[Terrapreta] Question

[lou gold]

yes, YES. the synergies are where it's at, for sure.

On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Biopact <biopact at biopact.com> wrote:

>  Lou, just a very quick interjection: a top-down approach may indeed be
> necessary, even in Africa, but biochar can precisely play a great role in
> offsetting the potentially disastrous social side-effects of such top-down
> approaches. Top-down and bottom-up schemes might become complementary.
> Again, we could be looking at a perfect conceptual match.
> Lorenzo
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* lou gold <lou.gold at gmail.com>
> *To:* Biopact <biopact at biopact.com>
> *Cc:* terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 20, 2008 6:19 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] Question
>
> Very good thinking here Lorenzo. I think the Amazon has its differences but
> conceptually you are on target. I have been thinking that REDD and biochar
> and biofuel and fertilizer all need to be connected. thanks for helping me
> flesh it out.
>
> One of the problems in Brazil is that the commodity boom is producing lots
> of land speculation and both the big and little guys often "skirt" the laws.
> The remedy may *possibly *necessitate a top-down approach in order to
> establish the needed institutional reach into the frontier. The situation is
> very complicated.
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Biopact <biopact at biopact.com> wrote:
>
>>  Hi Lou, I'm working on the Congo Basin forest, where the situation is
>> rather different (deforestation & degratation primarily caused by shifting
>> cultivation). But I think there could be many similarities between our
>> respective approaches. Let me briefly outline one of the main benefits of
>> biochar in this context, as I see it. Biochar must be seen in its relation
>> to proposed mechanisms to protect forests as carbon stocks ("avoided
>> deforestation", AD / "Reducing Emissions from Deforestation & Forest
>> Degradation", REDD / etc...).
>>
>> Many of these proposals are on the table, each with their pros and cons.
>> They can be seen as "competitors" to the biochar concept, even though they
>> are receiving much more attention by the international community. Instead of
>> competitors, though, they can just as well become synergistically linked and
>> reinforce each other.
>>
>> One recurring problem with AD, REDD and other schemes is that they are all
>> "top down" approaches (the state receives funds from the international
>> community or from the carbon markets to protect the C-stock in forests;
>> funds which are supposed to "trickle down" as social and economic benefits
>> to populations at the forest margins). This top-down approach represents
>> many social risks; you can't just chase away millions of people out of their
>> forest habitat. Without genuine local economic development amongst these
>> people, and if the funds don't reach them, deforestation will go on
>> elsewhere (the "displacement effect" or "leakage") or the scheme will simply
>> be resisted on the ground.
>>
>> Biochar on the contrary is a bottom-up strategy - the carbon management is
>> done by the very populations who live at the forest frontier, and they
>> immediately receive tangible benefits (improved agricultural yields) and the
>> carbon credits (at least, that's the scenario).
>>
>> So to me, the most important thing is to search for synergies between
>> AD/REDD and similar mechnisms on the one hand, and biochar on the other
>> hand.
>>
>> REDD may help save forests, but to implement it successfully, local
>> economic development amongst the populations must be guaranteed, and this
>> can be done via biochar projects. Both approaches reinforce each other. As
>> REDD formally protects a given area of forest, biochar does so indirectly,
>> by limiting agricultural expansion by communities living at the forest
>> frontier.
>>
>> REDD and biochar can in fact become a perfect match.
>>
>> Now with regards to your question about cattle ranching, here's a
>> potential scenario (I must stress: the situation in Central Africa is quite
>> different, so I'm not an expert on land-use change dynamics at the forest
>> frontier in Brazil). Pasture expansion into the Amazon is often the
>> second step of a long series of steps that drives deforestation: first
>> illegal loggers move in, then the cattle ranchers clear the remainder of the
>> forest and prepare the way for soybean farmers later on. So to calculate the
>> opportunity cost of a patch of intact forest, you have to value its timber,
>> its low-cost land that can be used for grazing by cattle (cattle are big
>> money), and its function as a soybean field (soybean prices have risen
>> seriously).
>>
>> Now let's break things up: REDD can compensate for the lost opportunity to
>> harvest timber; biochar can compensate for the lost opportunity for cattle
>> to graze. What you're left compensating is the soybean field: now biochar's
>> ability to make poor soils more fertile should partly compensate this lost
>> opportunity.
>>
>> So, suppose the Brazilian government supports both REDD and biochar, and
>> the international carbon authorities (Kyoto) recognize biochar as a
>> mechanism to sequester carbon; then you can potentially halt deforestation.
>> You get big funds for standing pristine forest (the frontier), while you get
>> big funds from sequestering C via char at the frontier, by drawing on
>> secondary forest or degraded forest which is converted into biochar (later
>> on field residues keep adding biochar and keep bringing in money). So the
>> frontier gets protected by a strong "buffer zone": a standing forest worth a
>> lot for its carbon (recognized via REDD), with "in front" of it a biochar
>> zone where productive agriculture can be undertaken, limiting the pressure
>> on the protected forest.
>>
>> The synergy between these two concepts and the rather big amounts of money
>> they can bring in, might be capable of halting the three factors mentioned
>> above (logging, cattle, soy).
>>
>> Not sure if this makes sense. But I'm very interested in getting to know
>> your take on this.
>>
>> I'm writing an overview of this concept of the "biochar buffer zone" as it
>> relates to the Congo Basin forest. There it makes for a wonderful and very
>> workable synergy with REDD, mainly because there's much less pressure from
>> cattle ranching and because industrialised agriculture is far less developed
>> there. Now is the chance to join biochar + REDD as a way to prevent the
>> Brazilian deforestation scenario which we've seen the past 30 years, from
>> playing out in Central Africa.
>>
>> Best, Lorenzo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* lou gold <lou.gold at gmail.com>
>> *To:* terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 20, 2008 8:29 AM
>> *Subject:* [Terrapreta] Question
>>
>>  Hi All,
>>
>> I need some help working through a puzzle.
>>
>> As you know, my highest priority is saving the forest, especially the
>> Amazon forest. I have been investing a lot of hopes in the possibility that
>> terra preta might somehow show the way. But I have not been able to figure
>> out the benefit of soil improvement (etc, etc) for cattle ranching and it is
>> the expansion of cattle combined with logging that is the front line of
>> deforestation.
>>
>> I know that switching from slash-and-burn to slash-and-char will be
>> helpful. But cattle are going to expand as the world gains more and more
>> people who want to eat meat. Please, let's not go into the protein
>> efficiencies or ethics of this trend. I'm trying to deal with the world as
>> it is.  Can anyone see a way that terra preta might be helpful here?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> lou
>>
>> --
>> http://lougold.blogspot.com
>> http://flickr.com/visionshare/sets
>> http://youtube.com/my_videos
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Terrapreta mailing list
>> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
>> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
>> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG.
>> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.21/1455 - Release Date:
>> 19/05/2008 17:04
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> http://lougold.blogspot.com
> http://flickr.com/visionshare/sets
> http://youtube.com/my_videos
>
> ------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.21/1455 - Release Date:
> 19/05/2008 17:04
>
>


-- 
http://lougold.blogspot.com
http://flickr.com/visionshare/sets
http://youtube.com/my_videos
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080520/ae54888f/attachment.html