Transcript Document

COUPLING
CARBON
SEQUESTRATION
AND
SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT
Petra Tschakert
Department of Biology
McGill University
Beijing, November 15, 2004
Carbon Sinks (COP 9)
Large-scale industrial
plantations and parks
Multi-use ecosystem
carbon projects
 Maximize C gains + profits
 Maximize livelihood gains
 Economically viable
 Less cost-effective
 Exclusion of locals
 Inclusion (good stewardship)
 Local employment
 Wider range of benefits
 Highest social risks
 Highest social
gains
CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM (CDM)
Multi-Use Ecosystem Carbon Projects
(UNFCCC, CDM)
Increased CO2 Uptake
through Improved
Land Use and Management
Practices
Economic,
Environmental,
and Social
Benefits
for Locals
Benefits for
Global Climate
and
Global Society
UN Conventions on Climate Change, Biological Diversity, and Desertification
Carbon – Development Disjunction
CARBON
SEQUESTRATION
SOCIAL
ACTORS
SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT
Mitigation
Adaptation
Baseline scenarios
Best practices
Emission reduction credits
Targets
Leakage
Verification
Eradicating extreme poverty
Eradicating hunger
Resilient livelihoods
Env. Sustainability
Econ. + social development
Equity
Carbon – Development Disjunction
.
.
Technical + structural
CARBON
solutions in a
SEQUESTRATION
“Predictable World”
Equilibrium, but disturbed
by degradation
Mitigation
back in balance
SOCIAL
ACTORS
Social + institutional
SUSTAINABLE
solutions
in a
DEVELOPMENT
“World
of Uncertainty”
Dynamic, persistent
non-equilibrium
Adaptation
adaptive
management
The New Carbon Economy
Emerging trade in C emissions
Market-based policy instruments (CDM)
 Ambitious claims about SD benefits of market-based policy instruments
 BUT: need to investigate SD and equity dimensions of these instruments
 Development benefits often more hypothetical than real
(Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research)
Main criticism:
Discourses of global managerialism (Adger et al., 2001; Brown and Cabrera, 2003):
 Difficulties in incorporating local ecological + social realities
 Downplaying of issues of justice and equity
 Local losers and winners rendered invisible
 Focus on global solutions while neglecting heterogeneity at local level
Contribution of CDM Projects to
Sustainable Development
Equity = key component of SD
(Brown and Cobrera, 2003)
 Who benefits?
 Who is included in decision-making and actions?
o Equity in access to C markets and natural resources
(land, property rights)
o Equity in institutions and decision-making
(having a voice, inclusion and negotiation of competing views)
o Equity in outcome
(impact on social actors; winners and losers)
Socio-economic Drivers and Incentives
Markets
Opportunities and Constraints
Policies
C fluxes
and
stocks
Land use and management
Livelihood
strategies
and
decisions
Capitals
Stressors
Measurements
Monitoring
Verification
Social learning
Actor involvement
Empowerment
Linking Carbon and Sustainable Livelihoods
Compatibility of
CS options ……
Best land use/
management
CS
practices
Carbon sequestration
options that
address this priority
… with livelihood objectives
ADOPTION
Best risk
SD
management
strategies
Priority is to cope with risks
and enhance adaptive
responses to change
(reduce vulnerability)
The “Greening” of the Sahel
Understanding Drivers
Outmigration
Rotational fallow scheme
7 villages
Fallow length: 5-30 years
1999: 50% of terroir in fallow
Methodologies
 Stakeholder multi-criteria analysis (Brown and Corbera, 2003)
 Livelihood analysis (Tschakert et al., in prep.)
