Skutsch, Margaret M.

English

Skutsch, Margaret

NARCIS 

Carbon as a non-timber forest product

University of Twente Research Information

No. 39-40 Autumn/Winter 2003 European Tropical Forest Research NetworkNEWSGLOBALISATION,LOCALISATION ANDTROPICALFOREST MANAGEMENTTABLE OF CONTENTSList of Articles 3Organisations - Programmes 7• I GLOBALISATION, LOCALISATION AND TROPICALFOREST MANAGEMENT: INTRODUCING THECHALLENGE OF NEW MARKETS AND NEWPARTNERSCHIPS     7• II THE FEASIBILITY OF PAYMENTS FOR• ECOSYSTEM SERVICES   16• III OPPORTUNITIES FOR FOREST MARKETS TOBENEFIT LOCAL LOW-INCOME PRODUCERS   23• IV GREENING (TRANS)NATIONAL LOGGINGCOMPANIES? STRATEGIES TO COMBAT ILLEGAL • AND UNSUSTAINABLE LOGGING   40• V CERTIFICATION AND TROPICAL FORESTRY   51• VI LINKING GLOBAL CONSERVATION OBJECTIVESAND LOCAL USE OF FOREST AND WILDLIFERESOURCES               67• VII GLOBAL-LOCAL PARTNERSHIPS FORCONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE FOREST USE:• A LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVE   83• VIII THE IMPACT OF DECENTRALISATION ON• FOREST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT   98• IX A LEARNING PERSPECTIVE ON PARTNERSHIPS• IN COLLABORATIVE FOREST MANAGEMENT 110Research CooperationSought 121Internet Features 123Funding/Opportunities 124Other News 125Publications 132Past Issues of ETFRN News 141International CalendarEnclosedOrganisation - Institutions - ProgrammesETFRN News 39-40/0318and management planning, forestmanagement accreditation, certification andverification procedures on the one hand andcomparable sinks procedures on the othermay be useful especially in case of forestareas which are considered for bothprocesses. Such synergies may help toovercome a lack of economies of scale insmall parcels of land.8. The voluntary implementation of forestmanagement certification may enhance sinksby setting up technical capacities formeasurement, management plans consistentwith the goal of sustainable development,familiarity with relevant concepts anddefinitions, as well as independent verificationvariables. All these factors may make it easierand less costly for the forest owner to berewarded for carbon sequestration as well.9. Areas of potential synergies betweencertification of forest management and carbonsequestration that need to be explored, mayinclude:• Whether common methodologies,definitions and concepts can bedeveloped.• The building of capacity which is requiredfor both instruments.• Whether forest management certificationand other management tools couldcontribute towards the preparation ofaccurate inventories through the provisionof data relating to land-use changes andchanges in the growing stock.• Whether forest management certification,if further developed, may verify theimplementation of measures or a lack ofthose, both positive and negative, thataffect sinks.• Whether auditing procedures could becomplementary to forest management andsinks certification even if both instrumentsrequire separate protocols andaccreditation.• Whether general procedures of existingaccreditation bodies (e.g. for ISO 9000and 14000 series standards) could beapplicable to sinks validation, verificationand certification systems after havingbeen augmented to deal specifically withsink projects.• How group certification may reducebarriers (e.g. costs) for individual (small)forest owners to implement forestmanagement certification schemes andfacilitate the implementation of (bundled)sinks activities.• Whether and to what extent any sinkscredit return may provide additionalfinancial support to the private sector foralso implementing forest managementschemes (e.g. cap management), or thereverse, where forest managementcertification may give added value andmarketing advantages to carbonsequestration.There is certainly some scope for synergybetween forest management and carbonsequestration certification. Many questions atboth the conceptual and implementation levelneed to be addressed however. One suchquestion is whether alternative, simpler andmore effective procedures can be developedto meet the goals of the Kyoto Protocol, forinstance by not seeking to combine forest andcarbon certification.Further information:Prof. Dr Catrinus JepmaInternational Economics & BusinessDepartment, University of Groningen andFaculty of Economics and Econometrics,University of AmsterdamP.O. Box 800, 9700 AV, GroningenThe NetherlandsE-mail: c.j.jepma@eco.rug.nlOrganisation - Institutions - ProgrammesETFRN News 39-40/03 19CARBON AS A NON-TIMBER FORESTPRODUCTBy Margaret M. SkutschUnder the Kyoto Protocol, forestry is permittedas a sink measure under the CleanDevelopment Mechanism (CDM), but only inthe form of 'afforestation' and 'reforestation'.These two forms are essentially plantationsystems which, although cost effective interms of carbon sequestration are in mostcases not very beneficial to local populations,who depend on existing and bio-diverseforests for a large number of products. Manycommuni t ies ,  however ,  t rans formunsustainable forest management practices(processes of degradation) to sustainablemanagement under a variety of programmesunrelated to climate change policy. Examplesinclude the Joint Forest Managementprogramme in India, Forest User Groups inNepal and community forest management inWest Africa. This change to sustainablemanagement has a two-way effect as regardscarbon saving: it increases the sink capacity ofthe forest and, where harvested for firewood,it provides a perpetual renewable energysource. This form of forest management is,however, not recognised under the Kyotoarrangements.UncertaintiesOne of the reasons for not recognising the sinkcapacity of community-based managementinitiatives under the Kyoto Protocol isundoubtedly the difficulty of measuring thecarbon saved and various uncertainties suchas leakage and permanence. There are strictrules about how carbon saved can bemeasured and rigorous data will certainly be aprerequisite if such projects are to be acceptedas 'climate' projects in the future, so thatcommunities may access funds for them underKyoto. However, the cost of employingprofessional scientific methods to gather andprocess such data (the so-called 'transactioncosts') are likely to be prohibitive, meaningthat any financial gains by the community asa result of 'selling' their carbon, will be wipedout. The trick is then to find techniques whichcan, at least, partially be carried out by thecommunities themselves at much lower costand also to demonstrate that these are asreliable as 'expert' methods.The utility of GPS/GIS devicesA research project, sponsored by DGIS, isbeing carried out by the University of Twente(the Netherlands), ITC and three regionalresearch institutes (in Nepal, Tanzania andSenegal) to test the use of handheldGPS/GIS devices in conjunction with wideangle photography, as well as relatedmethods used by local communities that arealready engaged in sustainable communityforest management schemes. The researchinstitutes are working with local organisationsinvolved in community forest managementactivities in ten countries. The purpose of theresearch is to demonstrate that suchcommunities can make reliable assessmentsof the increased sink values of their forest andmonitor this over an extended time period.Hopefully, data gathered in this way will alsobe acceptable to international bodiesresponsible for verifying carbon offsets. If thisobjective can be realised, the forest-basedlivelihoods of these communities may besupplemented through the 'sale' of theircarbon savings. Further information:Dr Margaret M. SkutschTechnology and Development Group,University of TwentePO Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, theNetherlandsE-mail: m.m.skutsch@tdg.utwente.nl

Carbon as a non-timber forest product

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NARCIS

University of Twente Research Information

University of Twente Research Information

NARCIS