PPT: Evidence of Voluntary Transactions: how much has been paid for what kinds of transactions, who has been paid and who has received funds, forms of payment, conditionality h
Voluntary programs are on the riseLocalized transactionsPWS and WQT as an integrated watershed management toolLittle consistency across programsDemand is lackingGovernments are key fundersSustainable funding is lacking
Latin America is the leader These are all voluntary PWS programs not WQT
The City of Dar es Salaam provides water to some four million inhabitants and roughly 80 percent of industries. The public water utility, Dar es Salaam Water Supply and Sewerage Corporation (DAWASCO), currently spends nearly US$2 million per year in water treatment costs due to increased sediment load in the Ruvu river, which feeds the city. The Equitable Payments for Watershed Services (EPWS) program aims to improve the quality and flow of water for downstream users by compensating upstream farmers to engage in various land-use practices to control soil erosion brought on by unsustainable farmland expansion and irrigation practices, deforestation, and illegal mining activities in river systems and within forest reserves. The project aims to establish long-term financial investment in modifying land use to conserve and improve watersheds for reliable flow and quality of water to establish a compensation mechanism that recognizes the needs and priorities of marginalized and poor people, and to improve quality of life of communities through substantial benefits to the rural poor hence contributing to poverty reduction.
There are currently no active offset programs in Africa, but six are in development. South Africa is the leader in African offset policy development, with a national and two provincial policies in the works. While other countries have developed EIA law and some voluntary offset projects, the majority of the continent has little in the way of offset and compensation program creation. Extended notes South Africa is at the forefront of biodiversity offsetting in Africa. Its history stems from the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regulations promulgated by the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (NEMA). The national environmental principles contained in Section 2 of this Act specify that significant negative impacts on biodiversity must be avoided and, if they cannot altogether be avoided, must be minimized and remedied. There is currently no explicit legal definition of what “remedy” means in the context of the Act. However, in practice it is interpreted as the need to compensate for any residual negative impacts on biodiversity after efforts to minimize these impacts have been taken into account, through the use of offsets. Although offsetting is still an emerging practice, draft guidelines have been prepared in two provinces, and a national offsets framework policy is currently being drafted. In the province of Western Cape, a Provincial Guideline on Biodiversity Offsets was first drafted in 2007. Draft biodiversity offset guidelines are just being developed in KwaZulu-Natal, and offset measures are additionally required in the province’s draft Biodiversity Conservation Management Bill (2009). For example, the Grasslands Programme of the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) is currently developing a wetland mitigation banking program with a pilot project set to begin in the coalfield area of the Mpumalanga province.4 South Africa also has a voluntary program in which landowners can, in exchange for management support, legally reserve their land for conservation purposes. A future offset scheme could modify this current voluntary program to allow landowners to develop biodiversity credits and sell them to developers requiring biodiversity offsets.Uganda is in the early stages of developing offsets. The country’s EIA law provides a supporting framework for compensation schemes, and a few pilot projects are in the works.8 The Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) is in the early stage of developing a biodiversity offset policy, although the Department of Energy has reservations regarding the financing of the scheme in as far as it involves oil companies.vi The UWA is also investigating voluntary offsets with oil companies (particularly Tullow Oil) with an aim to catalyze national law for compliance-based offsets in the future.9 Current pilot projects include efforts by the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) to protect fisheries as a potential site for a voluntary offset by offshore oil drilling companies10 and a voluntary compensatory conservation project for the Bujagali hydropower plant on the Victorian Nile. Madagascar, with high levels of endemism and biodiversity, has a long history of efforts to conserve its unique biomes. EIA regulations play an important role in Madagascar, providing guidelines for major projects and requiring the hierarchy of avoidance, minimization, and restoration, although there is no law requiring offsets for residual impacts to biodiversity.The Environmental Action Plan (Plan d’Action Environnementale, PAE) was established in 1992 to address the threats to its biological resources. Within the PAE, Madagascar aims to develop a biodiversity offset policy for mining and logging companies along with other incentives for environmental protection.Namibia has taken some steps to include the concepts of the mitigation hierarchy and “no net loss” in a Strategic Environmental Management Plan (SEMP) in response to a large increase in exploration and mining license applications. The country has been enacting a moratorium on issuing licenses since 2007 while a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) was conducted for the Uranium Province (Erongo and Southern Kunene regions). In 2009, the SEA commenced and recommended biodiversity offsets
