Large companies pay African farmers for their trees, since they sequester CO2. This way, the companies can compensate for their CO2 emissions and African farmers receive extra income. The idea is simple and appeals to the imagination, but the reality is stubborn. At the chat in the Digital Food series Building Natural Capital: Metrics & Transparent Monitoring, experts emphasised the risks of offsetting CO2.
As is customary in the COVID era, the conference took place online. In this case, it is also practical because it ensures that people from different countries, from Nepal to Zimbabwe, meet in the same digital place. Dick Veerman, editor-in-chief and founder of the news platform Foodlog, immediately raises the question that will be central to the webinar. "What are the promises of carbon banking, its pitfalls, and what is the potential?"
We need to emit less CO2 if we want to keep the world livable, but for some parties this is more difficult than others. When it comes to carbon trading, a polluter pays an amount to someone who takes CO2 out of the air. The idea is that this creates a balance: the CO2 that the polluter puts into the air is taken out by someone else.
This is also called CO2 compensation, and it includes planting trees. Sometimes, investing in solar or wind farms is also seen as CO2 compensation, although, of course, these technologies do not take CO2 out of the air.
Investing in agriculture is new on the list of possibilities. A polluter can pay a farmer who, through his activities, stores CO2 in the soil, in trees, or in crops. In this sense, farmers give a credit to a polluter.
In Europe there is even a special emission trading system. The European Union determines how much CO2 companies can emit annually. They receive certificates for this. If they emit less, companies can sell those certificates to companies that emit more, thus creating a trading system.
How Carbon Credits help African Farmers
The idea is that selling carbon credits helps small farmers. For example, African farmers plant avocado, mango, and coffee bushes on their land. It takes a while for these trees to produce yield. (Large) companies paying for the CO2 that the trees sequester during their growth, provides the farmers with starting capital.
Combination with other types of agriculture is also possible, for example by planting large trees (that do not bear fruit) to protect coffee tree bushes from the burning sun or to provide shade for cattle. Farmers can also issue CO2 credits for trees they already have. This is the way Rabobank is using it now.
What is Carbon Banking?
Rabobank has been engaging in carbon banking since this year. This means that the bank acts as an intermediary between large companies that want to compensate CO2 production and small farmers in Africa and South America. The trees are already on the farmers' land. Rabobank sees this as an advantage, spokesman Joris Hoff told Change Inc. earlier: "They have already absorbed CO2; the costs of planting and maintenance have been advanced by an investment from the farmer. Companies then pay for the CO2 that the trees have sequestered."
Currently, only Microsoft uses this compensation method, but from 2022, other companies will also be able to buy CO2 credits. Rabobank has big ambitions for the future: by 2025, 15 million farmers together must sequester 150 million tonnes of CO2 in trees. Sounds good, right? But at Foodlog's conference, the tone is critical. "Do carbon credits, carbon banking, and carbon trading really deliver, or are we just pumping CO2 around without improving the current climate situation?
Peter van Bodegom, professor of Environmental Biology at Leiden University, doesn't support carbon trading between polluting companies and farmers. "Because I think", he says, "there are better ways of combating climate change and promoting the sustainable use of our landscapes. For example, I think it is better to pay for sustainable practices instead of allowing people to offset their emissions."
But Van Bodegom does not oppose linking a sum of money to CO2, because he sees it as a way of making environmental costs transparent. This increases awareness of the impact we have on the climate and shows which ways of farming contribute positively to the world. "If you see carbon credits as a way to show how we can make sustainable agriculture really sustainable, by giving qualitative insights into best practices, then I think this is a very good way to go."
This immediately raises new questions. Is it about CO2 in trees, the soil, or both? What is the best measuring instrument? And over what period do you measure? When a farmer cuts down a primeval forest to plant a few coffee bushes, he probably emits more CO2 in total than his agricultural activities store. Moreover, there is a location difference. "There is no one solution for every farmer, you have to look for the right trees for the soil and the right combinations of trees and other crops." In short, the last word is far from being said on this.
This article was published originally in Dutch on Change.inc.
Rabobank has big ambitions for the future: by 2025, 15 million farmers together must sequester 150 million tonnes of CO2 in trees. Sounds good, right?Carbon Offsetting, how does it work?
