Carbon Benefits
Carbon-funded conservation promises a more sustainable future, but not all projects are equal. Can conservation-focused carbon projects offer benefits that reach beyond their climate benefits?
Critics compare carbon credits to environmental indulgences, questioning their efficacy beyond appeasing consciences. Yet, if these credits incentivise decarbonisation, their broader impact merits consideration.
Originating from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, carbon credits were envisioned as market-driven solutions for climate change, trading saved or removed CO2 emissions. However, their effectiveness remains debated. The integrity of carbon projects, from reforestation to renewable energy, faces scrutiny for transparency and real environmental impact.
The Guardian newspaper took the industry to task in a probing investigation, calling for a critical reassessment of carbon credit projects, and delving into the ethics and validity of the carbon offset market. While this report shed light on some legitimate concerns, many felt it was not without its own biases and flaws. The newspaper’s coverage has been criticised for disproportionately emphasising the negative aspects of carbon credit trading and focusing on isolated cases of bad practice to create sensationalism around the reporting.
To ensure a more productive conversation and encourage constructive reform, there needs to be fair discussion around a sector that, despite its shortcomings, is playing a critical role in addressing climate change and protecting nature.
Carbon Tanzania exemplifies an ethical approach in the carbon market, focusing on verifiable credits and direct community benefits, challenging the industry’s status quo. Generating verified forest carbon credits in Tanzania, which are sold as offsets on the voluntary market, revenue is paid directly to the communities for development and livelihood needs.
“There is a more ethical end of every market, and the carbon market is no different,” explains Jo Anderson, one of the founding partners of Carbon Tanzania, “There will always be rogues in every industry, but it doesn’t mean the whole industry is bad. Many articles decrying the sector frequently question the difficulty and challenge of accurately estimating the amount of emission reductions that have been achieved by any single project. There is ongoing scientific research on this, and multiple ways to estimate a figure.
“It’s not that these projects don’t work, they do, but different measurement techniques produce different results. It’s very easy to pick it apart because it’s not perfect and work is ongoing to increase the accuracy of calculations. At the most basic level, it’s a financial tool that’s been created in order to attract money into landscapes that otherwise have no value and attract little or no investment. This can significantly increase the protection of wild habitats and do it in a way that allows lots of people living in rural communities to improve their livelihoods.
“If we stop obsessing about the fact that we can’t be certain that it’s 100 or 101 carbon credits because we are using best estimates, the fact remains that it is a demonstrably powerful way to drive economic benefits to local people.”
Wild places like the ecosystems of East Africa, must have a financial value that not only keeps them in pristine condition, but ensures that those living in or around them, are able to gain financially from their existence. It’s important these wilderness areas have a bigger financial value to communities in their natural state, than they do when they’re used for farming or other uses. This is when real impact happens, and it is equally important that the money they generate is distributed and managed by the communities.
Carbon Tanzania emphasises community governance in revenue allocation, ensuring local voices guide the use of funds for culturally relevant solutions. “The whole point here is for the communities to take ownership. Communities face their own challenges, and are far better positioned to understand cultural subtlety, and what the real issues are.” Jo says.
“We’ve seen development programmes introduced with good intentions that run over a three- or five-year period, where good things are implemented. However, a lot of it ends up being neutral in the long term because the priorities and needs didn’t emerge from the communities themselves.”
An example of how community-controlled carbon revenues can solve locally specific problems occurred when money was allocated to fund more girls attending a secondary boarding school, but the actual uptake remained low. It turned out that while the intention was positive, many parents were reluctant to send their daughters into an environment where they would be sharing with male students. After further discussions at a village level, it was agreed to allocate some of the carbon revenue to building a female-only boarding house, solving the issue locally, and directly by using funds from carbon credits.
“As investment partners, we must be supportive, honest, and rigorous in holding people to account. Having the correct mechanisms in place for financial accountability and reporting allows us to build long-term partnerships, which ensures that the protection of Tanzania’s forests can bring about positive and measurable economic, social, and environmental benefits to local communities,” Jo concludes.
Beyond offsetting emissions, well-implemented carbon projects can protect forests and yield tangible benefits for local communities, despite ongoing debates over measurement accuracy.
Image credits: Carbon Tanzania