[Terrapreta] Pay Farmers for Environmental Services

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Lou,

Thanks for this article.  The FAO has developed a portable kiln that can make charcoal from wood.  This kiln can be modified so that it does not produce significant potent GHG emissions like Methane-CH4.  Running this kiln requires significant manual labor; preparing the feedstock, loading, kiln operation, kiln unloading, and kiln moving.  I've read that operating two such kilns, two men can make 20-23 tons of charcoal in a week (and that is hard work!)  One cord of hardwood (oak) weighs close 2 two tons (dry).  So making 23 tons of charcoal a week at 25% yield (weight/weight) would require handling ~90 tons or 45 cords of wood per week.  For two men, that is an incredible amount of work (especially with only hand tools)

I think that poor farmers should be paid for their labor in making charcoal and putting it into soil, MUCH MORE so than land owners that have the feedstock on their land and the soil to receive the charcoal.  Landowners will receive benefits from having the charcoal in the soil.  That really should be enough.  In the end, I believe there will be the greater benefit for them.

I am working on building one of these modified kilns to pyrolyze the biomass more cleanly.  The modification requires not venting the kiln gases and burning ("flaring") them instead, to either speed up the pyrolysis and/or produce electric power/compressed air.

Regards,

SKB
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: lou gold<mailto:lou.gold at gmail.com> 
  To: Terrapreta<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
  Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 6:06 AM
  Subject: [Terrapreta] Pay Farmers for Environmental Services


  /agriculture/article/25103/print 

  Paying Farmers to Protect the Planet is Future: U.N.
  /agriculture/article/25103/print 
  ROME (Reuters) - Paying farmers to protect the environment -- rather than just for their produce -- will be an important way to ensure a rapidly increasing demand for food does not destroy the planet, a U.N. agency said on Thursday.

  The United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) said paying for "environmental services" is set to be an important way to link two of humanity's greatest challenges: beating poverty and safeguarding the environment.

  "(Farming) has the potential to degrade the Earth's land, water, atmosphere and biological resources -- or to enhance them -- depending on the decisions made by the more than 2 billion people whose livelihoods depend directly on crops, livestock, fisheries or forests," said FAO Director-General Jacques Diouf.

  "Ensuring appropriate incentives for these people is essential," he said in his foreword to the agency's annual report "The State of Food and Agriculture" which focused on environmental payments.

  The FAO points out that many governments already subsidize farming, but rarely do so to protect the environment.

  "Current incentives tend to favor the production of food, fiber, and increasingly, biofuels, but they typically undervalue other beneficial services that farmers can provide," it said.

  The report concentrates on three particular "services": the storage of carbon dioxide in plants and soil which can help slow global warming; water provision from flood prevention and water filtration through roots and soil; and nature conservation.

  One of the first such payment schemes was the Conservation Reserve Program, a 1985 program to pay U.S. farmers to retire crop land from farming for 10-15 years. The report says hundreds of schemes now exist in rich and poor countries, mostly in the forest management sector.  

  As deforestation is estimated to produce at least 18 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, a potentially huge growth area would be in paying poorer countries not to chop down their forests.

  That option is now allowed only to a limited extent by the Kyoto Protocol, but countries meeting in Indonesia in December to discuss global climate change initiatives for after 2012 will consider whether it should be expanded.

  Environmental payments to farmers do not have to be linked to them stopping farming, but can be an incentive to make it less damaging, such as encouraging "shade-grown" coffee rather than intensive production where forest canopies are destroyed.

  The report stresses the drawbacks as well as potential benefits of environmental payment schemes, for example the risk that they may reduce food output for hungry populations.

  "The impact of a PES (payment for environmental services) approach on the poor is highly dependent on who holds the rights to use resources," the report says -- noting the risk that such schemes might benefit relatively wealthy landowners more often than the extremely poor who own nothing.

  (Reporting by Robin Pomeroy, editing by Philippa Fletcher)

  page is /agriculture/article/25103/print 
  Terms of Use<http://www.enn.com/static/terms_of_use> | Privacy Policy <http://www.enn.com/static/privacy_policy>

  2007. Copyright Environmental News Network

  _______________________________________________
  Terrapreta mailing list
  Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
  http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
  http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
  http://info.bioenergylists.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20071117/38e2f5d2/attachment.html