COUPLING CARBON SEQUESTRATION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Petra Tschakert Department of Biology McGill University Beiji

1. COUPLING CARBON SEQUESTRATION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Petra Tschakert Department of Biology McGill University Beijing, November 15, 2004

2. Multi-use ecosystem carbon projects Large-scale industrial plantations and parks • Maximize C gains + profits • Economically viable • Exclusion of locals • Local employment • Highest social risks • Maximize livelihood gains • Less cost-effective • Inclusion (good stewardship) • Wider range of benefits • Highest social gains Carbon Sinks (COP 9) CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM (CDM)

3. Economic, Environmental, and Social Benefits for Locals Increased CO2 Uptake through Improved Land Use and Management Practices Benefits for Global Climate and Global Society Multi-Use Ecosystem Carbon Projects(UNFCCC, CDM) UN Conventions on Climate Change, Biological Diversity, and Desertification

4. Global Climate Change CARBON SEQUESTRATION SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Mitigation Adaptation Baseline scenarios Best practices Emission reduction credits Targets Leakage Verification Eradicating extreme poverty Eradicating hunger Resilient livelihoods Env. Sustainability Econ. + social development Equity Carbon – Development Disjunction SOCIAL ACTORS Compatible? Mutually exclusive?

5. Global Climate Change CARBON SEQUESTRATION SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Mitigation Adaptation Carbon – Development Disjunction . Technical + structural solutions in a “Predictable World” Equilibrium, but disturbed by degradation back in balance . Social + institutional solutions in a “World of Uncertainty” Dynamic, persistent non-equilibrium adaptive management SOCIAL ACTORS BRIDGE THE GAP Compatible? Mutually exclusive?

6. The New Carbon Economy Emerging trade in C emissions Market-based policy instruments (CDM) • Ambitious claims about SD benefits of market-based policy instruments • BUT: need to investigate SD and equity dimensions of these instruments • Development benefits often more hypothetical than real (Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research) Main criticism: • Discourses of global managerialism(Adger et al., 2001; Brown and Cabrera, 2003): • Difficulties in incorporating local ecological + social realities • Downplaying of issues of justice and equity • Local losers and winners rendered invisible • Focus on global solutions while neglecting heterogeneity at local level

7. Contribution of CDM Projects to Sustainable Development • Equity = key component of SD(Brown and Cobrera, 2003) • Who benefits? • Who is included in decision-making and actions? • Equity in access to C markets and natural resources • (land, property rights) • Equity in institutions and decision-making • (having a voice, inclusion and negotiation of competing views) • Equity in outcome • (impact on social actors; winners and losers)

8. Markets Policies Livelihood strategies and decisions C fluxes and stocks Capitals Stressors Socio-economic Drivers and Incentives Opportunities and Constraints Land use and management Measurements Monitoring Verification Social learning Actor involvement Empowerment

9. Compatibility of CS options …… … with livelihood objectives ADOPTION Best land use/ management practices Best risk management strategies SD CS Priority is to cope with risks and enhance adaptive responses to change (reduce vulnerability) Carbon sequestration options that address this priority Linking Carbon and Sustainable Livelihoods

10. Outmigration Rotational fallow scheme 7 villages Fallow length: 5-30 years 1999: 50% of terroir in fallow The “Greening” of the Sahel Understanding Drivers

11. Risk mapping Vulnerability analysis for sustainability Linking CS options to NAPAs Methodologies • Stakeholder multi-criteria analysis (Brown and Corbera, 2003) • Livelihood analysis (Tschakert et al., in prep.) • Actor-based cost-benefit analysis (Tschakert, 2004) • Cash-flow analysis (STELLA) (Tschakert, 2004)

12. Stakeholder Multi-Criteria Analysis(Brown and Corbera, 2003) • Identification of primary and secondary stakeholders • Interest and role in project, scale of influence in decision-making • General perspectives, priorities, and preferences 2) Qualitative evaluation of SD indicators for project assessment + monitoring (16 indicators) • Carbon: Net CS, Internal rate of return, risk, eligibility under CDM • Ecological: soil erosion, species richness, water availability, soil fertility • Social: income, property rights, access to productive resources, institutional • organization, management and decision-making, participation, health • services, education + capacity building • 3) Project evaluation under criteria/indicators matrix • 4) Ranked alternatives and qualitative data for project planning

