The Potential of Carbon Offsetting Projects in the Forestry Sector for Poverty Reduction in Developing Countries
The international carbon market – comprising both the regulated national, regional, and international markets resulting from the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol and the voluntary trade of carbon offsets by individuals, companies, NGOs, and governments outside the Kyoto framework – is currently considered the most important new and additional source of development finance, valued at US$126 billion in 2008 and potentially exceeding USD$50–120 billion/year in the long term (Capoor and Ambrosi 2009). Given the great potential for the implementation of alternatives to mitigate carbon emissions in the Land Use, Land Use and Forestry (LULUCF) sector in the tropics and the fact that over 70% of the world’s poor are located in rural areas, great expectations have been put on the capacity of this innovative source of funding to support rural poverty reduction initiatives in developing countries.
KeywordsClean Development Mechanism Carbon Market Forestry Project European Union Emission Trading Scheme Carbon Project
- Alban M., Argüello M. 2004. Un analisis de los impactos sociales y economicos de los proyectos de fijacion de carbon en el Ecuador. El caso de PROFAFOR-FACE. International Institute for Environment and Development.Google Scholar
- Cacho O., Marshall G., Milne M. 2003. Smallholder Agroforestry Projects: Potential for Carbon Sequestration and Poverty Alleviation. FAO ESA Working Paper 03–06.Google Scholar
- Capoor K., Ambrosi P. 2008. State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2008. World Bank Institute – CF Assist.Google Scholar
- Capoor K., Ambrosi P. 2009. State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2008. World Bank Institute – CF Assist.Google Scholar
- Corbera E., Estrada M., Brown K. 2009a. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation in developing countries: Revisiting the assumptions. Climatic Change. doi: 10.1007/s10584-009-9773-1.
- Corbera E., González Soberanis C., Brown K. 2008. Institutional dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services: An analysis of Mexico’s carbon forestry programme. Ecological Economics, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.06.008.
- Dannecker C. 2005. The market for CERs from forestry projects – a survey. CoP 11 Side event LULUCF – Its Relevance and Potential within the CDM and Emissions Trading Schemes. November 30, 2005. Montréal, Canada. EcoSecurities Ltd.Google Scholar
- De Jong B., Tipper R., Montoya-Gómez G. 2000. An Economic Analysis of the Potential for Carbon Sequestration by Forests: Evidence from Southern Mexico Ecological Economics 33: 313–327.Google Scholar
- Eliasch J. 2008. The Eliasch Review Climate Change: Financing Global Forests. 2008. U.K. Office of Climate Change.Google Scholar
- Gong Y., Bull G.Q., Baylis K. 2009. Participation in the world’s first clean development mechanism forest project: The role of property rights, social capital and contractual rules, Ecological Economics (2010), doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.017.
- Granda P. 2005. Carbon Sink Plantations in the Ecuadorian Andes: Impacts of the Dutch FACE-PROFAFOR monoculture tree plantations Project on indigenous and peasant communities. Accion Ecologica and World Rainforest Movement.Google Scholar
- Hamilton K., Sjardin M., Marcello T., Xu G. 2008. Forging a Frontier: State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets. Ecosystem Marketplace and New Carbon Finance.Google Scholar
- IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
- Lipper L., Cavatassi R. 2003. Land Use Change, Carbon Sequestration and Poverty Alleviation. 2003. ESA Working Paper No. 03–13. Agricultural and Development Economics Division The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
- Skutsch M. 2005. Reducing carbon transaction costs in community based forestry management. Climate Policy 5: 433–443.Google Scholar
- Streck C. 2008. Inclusion of Forestry into the EU ETS: Arguments and Responses. May 2008. Available at www.climatefocus.com. Last accessed: October 2008.
- Thomas S., Dargusch P., Harrison S., Herbohn J. 2009. Why are there so few afforestation and reforestation Clean Development Mechanism projects? Land Use Policy (2009), doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.12.002.
- Tomich T., van Noordwijk M., Budidarson S., Gillison A., Kusumanto T., Murdiyarso D., Stolle F., Fagi A. 2001. Agricultural Intensification, Deforestation and the Environment: Assessing the Tradeoffs in Sumatra, Indonesia. In D.R. Lee, C.B. Barrett (eds). Tradeoffs or Synergies? Agricultural Intensification, Economic Development and the Environment. New York: CABI Publishing.Google Scholar
- Tyler E. The Importance of the Offset Market for High Sustainable Development Carbon Projects. Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP).Google Scholar
- United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 2010, http://unfccc.int/2860.php. Accessed July 2011.