Comments on: How a forestry offset project in Guatemala allowed emissions in the USA to increase http://www.redd-monitor.org/2009/10/09/how-a-forestry-offset-project-in-guatemala-allowed-emissions-in-the-usa-to-increase/ news, views and analysis about reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:47:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Ogden Rodas http://www.redd-monitor.org/2009/10/09/how-a-forestry-offset-project-in-guatemala-allowed-emissions-in-the-usa-to-increase/#comment-233655 Ogden Rodas Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:26:42 +0000 http://www.redd-monitor.org/?p=3043#comment-233655 Sabiamos de este proyecto desde 1988 (aún antes ya existia), mas no se "vendia" como un proyecto de fijación de carbono, era el Proyecto Agroforestal ejecutado por Care y que tenía arreglos institucionales con los servicios forestales de la época (ex-Inafor y ex-Digebos). Por lo menos conozco un documento aproximadamente 1994-96 que lo cita como el primer proyecto de fijación de carbono en Centro América, sin que se reconociera como tal, y fue producto de una negociación, no de donacion. Es bueno revisar sus resultados para fines de diseño de nuevos proyectos, especialmente para zonas de bosques comunitarios y municipales y de reducidas extensiones. Sabiamos de este proyecto desde 1988 (aún antes ya existia), mas no se “vendia” como un proyecto de fijación de carbono, era el Proyecto Agroforestal ejecutado por Care y que tenía arreglos institucionales con los servicios forestales de la época (ex-Inafor y ex-Digebos). Por lo menos conozco un documento aproximadamente 1994-96 que lo cita como el primer proyecto de fijación de carbono en Centro América, sin que se reconociera como tal, y fue producto de una negociación, no de donacion. Es bueno revisar sus resultados para fines de diseño de nuevos proyectos, especialmente para zonas de bosques comunitarios y municipales y de reducidas extensiones.

]]> By: Paul Faeth http://www.redd-monitor.org/2009/10/09/how-a-forestry-offset-project-in-guatemala-allowed-emissions-in-the-usa-to-increase/#comment-8065 Paul Faeth Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:22:01 +0000 http://www.redd-monitor.org/?p=3043#comment-8065 I was one of the people at WRI who evaluated and recommended the CARE/Guatemala project to AES. There are a number of errors in the above article. First, the reason this particular project was chosen was because it had the dual benefit of helping poor farmers and sequestering carbon. The project was not, and was never intended to be, a straight tree planting project for offsets, but one that supported increased farm productivity through the use of agroforestry methods. We believed that by helping the local farmers and their families, the project would be more likely to be sustainable and therefore to offset carbon emissions. We intentionally recommended, and AES chose, an agricultural development effort, not a forest plantation effort, for this reason. Second, CARE staff tested a number of different tree species for their acceptance by farmers. Twenty-four species for a variety of purposes were made available such as fruit trees, nitrogen-fixing trees and those for timber and fencing. The trees were made available for farmers to select -- no one was forced to plant something they didn’t want. Farmers expressed a demand for lumber and timber, so those species were made available. Some farmers began nurseries to sell trees to other farmers because the demand was so high. Third, no resources were diverted which would have otherwise been available for poverty alleviation. CARE told us at the time that this project was due to close because of the lack of funding. Significant resources to continue the project were made available only because of the grant that AES made. Many poor people in Guatemala benefitted from CARE’s on-going work only because the project had the ability to offset carbon, bringing to bear an entirely new source of funding for poverty alleviation. Finally, the authors fail to point out the reasons for the differences in the offset estimates, which were due to the methodologies used. Our own estimates that were used for project approval were much lower than the later paper and only accounted for the growth of the trees that came from the nurseries. Winrock used a similar approach. At the time the grant was made, no one expected the entire power plant’s emissions to be offset. Several years after the project was approved by AES, we went back and developed a very simple land use model to account for unsustainable forestry practices which the agroforestry methods were intended to replace. We also took a longer-term point of view to account for the maturation of the trees over the life of the power plant, not just the first 10-years. This research was done to help understand what might be going on is a project like this, not to provide a definitive offset estimate. I was one of the people at WRI who evaluated and recommended the CARE/Guatemala project to AES. There are a number of errors in the above article. First, the reason this particular project was chosen was because it had the dual benefit of helping poor farmers and sequestering carbon. The project was not, and was never intended to be, a straight tree planting project for offsets, but one that supported increased farm productivity through the use of agroforestry methods. We believed that by helping the local farmers and their families, the project would be more likely to be sustainable and therefore to offset carbon emissions. We intentionally recommended, and AES chose, an agricultural development effort, not a forest plantation effort, for this reason.
Second, CARE staff tested a number of different tree species for their acceptance by farmers. Twenty-four species for a variety of purposes were made available such as fruit trees, nitrogen-fixing trees and those for timber and fencing. The trees were made available for farmers to select — no one was forced to plant something they didn’t want. Farmers expressed a demand for lumber and timber, so those species were made available. Some farmers began nurseries to sell trees to other farmers because the demand was so high.
Third, no resources were diverted which would have otherwise been available for poverty alleviation. CARE told us at the time that this project was due to close because of the lack of funding. Significant resources to continue the project were made available only because of the grant that AES made. Many poor people in Guatemala benefitted from CARE’s on-going work only because the project had the ability to offset carbon, bringing to bear an entirely new source of funding for poverty alleviation.
Finally, the authors fail to point out the reasons for the differences in the offset estimates, which were due to the methodologies used. Our own estimates that were used for project approval were much lower than the later paper and only accounted for the growth of the trees that came from the nurseries. Winrock used a similar approach. At the time the grant was made, no one expected the entire power plant’s emissions to be offset. Several years after the project was approved by AES, we went back and developed a very simple land use model to account for unsustainable forestry practices which the agroforestry methods were intended to replace. We also took a longer-term point of view to account for the maturation of the trees over the life of the power plant, not just the first 10-years. This research was done to help understand what might be going on is a project like this, not to provide a definitive offset estimate.

