Small But Not Insignificant

By: John Mbaria on December 17th, 2008

Though there appears to be immense capacity in agroforestry to fight global warming, there is still reluctance to embrace its contribution at the global level. Although many of the solutions talked about or adopted to tackle global warming hinge on the reduction of carbon in the air, there is yet to be an agreement on how to reward the millions of farmers with small holdings who grow trees on their farms and contribute to the global efforts to fight climate change.

By the Environment Correspondent/ The East African

Although many of the solutions talked about or adopted to tackle global warming hinge on the reduction of carbon in the air, there is yet to be an agreement on how to reward the millions of farmers with small holdings who grow trees on their farms and contribute to the global efforts to fight climate change.

There are billions of dollars waiting to benefit those who capture carbon emitted through industrial activities, and from the millions of vehicles that hit the road each morning. Currently, the biggest beneficiaries of carbon credits are certainly not the hundreds of millions of farmers in the developing world. But one organisation, the Nairobi-based World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), wants them in. But there is fear that this would flood carbon markets and that the logistics and technicality of bringing on board hundreds of millions of farmers would be almost impossible.

The other major issue seems to be: just how do you assess the amount of carbon captured by the tens of trees planted by a farmer in western Kenya, for instance? ICRAF, an international research centre that employs science to encourage environment-friendly policies on agroforestry, says it has an answer to the technical hitches that might arise while doing such an assessment.

ICRAF also thinks farmers have a role to play and need to be brought on board the global carbon markets. ICRAF’s arguments here appear to be that just like natural forests, ’farm forests’ are able to capture and store tons of carbon hurled into the air through the burning of fossil fuels in industries, and by vehicular pollution.

During the just-concluded UNFCCC summit on climate change, ICRAF lobbied hard in favour of allowing farmers who have planted trees on their farms to sell the carbon their trees capture, in the global carbon market. As the climate change conference got underway, ICRAF released a study that detailed how bringing farmers with small holdings into the global carbon market could aid in mitigating the twin problems of climate change and poverty. According to ICRAF’s Director General, Dr Dennis Garrity, this would entice farmers to adopt “carbon-saving development approaches” while at the same time help the world reduce greenhouse gas emissions “as quickly and effectively as possible.”

ICRAF’s sentiments received support from the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize winner, Prof Wangari Maathai, who said, “Allowing local communities to benefit from the carbon market by planting and protecting trees and forests would put money in their pockets, while also helping to protect our environment and fight climate change.”

Were ICRAF’s position to be taken seriously by UNFCCC member states, it appears that farmers who plant and maintain trees on their farms would be selling carbon credits to large polluters in developed countries. The latter are made to pay their less polluting counterparts for their efforts in reducing emissions. UNFCCC data shows that the value of such credits stood at US$64 billion in 2007, and was projected to grow in 2008 and 2009. ICRAF believes that allowing farmers to sell the carbon they are able to capture by planting trees could generate US$10 billion each year and thus assist them [the farmers] in fighting poverty and deprivation.

ICRAF’s position appears to resonate well with the findings of hundreds of scientists working for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which stated that planting trees on the farms (or agroforestry) has the potential of removing 50 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. IPCC also estimated that as many as two billion acres of farmland in developing countries is suitable for intensive agroforestry.

For decades, ICRAF has been involved in encouraging the adoption of policies that would make it possible and attractive for farmers in developing countries to raise and maintain trees. ICRAF says that such trees are both useful for maintaining integrity in the environment and also crucial in supplying food and income needs to small farmers and their families.

But though there appears to be such immense capacity in agroforestry to fight global warming, there is still a reluctance to embrace its contribution at the global level. The fear, it appears, lies in acknowledging that a humungous tonnage of carbon could be withdrawn from the atmosphere by trees planted on farms, for this would end up flooding the carbon market with what ICRAF terms inexpensive carbon. “Carbon credit politics and misplaced technical concerns are impeding efforts to encourage…better forest management, and growing more trees on farms.” ICRAF estimates that agroforestry could curtail up to 20 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Currently, the global carbon market largely focuses on rewarding industries that reduce carbon emissions in China, Brazil and India. For instance, reports from the World Bank show that this year, Africa accounted for only 1.4 per cent of projects that are set to be rewarded by the global carbon market while China accounts for 73 per cent, and Brazil and India account for 8 per cent each.

ICRAF says that industrial countries are yet to agree amongst themselves on whether countries that maintain standing forests and farmers who grow trees on their farms in developing countries ought to enter the carbon markets. “The European Commission recently recommended against allowing credits for forests in general, though it is not clear what its position will be on agroforestry.” However, ICRAF says that Britain and Norway “have been more receptive to the idea of linking developing country forests to carbon markets, as have some influential policy makers in the United States”.

The other fear, according to ICRAF, is the question of how to assess the amount of carbon stored in one given farm for the purposes of making relevant payments. ICRAF shares this concern but believes that it is an issue that can be resolved. Indeed, it need not be an excuse to exclude the poor from making contributions to international efforts to reduce global warming. ICRAF says it has an answer for this ’technical’ hitch: “ICRAF has worked with partners to develop a system that uses satellite technology and other approaches to calculate and verify the carbon stored across millions of square kilometers of agricultural land and forests in developing countries”.

But though the international research centre lobbies for the inclusion of millions of farmers with small holdings into the carbon market, there is yet to be any discernible system on how such a huge number of people would be paid for raising trees on their farms. There are those who say that the logistics of effecting such payments might be nightmarish.

ICRAF is one of the 15 research centres operating under the auspices of the Consultative Group of International Agricultural Research. Working in close collaboration with government bodies, its main research focus is on the role that trees play in improving rural environment and livelihoods.