What is included? What types of activities? Establish biological corridors between protected areasCreate new protected areas, strengthen existingReplant degraded areas with native speciesMaintain healthy soils and minimize fertilizers and pesticidesManage biodiversity to maintain quality agricultural products, ensure pest control, pollination, genetic resources or of key habitatsAvoid damage to areas of cultural, spiritual or aesthetic valueLaunch conservation projects outside of project areas
Activities Revenue-sharing by tourist hunters: A voluntary 10% tax above tourist trophy fees implemented by hunting outfitters can generate profits of up to US$ 12,500 a year for villages occupying the hunting concession.Local sourcing of products: Hotels, lodges and hunting camps obtain food products from local sources. This demand provides additional community income and encourages diversified farm production.Community wildlife-cropping: Communities are allocated wildlife cropping quotas. By legalizing/ restricting the sale and consumption of game meat and products, poaching is controlled and a market for wildlife products stimulates revenues flowing to communities.Land-leases and joint tourism enterprises: Private sector tourist operators form partnerships with communities to develop land lease agreements, wildlife camps, joint ventures, etc. which supply labor, food products, and profit-sharing to local stakeholders. EXTENDED NOTES BackgroundThe Serengeti ecosystem forms one of the most important wildlife areas in Eastern Africa. The Serengeti provides habitat to 30 species of ungulates (species with hoofs like rhinoceroses, elephants and hippopotami), 13 species of large carnivores and more than 500 species of birds. Directly bordering the Serengeti National Park are range and farmlands occupied by over 10,000 community households. Faced with poverty and employment challenges, local communities have historically not valued diverse wildlife due to its role in crop destruction. This area has seen a sharp decline in wildlife diversity and frequency due to habitat loss from agriculture impacts, deforestation and poaching. Project In the North-West Serengeti the development of a range of markets for wildlife products and services has provided communities the incentive to conserve wildlife habitat and end poaching. Villagers outside of The Serengeti National Park deliver ecosystem services in schemes driven by private-sector demand. Buyers are local corporations and the commercial tourism industry due to their reliance on community wildlife conservation activities. Results By increasing the economic value of wildlife to communities, wildlife is integrated into local land use planning and is a critical aspect of community livelihoods. Incentivizing conservation has generated significant revenues for community participants. This project is an example of community and private sector coordination coupled with collaboration among numerous villages for the delivery of ecosystem services through market incentives.
South Africa, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Kenya, Mauritius (5 countries supplying credits)
Number of Suppliers by Country Interesting to note – number of suppliers in US up, transaction volumes of credits generated in US down.
“Other” (<1%) types includes geothermal, bike share and other previously untracked project typesLand-based credits sequester 46% of OTC market share
Beatrice is Chairperson of the Bitreko Women’s Group, Director of a private primary school, Board member of a village Bank, mother of two, and…co-coordinator of tree -farmers for carbon in 3 sub-counties of UgandaAfter 15 years she can harvest the timber from the hectare. Beatrice has also planted an additional 2.5 hectare plot of carbon trees which generates approximately 145 tons of sequestered carbon. Beatrice is generating additional income to supplement her teacher’s salary while also protecting her community’s natural resources. “I am so proud,” Beatrice says, “not only do I use my work as an example when I teach my school children, and not only do I get to talk to and meet people from all over the world, but now my neighbors come and ask me questions about my carbon and my trees. Can you believe, I have become a consultant!” So far Beatrice has travelled to Canada, South Africa, Tanzania, Washington DC and Sweden to present about her experiences in the carbon market.
Role of Forests, Soil and AgricultureEmission source and sinkLandowners and farmers critical political stakeholders Balance carbon flows Green carbon under-utilized in market based climate change solutions
At www.forestcarbonportal.com, the Ecosystem Marketplace tracks and posts active forest carbon offset projects.
Cocoa in Ghana: supports both local livelihoods and deforestationIndustry threats: depleted soil fertility, reduced water supplies, and disease High-forest region: 66% of Ghana stored CO2, heavy cocoa farmingExtended notes: Ghana is the second largest producer of cocoa after the Ivory Coast, with an annual yield (2007) of 680,000 tons. It is estimated that there are more than 1.5 million hectares enrolled in cocoa production in Ghana. The crop supports 30% of the population, and cocoa exports account for about 40% of total exports. Cocoa is both key to local livelihoods but also an important driver of deforestation as farmers search for more productive ground. Industry insiders estimate that the value of carbon stored in Ghana’s cocoa landscapes is over $2.2 billion dollars. Traditional shade- cocoa stores as much as twice the carbon as shade-free farms – farmers could potentially get paid to decrease cocoa yield and increase canopy. Bonsambepo: (key species include Chimpanzee, Bongo, Forest Buffalo, and the White-Necked Rock Fowl, which was previously thought to be extinct in Ghana)
Furthermore, it plans to use the associated carbon-based financing to leverage other potential streams of revenue and benefits, including certification (which brings a premium of at least $150/ton of cocoa), and access to extension services and credit facilities that will enable significant increases in on-farm productivity. There may be some tradeoffs, however, given that shade-grown cocoa may lead to lower productivity and thus more land will be needed to maintain current cocoa production levels.
