Deforestation in the tropics is a major source of carbon emissions and an active contributor to global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimated that 1.7 billion tons of carbon is released annually due to land use change, of which the major part is tropical deforestation (IPCC 2001). This represents 20%–25% of current global carbon emissions. Deforestation emissions from Brazil and Indonesia alone are equivalent to the entire reduction commitment of the Annex 1 countries during the first commitment period.
Under the current agreements in the Kyoto Protocol and the Marrakech Accords, this enormous source of emissions is not addressed. Possibilities under the protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) are limited to afforestation and reforestation, known as AR CDM. In other words, they allow for planting of new trees to establish additional sinks, but they do not allow crediting for reduction of emission from existing sinks through sustainable forest management. To date almost 1000 CDM projects are undergoing or have undergone the approval process, but almost all of these are in the energy sector. Of the 39 approved methodologies only three are from the forestry sector, and of the 11 million CERs1 issued so far, none is from the forestry sector. Thus as far as AR CDM is concerned, precious little progress has been made.
Local people are well aware of the impact of these activities on the forest and of their negative implications. There are two sets of reasons why they continue to carry them out. First, there is usually no alternative means of making an income, and second, the forest is to all intents and purposes an uncontrolled resource. The state owns the majority of the forest, but apart from heavily protected areas such as nature reserves, most is de facto open access. With no rules for usage, or no enforcement of rules, each individual makes the most of his or her opportunity, because if not, someone else will—the tragedy of the commons, or, as it may more correctly be described, the tragedy of the open access resources.
In order to assess this possibility in more depth, it makes sense to look carefully at community forest management (CFM) experience and evaluate its impact on carbon stocks. There is a number of questions that would need to be addressed, such as:
- What rates of degradation and carbon loss are typically occurring in unmanaged forests?
- What sorts of management activities are used by communities under CFM schemes and how much carbon is saved as a result?
- Is there leakage to other areas? How much?
- What is the opportunity cost of this management?
- How could the carbon stock changes be measured and monitored in a cost-effective manner?
- What would be the possibility of bundling several environmental services to reduce transaction costs?
- Will small-scale AR CDM be attractive to investors? What would be the potential barriers to be removed?
A research project funded by the Netherlands Development Cooperation entitled Kyoto: Think Global Act Local has set out to answer these questions and to assess the potential for community carbon forestry, providing the first six case studies in Guinea Bissau, Mali, Nepal, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda and Uttranchal (India).
Another set of studies and capacity-building exercises was carried out in Indonesia and supported by the Asian Development Bank (ADB). It involved national and local governments in four districts of West Lampung (Sumatra), Hulu Sungai Selatan (Kalimantan), Sidrap and Bombana (Sulawesi). The main objective of the activities was to technically assist the governments and participating smallholders in developing CDM projects. They are categorized as small-scale AR CDM leading towards preparation of the Project Design Document (PDD).
In order to enhance the livelihoods and reduce the poverty of upland poor in Asia while supporting environmental conservation at global and local levels, another scheme aiming at Rewarding Upland Poor for Environmental Services (RUPES) was established. This involved three upland communities in Indonesia and the Philippines through policy support in the form of direct involvement in local governance, implementation of global convention, integrated natural resources and community-based forestry. Local communities in Ikalahan, Laguna and Sierra Madre in the Philippines were engaged, whereas the Indonesian case involved Minangkabau village in Singkarak, West Sumatra.
Having presented all these cases we draw some lessons learned and consider ways forward as regards financial mechanisms that could be used to support community carbon forestry. We hope to demonstrate that carbon payments can act as an important stimulus in the reduction of forest degradation over a large part of the tropics, as well as provide an incentive for local communities to engage in tree planting and tree-based agriculture. In this way, poor, local communities may become directly involved in activities that mitigate global carbon, while at the same time providing a sustainable livelihood for many marginalized people.