Oped»
Carbon credits
APR 17 -
Worried by the impending climate catastrophe and the limited capacity of the developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, the world in 1997 approved the carbon credit concept in the Kyoto Protocol. The Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol, besides allowing credit for lowered emissions by the developed countries, also arranged to pay the developing countries for quantified carbon sequestrated through new forestation and reforestation.
Convinced by the limitation of forestation and reforestation towards meeting global climate change and realising that the benefits of carbon credits thus obtained were heavily skewed towards a few developing giants like China and India, the world was forced to reconsider the provision. The Bali Action Plan that was agreed during the 13th convention of parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) ultimately endorsed a concept called Reduced Emission from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD). The group that was mandated to bring consensus among the member states on a host of things including methodology and finance took up the case in an enduring manner for over two years to come up with a proposed negotiation text with the intent of getting it officially approved by the convention.
Though the progress of the group in other areas was discouraging, its progress on REDD is considered to be remarkable. Despite the failure of the text to get official endorsement by the convention of parties, the provisions made a remarkable stride towards agreeing REDD credits in the global carbon market. The new proposed provision did not only create a space for forest enhancement, but endeavoured to leave a room for manoeuvring the cases of forest management, conservation and enhancement (popularly REDD+). Even the Copenhagen Accord, which has been sternly criticised for lack of democratic process and for its failure to bring about a fair, binding and adequate deal, has been praised for having accommodated REDD issues in a comprehensive manner.
Is it big enough?
There is little doubt that the journey from Kyoto to Copenhagen was remarkable. Though the funding and methodological issues are still to be sorted out, there is at least international readiness to finance the conservation of natural forests which was unimaginable until some years back. It may, however, be noted that the pace is still too slow both in terms of substance and process. Regarding substance, its vision is still parochial in the sense that only the role of carbon has been recognised for credits, whereas forests and watersheds do have multiple services to provide. In terms of process, it may be noted that it does not pay adequate attention to the participatory conservation modality — a sustainable and equitable carbon conservation approach the world would eventually require.
Let us take Nepal’s example. First, take the example of the service roles its forests and watersheds could provide globally. Nepal’s forests and watersheds are not merely the sink and source of carbon, they are hotspots for global biodiversity, scenic beauty and sensitive watersheds. Though it may not be precisely quantified at present, forestry carbon is probably only a small fraction of the arrays of environmental and social services Nepal’s forests and watersheds may have to offer. Its rich biodiversity status may be seen in the host of flora and fauna they harbour. Nepal is home to over 5,856 species of flora, 863 species of birds, 182 species of fish and 181 species of mammals. Of these, 342 species of flora and 160 species of fauna are endemic to Nepal.
The hundreds of Himalayan peaks including the world’s highest Mt. Everest cannot only be Nepal’s heritage but are water towers serving 1.3 billion people mainly across the Indo-Gangetic Plains and provide aesthetic value to the entire globe. Evidently, payment merely to forest carbon, a concept hitherto under consideration, does not do justice to so extensive an environmental service these ecosystems provide. It is evident that the already forecasted global warming has taken a heavy toll on the overall ecosystem.
New findings depict an even scarier picture. It has now been revealed that the thick permafrost that has been deposited on the Himalaya over centuries is going to melt possibly in the face of a temperature rise in the region more than eight times higher than the 0.074 Celsius global average. Thanks also to the massive amounts of methane release whose effect is 25 times greater than CO2, the general culprit of global warming. Additional attributes to this may be the huge amount of black aerosols with its principal origin in China’s industrial territory. Against this backdrop, a stark question remains: Is it enough and fair to consider crediting carbon alone and ignore the rest of the environmental attributes whose implications are even greater?
Non-carbon benefits
The world may have conceived these issues right during the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 which paved the way for not only the UNFCCC but also the Convention on Biodiversity and the Convention on Desertification. However, the latter two did not make binding targets the way the Climate Convention provides through its protocols thus limiting biodiversity conservation and desertification control largely to principles. It is not difficult to guess why. First, biodiversity conservation and desertification issues were perceived to have lesser implications as compared to climate change. Second, quantifying and crediting there seemed even more vague and hard to adhere to.
Let us agree that the vagueness still persists. However, this should not be an excuse to turn a blind eye on the global issue with a potential catastrophe. We may take a lesson from the REDD process. When people first proposed REDD, they were ridiculed for having proposed something that would only create “hot air” and that was impossible to correctly “monitor” and “reward”. But ultimately the concept was ratified, and the endeavour to properly “monitor” and “reward” is ongoing. In fact, there is also consideration for crediting reduced emissions from agriculture and forestry. The same ethos may be applied in terms of extending the concept further and embracing the overall environment for crediting. Nepal, the most proximate custodian of these unique Himalayan resources, has a moral obligation to lead this global process.
(The author is a joint secretary at the Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation)
baraljc@yahoo.com
Posted on: 2010-04-18 08:57
Headlines
Advertisements
