Indigenous people around the world hope to earn carbon credits by preserving rainforests and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD). For that to happen, however, they have to prove they own the rights to carbon credits from trees they save and manage. Brazil’s Suruí tribe appears to have just done that – and laid the groundwork for others to follow.
Read More at Ecosystem Marketplace.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Carbon needs to cost more than cassava.
This past Sunday I read Nicholas Kristof’s “Visiting Africa’s Eden” article in the New York Time about conservation efforts in Gabon. This small West African country has apparently set aside some ten percent of its lands for conservation in an effort to become the environmental and eco-tourism center of Africa, similar to what Costa Rica has become in Central America. Unfortunately Gabon does not have the infrastructure or level of services needed to accommodate eco-tourism and there are only a limited number of tourists with the mean to make a journey to Gabon.
In addition and perhaps more important is the fact that these conservation efforts have upset local residence. In the eyes of the Gabon farmers conservation efforts are for vacationing foreigners and provide no value to the common man. It is this view that struck me because I think it is true.
The truth of the matter is poor farmers place no value on land outside of what the land can bring them. Farmers look at land as source of income. And that income typically comes from extracting natural resources or growing crops. These activities provide farmers with cash needed to provide for families. If the function of a piece of land does not provide direct cash then the function is considered of no value.
So when we look at conservation efforts we have ask ourselves does this effort provide value to the people who live on or around the land. The answer many people would say is, yes, conservation efforts provide the ingredients for eco-tourism, which in turn provides jobs. So then we have to ask ourselves, does the eco-tourism provide enough jobs. If 100 farmers, each earning $100/yr, are asked to stop farming so that 25 farmers can each earn $125/yr then there is a problem.
Do not mistake me as anti-conservation. I want to see conservation exist, but conservation needs to be developed in such a way that the farmers who once farmed the land or extracted resources can find value in it.
I think the best way to assign value to conservation is to pay directly for it. If a government wants to protect land for conservation then it should pay the people who live on that land an amount equal to the opportunity cost associated with taking that land out of production. In other words if an acre of land makes $100/yr from growing cassava then the government should pay the land user $101/yr to protect the land. Now all of the sudden conservation has a greater value than farming in the mind of the farmer.
So then we ask the question, how does the government obtain the $101/yr in order to pay for the protection and up keep of the land. This is where eco-tourism and environmental markets come in. Revenues from eco-tourism can help provide some of the payment, but I do not think they can provide the full payment, perhaps only a percentage. And what happens if a global recession hits and no tourists come? Therefore I think most of the funds will have to come from environmental markets. The carbon that is sequestered within the biomass could be sold as carbon credits. Or if the land is within a watershed an agreement could be made between the upstream land users and downstream water users. With these markets the land user can really begin to see value in the land other than just farming.
But what if the price of carbon on the world market is so low that it cannot pay the needed $101/yr. What if sequestering carbon with a piece of land brings in less income than growing cassava? What is a farmer to do? What is a government to do?
This is really the real question we have to asking ourselves. I think this question is really the heart of this blog. We are quickly placing value on these environmental services. But are the values that are being placed on environmental commodities enough to really allow for the conservation or conversation of land. Are the prices of these commodities valued in such that they allow everyone to participate in the market? Does the price of carbon provide equality?
At the end of his article Mr. Kristof expresses his hope that Gabon can monetize their forest. I also hope that a price can be placed on these forested, but let’s make sure that this price places enough value on the land so that the farmers can see the value. Carbon has to cost more than cassava.
In addition and perhaps more important is the fact that these conservation efforts have upset local residence. In the eyes of the Gabon farmers conservation efforts are for vacationing foreigners and provide no value to the common man. It is this view that struck me because I think it is true.
The truth of the matter is poor farmers place no value on land outside of what the land can bring them. Farmers look at land as source of income. And that income typically comes from extracting natural resources or growing crops. These activities provide farmers with cash needed to provide for families. If the function of a piece of land does not provide direct cash then the function is considered of no value.
So when we look at conservation efforts we have ask ourselves does this effort provide value to the people who live on or around the land. The answer many people would say is, yes, conservation efforts provide the ingredients for eco-tourism, which in turn provides jobs. So then we have to ask ourselves, does the eco-tourism provide enough jobs. If 100 farmers, each earning $100/yr, are asked to stop farming so that 25 farmers can each earn $125/yr then there is a problem.
Do not mistake me as anti-conservation. I want to see conservation exist, but conservation needs to be developed in such a way that the farmers who once farmed the land or extracted resources can find value in it.
I think the best way to assign value to conservation is to pay directly for it. If a government wants to protect land for conservation then it should pay the people who live on that land an amount equal to the opportunity cost associated with taking that land out of production. In other words if an acre of land makes $100/yr from growing cassava then the government should pay the land user $101/yr to protect the land. Now all of the sudden conservation has a greater value than farming in the mind of the farmer.
So then we ask the question, how does the government obtain the $101/yr in order to pay for the protection and up keep of the land. This is where eco-tourism and environmental markets come in. Revenues from eco-tourism can help provide some of the payment, but I do not think they can provide the full payment, perhaps only a percentage. And what happens if a global recession hits and no tourists come? Therefore I think most of the funds will have to come from environmental markets. The carbon that is sequestered within the biomass could be sold as carbon credits. Or if the land is within a watershed an agreement could be made between the upstream land users and downstream water users. With these markets the land user can really begin to see value in the land other than just farming.
But what if the price of carbon on the world market is so low that it cannot pay the needed $101/yr. What if sequestering carbon with a piece of land brings in less income than growing cassava? What is a farmer to do? What is a government to do?
This is really the real question we have to asking ourselves. I think this question is really the heart of this blog. We are quickly placing value on these environmental services. But are the values that are being placed on environmental commodities enough to really allow for the conservation or conversation of land. Are the prices of these commodities valued in such that they allow everyone to participate in the market? Does the price of carbon provide equality?
At the end of his article Mr. Kristof expresses his hope that Gabon can monetize their forest. I also hope that a price can be placed on these forested, but let’s make sure that this price places enough value on the land so that the farmers can see the value. Carbon has to cost more than cassava.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
.jpg)