Preuves des transactions volontaires fr
Preuves des Transactions VolontairesAtelier de formation sur les Paiements pour les Services Environnementaux (PSE) et la Réduction des Emissions résultant du Déboisement et de la Dégradation des Forêts (REDD+) ÉTUDES DE CAS ILLUSTRATIVES 9 août 2011
1. Transactions relatives à l’eau Les paiements pour les services des bassins versants: • 9,25 milliards de dollars traités au total • 216 programmes au total (113 actifs) Commerce axé sur la qualité d’eau: 10,8 milliards de dollars au total • 10,8 milliards de dollars traités au total • 72 programmes au total (14 actifs) Mécanismes de paiement • Directement entre les gouvernements • Négociations privées • Transactions axées sur le marchéSource: State of the Watershed Payments : An Emerging Marketplace. June 2010. Stanton, Echavarria, Hamilton, Ott. Ecosystem Marketplace
1. Transactions relatives à l’eauSource: State of the Watershed Payments : An Emerging Marketplace. June 2010. Stanton, Echavarria, Hamilton, Ott. Ecosystem Marketplace
Paiements équitables pour les Services des bassins versants en Tanzanie Facilitateurs: CARE International, WWF, IIED, PREM Acheteurs: Industries à Dar es Salaam et à Tanga (DAWASCO, Coca- Cola, etc.) Vendeurs: 450+ agriculteurs à Uluguru et à East Usambara Mountains, à Ruvu et à Sigi River Basins Objectif: Les investissements financiers à long terme dans le changements de l’utilisation des terres en amont pour conserver et améliorer les bassins versants Défis: • Expansion des fermes • Irrigation non durable • Exploitation minière illégalePour plus d’informations: http://www.fao.org/es/esa/pesal/attachments/5_Dosteus_day1.pdf
2. Transactions relatives à la Biodiversité Dans le monde entier • 2,4 – 4,0 de milliards de dollars. Annuellement • 187,000 hectares • Programmes d’atténuation compensatoires : 45 opérationnels, 27 en développement Au niveau de l’Afrique • 6 Programmes compensatoires pour la biodiversité en cours de développement • L’Afrique du Sud: leader avec une politique compensatoire au niveau national et deux au niveau provincial • L’Ouganda, Madagascar, le Ghana, la Namibie sont en train d’explorer l’EIA et une politique compensatoireSource: State of Biodiversity Markets: Offset and Compensation Programs Worldwide. July 2011. Madsen, Carroll, Kandy, Bennett Ecosystem Marketplace
2. Transactions relatives à la BiodiversitéSource: State of Biodiversity Markets: Offset and Compensation Programs Worldwide. July 2011. Madsen, Carroll, Kandy, Bennett Ecosystem Marketplace
Protection de la faune au Nord-Ouest du Serengeti Profil du Projet: Les marchés des produits et des services fauniques fournissent des incitations pour conserver l’habitat faunique et mettre fin au braconnage Fournisseurs: Villageois à l’extérieur du Parc National de Serengeti Acheteurs: Sociétés locales et industries de tourisme commerciales Activités • Partage des revenus avec les chasseurs touristes • Achat local des produits • Faune communautaire – Recadrage • Baux fonciers et entreprises touristiques conjointesPour plus d’informations: http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/7794IIED.pdf
3. Transactions volontaires de Carbone • Moyen OTC: 6 dollars/ tCO2e • Valeur totale en 2010: 424 de million de dollars • Volume total en 2010: 131 MtCO2e • Crédits de carbone terrestres ≈50% du marché OTC en 2010, 100% de l’Afrique • Vendeurs de crédits en 2010 • 284 fournisseurs • 38 pays • 9 fournisseurs en Afrique, 5 pays • Acheteurs: à but lucratif, motivés par la retraite de crédit, dirigés par l’UESource: Back to the Future: State of Voluntary Carbon Markets 2011. Peters=Stanley, Hamilton, Marcello, Sjardin. Ecosystem Marketplace
3. Transactions volontaires de Carbone • 4% des fournisseurs des Etats-Unis • Fournisseurs des pays en développement ont doublé (2009: 29; 2010: 58) • 9 fournisseurs de l’Afrique • Le Kenya (1) , l’Ouganda (2), la Sierra Leone (2), l’île Maurice (1), l’Afrique du Sud (3)Source: Back to the Future: State of Voluntary Carbon Markets 2011. Peters=Stanley, Hamilton, Marcello, Sjardin. Ecosystem Marketplace