 Actor-based cost-benefit analysis (Tschakert, 2004)
 Cash-flow analysis (STELLA) (Tschakert, 2004)
Risk mapping
Vulnerability analysis for sustainability
Linking CS options to NAPAs
Stakeholder Multi-Criteria Analysis
(Brown and Corbera, 2003)
1) Identification of primary and secondary stakeholders
•
•
Interest and role in project, scale of influence in decision-making
General perspectives, priorities, and preferences
2) Qualitative evaluation of SD indicators for project
assessment + monitoring (16 indicators)
•
•
•
Carbon: Net CS, Internal rate of return, risk, eligibility under CDM
Ecological: soil erosion, species richness, water availability, soil fertility
Social: income, property rights, access to productive resources, institutional
organization, management and decision-making, participation, health
services, education + capacity building
3) Project evaluation under criteria/indicators matrix
4) Ranked alternatives and qualitative data for project planning
Livelihood Analysis
Livelihood = opportunity set of an individual or a household determined by
their asset endowment (land, labor, human capital, livestock) and the chosen
allocation of those assets across various activities to generate benefits
(Barrett et al., 2001)
Analysis of diversification patters = to understand what people consider
their most feasible and attractive options for exchanging and allocating assets
Interhousehold heterogeneity in asset endowments + market access
Determines HH choices, LH strategies, and diversification patterns
Determines likelihood of changing these patterns (CS project)
Socio-economic Heterogeneity, Panama
Household characteristics in
Ipeti-Embera, Panama
80
Assets and income in
Ipeti-Embera, Panama
6,000
70
5,000
60
50
4,000
40
3,000
30
2,000
20
10
1,000
0
0
Poorer HH
(n=12)
Medium HH
(n=12)
Richer HH
(n=12)
Poorer HH
(n=12)
Medium HH
(n=12)
Richer HH
(n=12)
Total household size
Total value of non-land assets ($)
Total land holding (ha)
Total annual income ($), median
Tschakert (unpublished)
Income Shares per Income Terciles, Panama
Tercile 1 (Poor) (n=11)
Tercile 2 (Medium) (n=12)
retained output
sale of field and tree crops
cattle
small livestock
land rent
farm labor
handicraft
timber extraction
labor on short-term contracts
small business (tienda)
service provision
other
Tercile 3 (Rich) (n=12)
Tschakert (unpublished)
Land Use per Wealth Group, Panama
% of total land
Land use type (ha)
80
100%
Pasture
70
60
Forest
50
Perennial tree crops
40
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
Fallow fields (5-15 yrs)
30
Fallow fields (1-4 yrs)
20
10
Cropped fields
0
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Poorer
HH
Medium Richer HH
HH
Poorer
HH
Medium
HH
Richer
HH
Tschakert (unpublished)
Winners and Losers?
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Old Peanut Basin
Net Present Values (NPV), 25 years ($ ha-1), 20% Discount Rate
Management
practices
Best management
practices
Compost 2t
Conversion ag land to grassland
Grassland+protection kad* (baskets)
Grassland + protection kad* (live hedges)
Cattle manure 4t
Cattle manure 4t + fertilizer
Sheep manure 5t
3yr fallow + organic matter 2t
Sheep manure 10t
3yr fallow + leucaena prunings 2t
Kad* plantation (250 trees/ha)
10yr fallow + organic matter 2t
10yr fallow + 2t org. matter + animal fattening
10yr fallow + leucaena prunings 2t
Optimum agricultural intensification
Poor
households
Medium
households
Rich
households
-643
-603
-549
2,155
-2,042
-1,128
-424
-440
-119
-514
-344
-707
-1,116
-795
-1,037
22
-379
-319
2,476
474
720
12
99
395
11
-116
-260
-669
-344
11
22
-260
-201
2,595
474
720
131
99
433
11
2
-136
-546
-220
408
Kad = Faidherbia albida
Tschakert. 2004, Agricultural Systems, 81 (3): 227-253
Dryland Trade-offs
C gains versus economic profitability
Medium HH
16
15
-1
Increase in Soil C (t ha )
14
12
10
High C
Very low P
14
13
High C
High P
12
High C
Negative P
11
10
Management Practices (1 ha, 25 years)
9
8
C = carbon
P = profitability
Medium C
Medium P
8
7
6
4
6
Low C
Negative P
5
4
3
2
2
Low C
Very high P
1
0
-1,000
?
1
Compost 2t
2
Conversion ag land to grassland
3
Grassland+protection kad* (baskets)
4
Grassland + prot. kad* (live hedges)
5
Cattle manure 4t
6
Cattle manure 4t + fertilizer
7
Sheep manure 5t
8
3yr fallow + organic matter 2t
9
Sheep manure 10t
10 3yr fallow + leucaena prunings 2t
11 Kad* plantation (250 trees/ha)
-500
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,00012
10yr fallow + organic matter 2t
13 10yr fallow + 2t OM + animal fattening
Profitability (NPV), 20% Discount rate ($ ha-1 )
14 10yr fallow + leucaena prunings 2t
15 Optimum agricultural intensification
Tschakert. In Climate change and global food security (in press)
Cash Flow Analysis at HH Level (STELLA)
Markets
