REDD/FCPF Moving in Too Many Directions?

In a new report on the World Bank's Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), FERN and the Forest Peoples Programme sharply criticize the body on procedural grounds, arguing that FCPF is typified by rushed decision-making, non-inclusiveness, and an excessively narrow focus on carbon stocks and sinks. FCPF is part of the burgeoning Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD, a potential vehicle for reforestation/afforestation projects) architecture under the umbrella of the UNFCCC. The role of FCPF is to assist readiness activities among REDD member states and support a future forest carbon credit trading system.

The report's authors assail the Facility on multiple fronts, including:

• FCPF fails to recognize the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, in particular land tenure and resource rights.
• FCPF fails to incorporate the views of local people, in particular by failing to utilize proper consultation mechanisms.
• FCPF processes tend to blame indigenous peoples and forest communities for deforestation.
• FCPF has not developed appropriate benefit-sharing arrangements.

These criticisms are legitimate, but they point to a potential quandary for REDD institutions: different stakeholders ascribe different goals to REDD, and some goals may be partially incompatible. From the perspective of climate change and the UNFCCC, the purpose of REDD is to cut carbon emissions resulting from tropical deforestation. From the perspective of the development community, REDD and FCPF should work to promote the sustainable development of forest communities. For conservationists, the goal of REDD is to protect the remarkable biodiversity of forest ecosystems. And for some in the geoengineering community, REDD should serve as a means to enhance forest carbon stocks, through conservation, reforestation, or afforestation.

Enhancing the role of forests as carbon sinks may entail reductions in biodiversity. Sustainable development may enlarge the carbon footprints of forest communities and indigenous peoples. FERN and the Forest Peoples Programme attribute the problems of the FCPF to "the combined pressure of REDD countries, that resist stringent environmental and social standards, and key donors, that want quick disbursement of funds" (p. 32). With REDD pulled in many directions at the same time, none of the goals favored by its supporters may be achieved, and deforestation may continue as before.

Soil Carbon Credit Standard Proposed

Novecta, a consultancy jointly owned by the Iowa and Illinois Corn Growers Associations, has been circulating a draft standard for agricultural soil credits. Soil credits have played a minimal role in carbon markets up to now, because soil carbon is viewed as difficult to measure, verify, and track. The proposed standard seeks to rectify two particular issues affecting the perceived integrity of soil carbon credits:

• Additionality - The additionality (compared to business as usual) of soil credits has been difficult to demonstrate, because the cyclical nature of agricultural production complicates efforts to estimate what would have happened in the absence of a soil carbon project. The proposed standard would base additionality on crop cycles, comparing carbon content at the beginning and end of a cycle--more carbon at the end than at the beginning would confirm additionality.
• Permanence - An individual soil project is subject to multiple factors, such as weather and market dynamics, that render outcomes highly variable. This makes permanence difficult to demonstrate at the individual project level. To compensate, the Novecta standard would employ the concept of "collective persistence" to aggregate individual projects. Treating projects in the aggregate protects individual producers from the uncertainties associated with agriculture, while creating a more stable measure of sequestration for carbon markets.

Following comments and further revisions, Novecta plans to present the standard to USDA and members of Congress in an attempt integrate farming more fully into carbon trading schemes. This represents an important step forward for the budding "carbon farming" movement. It also represents an opportunity to align the interests of agriculture more broadly behind carbon sequestration efforts by providing an additional, secure source of income, particularly attractive in a world of fluctuating, unpredictable food prices.

Under Any Scenario, Mitigation Not Enough

A team from MIT recently published the results of a modeling exercise in which they ran multiple 21st century climate change scenarios through the state-of-the-art MIT Integrated Global Systems Model (IGSM) in order to compare projected outcomes. These scenarios derive from three respected sources: the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES); the US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP); and a set of Shell corporate climate scenarios. Drawing on these, scientists assembled a dozen different climate scenarios reflecting different emissions profiles, biogeochemical process models, public policies (including aggressive mitigation), and other critical assumptions. The results of subsequent test runs are unnerving:

"The broader implication of these scenarios is that all see substantial continued increases in temperature that would create serious environmental concerns. If we rule out the highest [impact scenario] as unthinkable and the lowest ... as possibly unachievable we arrive at a scenario-dependent temperature increase ranging from about 2.5 to 4.5 degrees [C] compared to present. Such increases will require considerable adaptation of many human systems and will leave some aspects of the earth's environment irreversibly changed." (p. 529)

In other words, regardless of the precise trajectory climate change follows, emissions mitigation will not be sufficient to prevent serious harm to people and the planet. This is the basis on which a growing number of observers (myself included) advocate for climate intervention. Geoengineering, in combination with sustained and robust emissions cuts, represents the only viable path to avert potentially catastrophic climate change. Without it, the future looks increasingly bleak.

