anna de Costa has started a new series at her Seeking Alchemy blog called Voices of the Anonymous. It “aims to explore some of the stories behind the unseen in India; those who form the backbone of India’s economy, who we rely upon every day but rarely see, let alone consider beyond the assumptions we might have.” Part one is here.

Mike Shanahan is IIED’s press officer.
Additional resources

Low-Flying Eyes In The Green, Green Sky

Remote sensing is a critical but expensive tool for verifying and validating the impact of land-use improvement projects, especially when using airplanes and other low-flying machines. Environmental consultant Steve Apfelbaum, however, says he’s found a way to deliver cost-effective surveillance using 1970s technology.

18 February 2013 | Steve Apfelbaum knew the technology existed. He’d even tested it himself in the 1970s – but only with the permission of the US Department of Defense.

The airborne camera was, he knew, the perfect tool for tracking and surveying the kinds of changes in land use that he was looking for as chairman and chief ecologist for Applied Ecological Systems (AES), an ecological consulting firm that provides scientific solutions to land-use problems. But it also utilized remote-sensing technologies that he feared would never be licensed for civilian use – until four years ago, when he read about the Leica RCD30.

Like the model he tested in the 1970s, this one is also a military tool, primarily deployed for surveillance work in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, Apfelbaum wasn’t about to let that stop him. He approached the producers with a different proposal: how about opening up the cameras for science? His persistence paid off; and AES was ultimately able to test and compare these quality cameras from two manufacturers.

In the end, AES decided to jointly purchase a single digital imaging camera from Leica Geosystems with Aryes Associates. The camera takes pictures both in color and using near-infrared imagery. These capabilities, combined with resolutions as high as 1 inch, means that the Leica RCD30 can be used for a variety of ecological projects – from measuring and mapping plant species disease outbreaks and amount of invasive spreading, to even identifying water quality and erosion issues in clear bodies of water. The work can be accomplished under most weather conditions; while near-infrared imagery is capable of being used in low light and cloudy conditions, this is often a key limiting factor for color imagery.

Goin’ Mobile

To utilize the camera, the two companies had to purchase their own plane, certified with a camera-sized hole so that it can take pictures from the bottom of the aircraft. Since the plane was custom-built, they made sure it was capable of flying beneath the clouds – a sharp difference from most commercial planes, which fly high and fast in order to produce more volume of digital images.

AES stresses that its plane and camera are ideally suited for research – and if it couldn’t get any better, they also argue that the cost is cheaper than most industry alternatives. Expenses are linked closely to resolution, with 1-2 inch resolutions costing a couple of hundred dollars less than leading competitors.

While the camera has come a long way from its military purposes in the 70’s, it has not been completely dissociated with its beginnings. Currently, the companies need Department of State permission for any projects taking place outside of the United States. Apfelbaum, however, doesn’t believe this permission will be difficult to obtain and hopes to see AES’s technology expand beyond the borders. He believes it could prove a unique addition to the remote sensing options available for current researchers studying forest carbon offsets and other REDD-related activities in tropical countries. In an ideal world, Apfelbaum would buy another camera and set up an international base to meet increased demand – but for now, he’s content with merely spreading the word.

Additional resources