Gifts
HOUSEHOLD BOUNDARY
CLIMATE
Precipitation
Gifts
Cooperative
GROUNDNUTS
Production
Consumption
Sale
Seed stock
MILLET
Production
Consumption
Sale
Seed stock
COWPEAS
Production
Consumption
Sale
Seed stock
HOUSEHOLD
CASH BOX
FODDER
Fodder need
LIVESTOCK
Purchase
Sale
Birth
Death
Consumption
Markets
MANURE
Feces
Organic matter
input fields
LAND
Cultivation
Fallow
PEOPLE
Labor
Consumption
Expenditures
Income
Migration
LAND RENT
Forgone
production
CARBON
SEQUESTRATION
Costs
Benefits
Social networks
Tschakert. 2004, Agricultural Systems, 81 (3): 227-253
Inventory of Management Options, Senegal
Inte nsification
Poor
HH
10 t she e p manure
1 ,5 0 0
1 0 ,0 0 0
1 ,0 0 0
8 ,0 0 0
Kad plantation
3 ,0 0 0
2 ,5 0 0
2 ,0 0 0
6 ,0 0 0
1 ,5 0 0
500
4 ,0 0 0
1 ,0 0 0
0
500
2 ,0 0 0
0
-5 0 0
0
0
0
5
10
15
20
-1 ,0 0 0
10
15
20
25
-2 ,0 0 0
-5 0 0
-1 ,0 0 0
Inte nsification
Rich
HH
5
25
0
10t she e p manure
7 ,0 0 0
1 4 ,0 0 0
6 ,0 0 0
1 2 ,0 0 0
5 ,0 0 0
1 0 ,0 0 0
4 ,0 0 0
8 ,0 0 0
3 ,0 0 0
6 ,0 0 0
2 ,0 0 0
4 ,0 0 0
1 ,0 0 0
2 ,0 0 0
5
10
15
20
25
20
25
Kad plantation
6 ,0 0 0
5 ,0 0 0
4 ,0 0 0
3 ,0 0 0
2 ,0 0 0
0
0
0
0
-1 ,0 0 0
1 ,0 0 0
5
10
15
20
0
25
-2 ,0 0 0
5
10
15
20
25
-1 ,0 0 0
0
5
10
15
Tschakert. 2004, Agricultural Systems, 81 (3): 227-253
Carbon Sequestration Projects
Name
Country
Fondo Bioclimatico Carbon Project (Scolel Te,
Plan Vivo)
Rio Bravo Conservation + Management Area CS
Pilot Project
Noel Kempff Climate Action Project
Peugeot Rehabilitation of degraded lands
PROFAFOR-FACE
PES (Huetor Norte, Virilla)
Plantar Carbon Project
Bananal Project
Regional Integrative Silvopastoral approaches to
ecosystem management
Pimampiro Project
Kilombero Forestry Company Ltd. (KFC2
Plantation)
Community-based rangeland rehabilitation for CS
and biodiversity
SOCSOM Pilot Project
NEF Plans CS pilot project "Savanna Optimum"
CDM and village-based forest restoration
Mexico
Risks:
Belize
Bolivia
Brazil
Ecuador
Costa Rica
Brazil
Brazil
Columbia, Costa Rica,
Nicaragua
Ecuador
Tanzania
Sudan
Senegal
Mali, Benin, Burgina, Ghana
Central India
Illegal wood poaching
Fires
Encroachment
Low payments
High transaction costs
Leakage (forest fires,
cattle grazing)
Lack of human resources
Project Results, Trends, and Lessons
 Farmers and communities are not homogeneous groups
 They do NOT participate fully, benefit equally and share same interests in C
 Better-endowed actors are more likely to participate in and benefit from projects
(larger land holdings, high-return income generating activities, less reliance on cropland)
Women play key role in NRM, but excluded from project decision-making
 Some opposition (fear that land is sold to foreigners)
 Difficulties to understand concept of CS, funding, C market
 Need for robust and flexible institutional framework
 Only small improvements (income, diversification, other env + dev concerns)
 Financial benefits, but only for a small number of families
 Consolidation of land tenure
 Enhanced social capital through strengthening of local institutions
 Need for basket of management choices from which actors choose
Brown, Adger, Boyd, Corbera-Elizalde, Shackley, 2004
Tschakert, 2004 and Tschakert and Tappan, 2004
Grieg-Gran, Porras, Wunder, 2005 (in press)
Critical Elements for Regional C Budgets
 Understand drivers of land use change:
 Land use decision are linked to household diversification patterns
 Interhousehold heterogeneity in constraints and incentives is
reflected in diversification behavior
 Need for ground-truthing
 Address opportunities and constraints of actors to
get involved in carbon sequestration activities:
 Evaluation of stakeholder needs
 Collective learning + capacity building
Relevant literature cited:
Adger, W.N., Benjaminsen, T.A., Brown, K. and H. Svarstad. 2001. Advancing a political
ecology of global environmental discourses. Development and Change, 32: 681-715.
Brown K. and E. Corbera. 2003. Exploring equity and sustainable development in the
new carbon economy. Climate Policy, 3S1: S41-S56.
Tschakert P. 2004. The costs of soil carbon sequestration: an economic analysis
For small-scale farming systems in Senegal. Agricultural Systems, 81 (3): 227-253
Tschakert. More food, less poverty? The potential role of carbon sequestration
In smallholder farming systems in Senegal. In Climate change and global food security (in
press)
Tschakert P. and G. Tappan. 2004. The social context of carbon sequestration:
Considerations from a multi-scale environmental history of the Old Peanut Basin
Of Senegal. Journal of Arid Environments, 59: 535-564.
Brown, K., Adger, N. Boyd, E., Corbera-Elizalde, E. and S. Shackley. 2004. How do
CDM projects contribute to sustainable development? Technical Report 16,
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.