]]> By: Chris Lang http://www.redd-monitor.org/2009/10/09/how-a-forestry-offset-project-in-guatemala-allowed-emissions-in-the-usa-to-increase/#comment-7371 Chris Lang Tue, 20 Oct 2009 05:15:58 +0000 http://www.redd-monitor.org/?p=3043#comment-7371 A colleague recently sent the following information in response to this post: <blockquote>"AES is also one of the funders of a CDM Project at validation (and it may be to offset the same Connecticut coal-burning power plant), the Chanquinola Hydroelectric Dam Project (Chan 75) which is under construction in the territory of the Ngöbe Bugle People in Panama and endangers an UNESCO World Heritage Site. This CDM project is tainted by armed repression, forced relocation, arbitrary detention, no Free Prior Informed Consent, destruction of homes and crops, fraud in the CDM documents and has been denounced by the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights and fundamental freedoms of Indigenous Peoples, James Anaya. Furthermore, it worth noting that large dams in tropical countries are actually sources of emissions since CO2 and methane are released when organic material in the reservoirs rots and when water goes through turbines and travels downstream. For more information see <a href="http://www.ienearth.org/docs/Indigenous_Peoples_Guide-E.pdf" rel="nofollow">Indigenous Peoples' Guide - False Solutions to Climate Change</a> - section on Snapshots of Carbon Colonialism."</blockquote> A colleague recently sent the following information in response to this post:

“AES is also one of the funders of a CDM Project at validation (and it may be to offset the same Connecticut coal-burning power plant), the Chanquinola Hydroelectric Dam Project (Chan 75) which is under construction in the territory of the Ngöbe Bugle People in Panama and endangers an UNESCO World Heritage Site. This CDM project is tainted by armed repression, forced relocation, arbitrary detention, no Free Prior Informed Consent, destruction of homes and crops, fraud in the CDM documents and has been denounced by the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights and fundamental freedoms of Indigenous Peoples, James Anaya. Furthermore, it worth noting that large dams in tropical countries are actually sources of emissions since CO2 and methane are released when organic material in the reservoirs rots and when water goes through turbines and travels downstream.
For more information see Indigenous Peoples’ Guide – False Solutions to Climate Change – section on Snapshots of Carbon Colonialism.”

]]> By: Ricardo Coelho http://www.redd-monitor.org/2009/10/09/how-a-forestry-offset-project-in-guatemala-allowed-emissions-in-the-usa-to-increase/#comment-7097 Ricardo Coelho Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:37:49 +0000 http://www.redd-monitor.org/?p=3043#comment-7097 Great story. I knew about Mount Elgon in Uganda, which I thought was the first offset project but only recently have I heard about this. Of course, the same problems can be found in nowadays offset projects. Great story. I knew about Mount Elgon in Uganda, which I thought was the first offset project but only recently have I heard about this. Of course, the same problems can be found in nowadays offset projects.

]]> By: Susan Robinson http://www.redd-monitor.org/2009/10/09/how-a-forestry-offset-project-in-guatemala-allowed-emissions-in-the-usa-to-increase/#comment-6975 Susan Robinson Fri, 09 Oct 2009 17:21:26 +0000 http://www.redd-monitor.org/?p=3043#comment-6975 California just approved climate change forestry protocols that include "even-aged management" which is basically "clearcutting" and conversion of native forests into tree plantations (always using tons of herbicides like atrazine (banned in Europe). A California forest company owned by one of the world's richest billionaires immediately announced its huge carbon project which would protect 60,000 acres including "giant sequoias." Even the Governor of California got sucked into praising this project. Turns out the only "giant sequoias in this project were recently planted seedlings and rumors are that much of the land was already clearcut or had burned and tree plantations had already been planted. A local newspaper (The Union Democrat) in the County where the 20,000 acres of the "giant sequoias" were supposed be forced the company spokesman to admit some of the real facts about this project (there are only young sequoias. Meanwhile this same company continues to clearcut massive amounts of Sierra Nevada forest and is still applying for CA state ok to clearcut more. Forestry business as usual - laughing all the way to the carbon bank. How can we expect to stop widespread clearcutting in the rainforest when we can't even stop it in the US? California just approved climate change forestry protocols that include “even-aged management” which is basically “clearcutting” and conversion of native forests into tree plantations (always using tons of herbicides like atrazine (banned in Europe). A California forest company owned by one of the world’s richest billionaires immediately announced its huge carbon project which would protect 60,000 acres including “giant sequoias.” Even the Governor of California got sucked into praising this project. Turns out the only “giant sequoias in this project were recently planted seedlings and rumors are that much of the land was already clearcut or had burned and tree plantations had already been planted. A local newspaper (The Union Democrat) in the County where the 20,000 acres of the “giant sequoias” were supposed be forced the company spokesman to admit some of the real facts about this project (there are only young sequoias. Meanwhile this same company continues to clearcut massive amounts of Sierra Nevada forest and is still applying for CA state ok to clearcut more. Forestry business as usual – laughing all the way to the carbon bank. How can we expect to stop widespread clearcutting in the rainforest when we can’t even stop it in the US?

]]>