Advertisement

The Potential of Carbon Offsetting Projects in the Forestry Sector for Poverty Reduction in Developing Countries

Chapter

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Clean Development Mechanism Carbon Market Forestry Project European Union Emission Trading Scheme Carbon Project 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 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
  2. Boyd E., Hultman N., Timmons Roberts J., Corbera E., Cole J., Bozmoski A., Ebeling J., Tippman R., Mann P., Brown K., Liverman D.M. 2009. Reforming the CDM for sustainable development: lessons learned and policy futures. Environmental Science and Policy 12(7): 820–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyd E., May P., Chang M., Veiga F.C. 2007a. Exploring socioeconomic impacts of forest based mitigation projects: Lessons from Brazil and Bolivia. Environmental Science and Policy 10(5): 419–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boyd E., Gutierrez, M., Chang M. 2007b. Small-scale forest carbon projects: Adapting CDM to low-income communities. Global Environmental Change 17: 250–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Capoor K., Ambrosi P. 2008. State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2008. World Bank Institute – CF Assist.Google Scholar
  7. Capoor K., Ambrosi P. 2009. State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2008. World Bank Institute – CF Assist.Google Scholar
  8. 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.
  9. Corbera E., Estrada M., Brown K. 2009b. How do regulated and voluntary carbon-offset schemes compare? Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 6(1): 26–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.
  11. Corbera E., Brown K., Adger N. 2007. The Equity and Legitimacy of Markets for Ecosystem Services. Development and Change 38(4): 587–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. Eliasch J. 2008. The Eliasch Review Climate Change: Financing Global Forests. 2008. U.K. Office of Climate Change.Google Scholar
  15. Ellis J., Winkler H., Corfee-Morlot J., Gagnon-Lebrun F. 2007. CDM: Taking stock and looking forward. Energy Policy 35(1): 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. Jindal R., Swallow B., Kerr J. 2008. Forestry-based carbon sequestration projects in Africa: Potential benefits and challenges. Natural Resources Forum 32: 116–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kosoy N., Corbera E., Brown K. 2008. Participation in payments for ecosystem services: Case studies from the Lacandon rainforest, Mexico. Geoforum 39: 2073–2083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Skutsch M. 2005. Reducing carbon transaction costs in community based forestry management. Climate Policy 5: 433–443.Google Scholar
  24. Streck C. 2008. Inclusion of Forestry into the EU ETS: Arguments and Responses. May 2008. Available at www.climatefocus.com. Last accessed: October 2008.
  25. 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.
  26. 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
  27. Tschakert P., Tappan G. 2004. The social context of carbon sequestration: considerations from a multi-scale environmental history of the Old Peanut Basin of Senegal. Journal of Arid Environments 59: 535–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tyler E. The Importance of the Offset Market for High Sustainable Development Carbon Projects. Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP).Google Scholar
  29. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 2010, http://unfccc.int/2860.php. Accessed July 2011.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Independent Climate Change ConsultantMexicoUSA
  2. 2.School of International DevelopmentUniversity of East AngliaNorwichEngland

Personalised recommendations