3. Transactions volontaires de Carbone Volume de transaction par région et type de projet Autres et mixtes / Non spécifié Lefficacité énergétique et substitution de combustible Méthane Energie renouvelable Foresterie / utilisation des terresSource: Back to the Future: State of Voluntary Carbon Markets 2011. Peters=Stanley, Hamilton, Marcello, Sjardin. Ecosystem Marketplace
3. Transactions volontaires de Carbone Volume de transaction par type de projet REDD / Conversion évitée REDD/Avoided Conversion 2% Landfill methane Méthane denfouissement 12 types <1% 2% 10% Wind Vent 2% Boisement / Reboisement Afforestation/ Reforestation N2O 1% 2% 29% 3% Run-of-river hydro Run-off-River Hydro Substances appauvrissant lozone ODS (US-based) 5% (américaines) Fuel Gestion forestière améliorée Improved Forest Management switching 1% 6% Agricultural soil Sols agricoles Wast water 6% 16% 2% Biomass Biomasse 6% 11% Livestockdu bétail Méthane methane Other - non- Forestry (general) Forêts (général) descript 3% Energy Efficiency Efficacité énergétique Autres OtherSource: Back to the Future: State of Voluntary Carbon Markets 2011. Peters=Stanley, Hamilton, Marcello, Sjardin. Ecosystem Marketplace
Une vente de carbone forestier d’un particulier en Ouganda • Projet d’ECOTRUST avec ICRAF, CARE, LTS International et ECCM visant à agréger les agriculteurs locaux pour séquestrer le carbone • Beatrice Ahimbisibwe, Mitooma-Bushenyi en 2003: • Contrat avec ECOTRUST • 1 ha d’arbres indigènes, 52 tonnes CO2 ,10 ans • 8 dollars/tonne = 416 dollars au total • Depuis 2003: • Beatrice a planté 2,5 ha supplémentaires • Son fils 2,5 ha, et sa fille 1 ha • Augmentation du prix de 50% à 12 dollars/ tonne • Nombre total d’agriculteurs dans le projet = 300 • Acheteurs: Tetra Pak UK, YOU, CAMCO et WE (à travers ECOTRUST) • Beatrice se déplace dans le but de renforcer les capacités des agriculteurs locaux ougandaisPour plus d’informations: http://www.planvivo.org/
4. Transactions du carbone forestier • Valeur en 2009: 20,8 MtCO2 • 226 projets • 2,1 million d’hectares • Crédits d’une valeur de 149,2 million de dollars • Prix moyen 8,99 dollars/ tCO2 • 86% se sert des normes des tiers • Afrique 11% du volume, recettes de 20,9 million de dollars • Types de projet en 2009: A/R 53%, Mélangé 24%, IFM 20% • Fournisseurs: 53,7% des ONG, 40% du secteur privé, 7% du secteur publicSource: State of the Forest Carbon Markets 2009: Taking Root and Branching Out. Hamilton, Chokjalingam, Bendana. Ecosystem Marketplace
4. Transactions du carbone forestierSource: http://www..forestcarbonportal.com/
Carbone du cacao au Ghana • La technique de culture du cacao à l’ombre pour stocker 2X CO2 (159 tonnes/ ha) • Avantages: recettes de carbone et amélioration de la qualité des sols • Env. 120,000 ha de culture du cacao à Bonsambepo • Vendeurs: Agriculteurs et groupes d’acheteurs du cacao • Développeurs: Incubator, NCRC • Avantages de la biodiversité accrusPour plus d’informations: http://www.katoombagroup.org/incubator
Carbone du cacao au Ghana Objectifs du projet 1. Développer un projet pilote REDD+/crédits du carbone agricole 2. Réduire des émissions résultant de la dégradation des forets, renforcer le stock de carbone 3. Améliorer la productivité et la résilience écologique de la culture du cacao 4. Avantages en termes de moyens d’existence à travers le renforcement des capacités et l’augmentation des revenus 5. Introduire la certification, les services de vulgarisation, et les facilités de crédit pour une meilleure productivité Augmenter des bénéfices agricoles permettra d’éviter la déforestation et la dégradation dans de nouvelles fermes. Utiliser l’approche de culture à l’ombre augmentera les stocks de carbone et améliorera la qualité des sols. .Pour plus d’informations: http://www.katoombagroup.org/incubator
Merci! Questions et Discussion Michael Richards The Katoomba Incubator firstname.lastname@example.org w w w. f o r e s t - t r e n d s . o r gw w w. k a t o o m b a g r o u p . o r g / i n c u b a t o r