We need to emit less CO2 if we want to keep the world livable, but for some parties this is more difficult than others. When it comes to carbon trading, a polluter pays an amount to someone who takes CO2 out of the air. The idea is that this creates a balance: the CO2 that the polluter puts into the air is taken out by someone else.
This is also called CO2 compensation, and it includes planting trees. Sometimes, investing in solar or wind farms is also seen as CO2 compensation, although, of course, these technologies do not take CO2 out of the air.
Investing in agriculture is new on the list of possibilities. A polluter can pay a farmer who, through his activities, stores CO2 in the soil, in trees, or in crops. In this sense, farmers give a credit to a polluter.
In Europe there is even a special emission trading system. The European Union determines how much CO2 companies can emit annually. They receive certificates for this. If they emit less, companies can sell those certificates to companies that emit more, thus creating a trading system.
How Carbon Credits help African Farmers
The idea is that selling carbon credits helps small farmers. For example, African farmers plant avocado, mango, and coffee bushes on their land. It takes a while for these trees to produce yield. (Large) companies paying for the CO2 that the trees sequester during their growth, provides the farmers with starting capital.
Combination with other types of agriculture is also possible, for example by planting large trees (that do not bear fruit) to protect coffee tree bushes from the burning sun or to provide shade for cattle. Farmers can also issue CO2 credits for trees they already have. This is the way Rabobank is using it now.
What is Carbon Banking?
Rabobank has been engaging in carbon banking since this year. This means that the bank acts as an intermediary between large companies that want to compensate CO2 production and small farmers in Africa and South America. The trees are already on the farmers' land. Rabobank sees this as an advantage, spokesman Joris Hoff told Change Inc. earlier: "They have already absorbed CO2; the costs of planting and maintenance have been advanced by an investment from the farmer. Companies then pay for the CO2 that the trees have sequestered."
Currently, only Microsoft uses this compensation method, but from 2022, other companies will also be able to buy CO2 credits. Rabobank has big ambitions for the future: by 2025, 15 million farmers together must sequester 150 million tonnes of CO2 in trees. Sounds good, right? But at Foodlog's conference, the tone is critical. "Do carbon credits, carbon banking, and carbon trading really deliver, or are we just pumping CO2 around without improving the current climate situation?
If you see carbon credits as a way to show how we can make sustainable agriculture really sustainable, by giving qualitative insights into best practices, then I think this is a very good way to goIfs, Ands, and Buts
Peter van Bodegom, professor of Environmental Biology at Leiden University, doesn't support carbon trading between polluting companies and farmers. "Because I think", he says, "there are better ways of combating climate change and promoting the sustainable use of our landscapes. For example, I think it is better to pay for sustainable practices instead of allowing people to offset their emissions."
But Van Bodegom does not oppose linking a sum of money to CO2, because he sees it as a way of making environmental costs transparent. This increases awareness of the impact we have on the climate and shows which ways of farming contribute positively to the world. "If you see carbon credits as a way to show how we can make sustainable agriculture really sustainable, by giving qualitative insights into best practices, then I think this is a very good way to go."
This immediately raises new questions. Is it about CO2 in trees, the soil, or both? What is the best measuring instrument? And over what period do you measure? When a farmer cuts down a primeval forest to plant a few coffee bushes, he probably emits more CO2 in total than his agricultural activities store. Moreover, there is a location difference. "There is no one solution for every farmer, you have to look for the right trees for the soil and the right combinations of trees and other crops." In short, the last word is far from being said on this.
This article was published originally in Dutch on Change.inc.
Related
Additional tree planting is not always the solution and may even worsen the environment. Already many papers point this out (loss of native grasses and biodiversity, water issues, et cetera). Keeping the trees as proposed is a better solution, but at what cost? It now seems more of a modern scapegoat than actual thorough option. It is not an easy way out, or should not be. Again who profits the most from this?
We also have to keep in mind that CO2 in itself is not a pollutant, but forms the basis of our life, something we seem to forget.
And if another huge piece of forest burns down, who should pay back the co2?
Well, Frank, in a natural capital system someone is going to get paid by compensating for that loss. In case it is a consequence of the world community's life style the answer is: taxes.
Suppose a tree in a virgin forest releases CO2 because it is dying in a changing climate, who is gonna pay for it?
Primarily the farmer, although the way we use the crop is defining whether or not C will return into the atmosphere. Every step makes a difference. Which is why it will be difficult to regulate