13. Livelihood Analysis Livelihood = opportunity set of an individual or a household determined by their asset endowment (land, labor, human capital, livestock) and the chosen allocation of those assets across various activities to generate benefits (Barrett et al., 2001) Analysis of diversification patters = to understand what people consider their most feasible and attractive options for exchanging and allocating assets • Interhousehold heterogeneity in asset endowments + market access • Determines HH choices, LH strategies, and diversification patterns • Determines likelihood of changing these patterns (CS project)

14. Socio-economic Heterogeneity, Panama Tschakert (unpublished)

15. Income Shares per Income Terciles, Panama Tschakert (unpublished)

16. Land Use per Wealth Group, Panama Tschakert (unpublished) Winners and Losers?

17. Best management practices Tschakert. 2004, Agricultural Systems, 81 (3): 227-253 Cost-Benefit Analysis, Old Peanut BasinNet Present Values (NPV), 25 years ($ ha-1), 20% Discount Rate

18. Medium HH ? Tschakert. In Climate change and global food security (in press) Dryland Trade-offsC gains versus economic profitability

19. Cash Flow Analysis at HH Level (STELLA) Tschakert. 2004, Agricultural Systems, 81 (3): 227-253

20. Poor HH Rich HH Inventory of Management Options, Senegal Tschakert. 2004, Agricultural Systems, 81 (3): 227-253

21. Carbon Sequestration Projects Risks: Illegal wood poaching Fires Encroachment Low payments High transaction costs Leakage (forest fires, cattle grazing) Lack of human resources

22. Project Results, Trends, and Lessons • Farmers and communities are not homogeneous groups • They do NOT participate fully, benefit equally and share same interests in C • Better-endowed actors are more likely to participate in and benefit from projects (larger land holdings, high-return income generating activities, less reliance on cropland) • Women play key role in NRM, but excluded from project decision-making • Some opposition (fear that land is sold to foreigners) • Difficulties to understand concept of CS, funding, C market • Need for robust and flexible institutional framework • Only small improvements (income, diversification, other env + dev concerns) • Financial benefits, but only for a small number of families • Consolidation of land tenure • Enhanced social capital through strengthening of local institutions • Need for basket of management choices from which actors choose Brown, Adger, Boyd, Corbera-Elizalde, Shackley, 2004 Tschakert, 2004 and Tschakert and Tappan, 2004 Grieg-Gran, Porras, Wunder, 2005 (in press)

23. Critical Elements for Regional C Budgets • Understand drivers of land use change: • Land use decision are linked to household diversification patterns • Interhousehold heterogeneity in constraints and incentives is reflected in diversification behavior • Need for ground-truthing • Address opportunities and constraints of actors to get involved in carbon sequestration activities: • Evaluation of stakeholder needs • Collective learning + capacity building

24. Relevant literature cited: Adger, W.N., Benjaminsen, T.A., Brown, K. and H. Svarstad. 2001. Advancing a political ecology of global environmental discourses. Development and Change, 32: 681-715. Brown K. and E. Corbera. 2003. Exploring equity and sustainable development in the new carbon economy. Climate Policy, 3S1: S41-S56. Tschakert P. 2004. The costs of soil carbon sequestration: an economic analysis For small-scale farming systems in Senegal. Agricultural Systems, 81 (3): 227-253 Tschakert. More food, less poverty? The potential role of carbon sequestration In smallholder farming systems in Senegal. In Climate change and global food security (in press) Tschakert P. and G. Tappan. 2004. The social context of carbon sequestration: Considerations from a multi-scale environmental history of the Old Peanut Basin Of Senegal. Journal of Arid Environments, 59: 535-564. Brown, K., Adger, N. Boyd, E., Corbera-Elizalde, E. and S. Shackley. 2004. How do CDM projects contribute to sustainable development? Technical Report 16, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.