Cloning Giant Trees

The latest variation on reforestation entails planting genetic copies of the world's largest trees to maximize terrestrial carbon sequestration. Scientists with the Archangel Ancient Tree Archive have begun collecting genetic material from forest giants such as redwoods and sequoias, and cloning these trees for the purpose of wide-scale propagation. Working on the premise that bigger trees store more carbon, the organization aims to clone 200 tree varieties with the highest potential for carbon reduction. So far the group has produced copies of more than 60 species.

The science is straightforward and the goal laudable, but it is unclear how these cloned giants will be cultivated to the extent necessary to make a meaningful impact on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. The Archive intends to sell trees, but short of robust and accessible carbon markets or major reforestation/afforestation projects, it is difficult to see how conventional sales would achieve significant carbon reductions. Regardless, at the very least the group is creating an invaluable genetic library of the planet's largest living things.

Hurtling Toward the Sixth Mass Extinction

A new study in Nature adds to the growing evidence that the Earth is on course for its sixth mass extinction event. In an article titled "Has the Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction Already Arrived?," scientists analyze the fossil record and modern conservation biology data, and conclude that we are headed for the first mass species die-off since the demise of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. The current rate of extinction is between 3 and 80 times higher than normal, placing us on a trajectory for a mass extinction sometime in the next 300 to 2,000 years. A mass extinction occurs when 75 percent of all species disappear within a geologically short span of time.

How sad, then, that the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the chief international instrument for conserving biodiversity, has adopted a moratorium on geoengineering, even one that is less than meets the eye (see The Meaning of the Moratorium, 10/31/10). It is possible if not probable that geoengineering techniques will enhance biodiversity in a world undergoing climate change, stabilizing ecosystems that would otherwise change too quickly for many species to adapt. At the very least, the terms of the Convention would seem to compel parties to research the possible biodiversity benefits of climate engineering.

WorldStove Biochar Program Certified as Carbon Offset

WorldStove, a maker of biochar stoves for use in the developing world, announced that its LuciaStove and "Five Step Program" have been certified as an effective, measurable carbon sequestration method. The Measurable Offsets Five Step Program is organized as follows:

1. Establish a "Stove Hub" base of operations at an appropriate location in the developing world.
2. Build a LuciaStove factory - LuciaStoves are pyrolitic stoves that burn biomass under low-oxygen conditions to produce biochar.
3. Acquire a biomass pellet plant.
4. Collect fuel supplies and biochar - A Stove Hub lab grades the char generated by program LuciaStoves. Suppliers of biochar may be awarded carbon credits.
5. Distribute biochar, either to food programs or afforestation projects.

The Five Step Program has been certified as a carbon offset by BIOS, an independent certification body. WorldStove intends that this private certification will accelerate LuciaStove accreditation under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and will promote the adoption of the Five Step Program as a carbon offset. Three corporate clients have already signed up for the program.

New ISIS Consortium Launches

The in situ iron studies (ISIS) Consortium for ocean iron fertilization (OIF) research has officially launched. ISIS is a group of twelve universities and research centers from around the world which will cooperate to study different aspects of OIF, including its sequestration potential and environmental impacts. The Consortium will conduct large-scale, long-term experiments in the open ocean, as well as observational and modeling studies. The stated purpose of ISIS is to provide a stronger scientific foundation for possible OIF deployment.

ISIS represents an attempt to gain greater legitimacy for OIF. Research has been dominated up to now by private firms such as Planktos and Climos, whose commercial interests have made their work questionable in the eyes of critics. The ISIS Consortium is noncommercial and its membership is primarily academic. ISIS has also pledged to comply with OIF research protocols currently being developed under the London Convention/London Protocol (LC/LP). Despite these efforts, it is doubtful whether opponents of geoengineering such as ETC Group will lessen their hostility toward OIF.