[Terrapreta] Comparing biochar with REDD

[Biopact]

Several initiatives and concepts exist that aim to deal with "reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries" ("REDD"). These proposed schemes (also known as "avoided deforestation" or "compensated reduction") most often consist of governments receiving funds to slow down deforestation; the funds are either real funds from government to government or carbon credits obtained via market mechanisms and calculated on the basis of the amount of carbon sequestered in these forests. Biochar could be a competing system that is more realistic and easier to manage and monitor.

There are many potential problems with REDD. 

1. First of all, these are typical "top down" schemes. It is highly questionable whether the money ever reaches those who are supposed to protect the forests (slash-and-burn farmers would have to become forest guardians and get paid for it.) 

2. Secondly, bureaucrats and local power figures can pressure people into moving away from forests, and forced evictions may become one of the less pretty consequences of the scheme

3. Thirdly, it can be argued that REDD will never work if it only gives an amount of money equal to the carbon contained in the forest. This is so because agriculture at the tropical forest frontier brings in many "indirect" benefits: roads, access to services and markets, energy, mobility, and so on -- it's tragic, but deforestation often brings "modernity", with both the good and the bad that come with this. Now REDD funds would have to compensate for all these missed services and opportunities (the real opportunity cost of REDD is modernity as a whole).

4. Fourth, there are difficulties with establishing a baseline and with monitoring: remote sensing can contribute, but this will not suffice; determining which type of forest should be put in the scheme is difficult as is calculating the carbon contained in it.

Now it seems to me that Biochar, which could be seen as a "bottom-up" concept, competes with the "top-down" approach that is REDD.

1. Biochar can be measured on the ground relatively easily

2. It benefits slash-and-burn peasants and farmers at the forest frontier directly (e.g. improved food production, local bioenergy production)

3. It is a "bottom-up" approach; bureaucrats who were to tap the international carbon market would have to negotiate with farmers to implement biochar projects, because it is the farmers who manage the soil; not the other way around (put bluntly: farmers would be paid *first*, after which the bureaucrat can obtain the credit; in REDD, the money will stick at the hands of those at the top)

4. Biochar is probably more realistic overall in slowing deforestation, because it is locally rooted; REDD has the risk of displacing deforestation (causing it to pop up elsewhere), as well as people

5. Biochar is obviously just as powerful in combating climate change, as it creates a serious and safe carbon sink

I'm not sure, but maybe it is possible to think of synergies between the two systems?
Regards, 
Lawrence
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080227/1143fbd7/attachment.html