Terrestrial carbon: emissions, sequestration and storage in tropical ...

Terrestrial carbon: emissions, sequestration and storage in tropical Africa FPAN African Tropical Forests Review of the scientific literature and existing carbon projects

July 2010

ii

FPAN African Tropical Forests Review of the scientific literature and existing carbon projects: July 2010

About Proforest

About this report

Proforest is an independent company working with natural resource management and specialising in practical approaches to sustainability.

This report was commissioned by the Forests Philanthropy Action Network (FPAN), a UK-based funders group to help coordinate and inform philanthropic support for work on global forest and terrestrial carbon issues. This report contributes to FPAN’s overall African Tropical Forest Review (ATFR) research project, which has the goal of providing funders with information and guidance on philanthropic priorities for protecting and enhancing terrestrial carbon across tropical Africa.

Our work ranges from international policy development to the practical implementation of requirements on the ground, with a particular focus on turning policy into practice. Our extensive and up-to-date knowledge of the international context ensures that our work for individual companies and organisations is set within an appropriate framework. At the same time, we are able to bring a wealth of current practical experience to policy development processes and debates. The Proforest team is international and multilingual and has a broad variety of backgrounds, ranging from industry to academia and NGOs. This allows us to work comfortably in many types of organisations, as well as in a range of cultures. We have in-house knowledge of more than 15 languages, including Mandarin, Hindi, French, Spanish and Portuguese.

Acknowledgment Written by Tim Rayden, Pavithra Ramani, Tonya Lander, Johannes Ebeling and Ruth Nussbaum. We are grateful to G. Ken Creighton for reviewing a draft version of the report.

Proforest was set up in 2000. Our expertise covers all aspects of the natural resources sector, from forestry and agricultural commodities to conservation, supply chain management and responsible investment.

For this report your contact person is Pavithra Ramani E: [email protected] Proforest South Suite, Frewin Chambers Frewin Court, Oxford OX1 3HZ United Kingdom T: +44 (0) 1865 243439 F: +44 (0) 1865 244820 E: [email protected] W: www.proforest.net Proforest is registered in England and Wales, company number 3893149

Front cover images: cc Proforest, Stephen Downes, Julien Harneis, Adam Ross, Jane Boles

iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive summary

v

Introduction 1 1.

Terrestrial carbon in Africa

2

1.1

Overview of carbon stocks

2

1.2

Carbon emissions and land-use change

10

2.

Review of the underlying data on terrestrial carbon in Africa

13

2.1

Systematic review of the published literature

13

2.2

Commentary on data availability from the literature

13

2.3

Limitations of the data

15

2.4

Forest and plantation values

15

2.5

Grassland and savannah ecosystems

17

2.6

Agricultural systems

17

2.7 Summary

18

3.

19

Interventions and their effects

3.1 Forests

19

3.2 Pasture

28

3.3 Agriculture

29

4.

32

Lessons from terrestrial carbon related project activity

4.1 Introduction

32

4.2

Africa and carbon markets

32

4.3

Carbon accounting for terrestrial carbon projects

33

4.4

Challenges in producing these data for terrestrial carbon projects

34

4.5

Other common difficulties

38

4.6

Carbon markets for terrestrial carbon

40

4.7 Summary

42

iv


5.

Review of existing carbon projects in Africa

43

5.1 Methodology

43

5.2

Analysis of the data

43

5.3

Land use interventions

45

5.4

The amount of carbon likely to be sequestered/ conserved

46

5.5

The cost of activities

49

5.6

Key environment (non-carbon-related) and social Impacts

51

5.7

The problems of leakage

52

5.8

Stakeholder questionnaire

52

5.9

Project case studies

54

5.10

Summary: factors that affect the success of project implementation

63

6.

Summary and conclusions

66

6.1

The scientific basis of estimates and projections

66

6.2

Evaluation of interventions

67

6.3

Experience derived from carbon market projects

70

6.4

Results of the review of carbon projects in Africa

70

6.5

Summary of feedback from project implementation

71

7.

Annex 1 – Carbon Modelling Research References

72

8. References

79

v


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Proforest report provides an overview of terrestrial carbon stocks, emissions and sequestration potential in tropical Africa.

Review methodology We carried out a systematic review of the published scientific literature on carbon stocks and sequestration in Africa. This review was based on data that was available in September 2009. The methodology was based on the approach developed by the Cochrane Collaboration (www.cochrane.org) for evidence-based medicine. The literature survey reviewed over 2,000 articles concerning carbon sequestration and stocks in Africa. These references were compiled into a literature database that forms part of this report. From this literature database we extracted information on carbon stocks in different ecosystems, rates of carbon sequestration and the carbon related impacts of different land use related interventions. We also carried out a systematic review of existing carbon sequestration projects in Africa, which was based on data that was available in September 2009. This review used information from project design documents and interviews with project developers.

Findings About half of the world’s terrestrial carbon reserves are found in non-Annex 1 countries. Africa accounts for about 10% of the global total. Most terrestrial carbon is stored in forests. The African continent contains 635 million hectares of forests which account for 21.4% of its land area. Tropical Africa contains about 580 M ha of forest which accounts for about 36% of global tropical forests. Permanently moist or humid evergreen forest generally stores more carbon (200-300 t C per ha) than dry or seasonally dry forests (150-250 t C per ha). Grasslands and savannah hold much lower quantities of carbon per hectare (60-70 t C per ha), but are significant due to their large extent. While it is clear that land clearance, and particularly deforestation, leads to a loss of terrestrial carbon on a local scale, there remains considerable debate on the extent to which land-use change contributes to carbon emissions on the regional scale. This is because there is uptake of carbon in existing and re-growing forests that appears to offset

the emissions from land-use change. In Africa, small-scale and shifting agriculture is often cited as a major driver of forest loss. There remains debate about how much of this carbon is released, as some of the carbon is re-sequestered as tree cover reestablishes itself on cropland that is unused.

Carbon data in the scientific literature The primary data reviewed for this report show average values for land uses and interventions in Africa are often built on scarce data points. We found only 14 values from 5 publications for total carbon (soil and biomass) in intact moist tropical forest in tropical Africa. This is far too few on which to base calculations of average values across the continent. For comparison, in the UK, national estimates of woodland cover and condition that would be the basis for calculation of carbon stocks are based on over 15,000 one-hectare plots of woodland across England, Scotland and Wales, and on a vegetation classification scheme that itself is built on over 35,000 vegetation samples. While it is possible to construct average values for different forest types from the African literature database we have compiled, it is essential to be aware of the limitations of the underlying data, which: • Are geographically widespread • Have measured different aspects (e.g. above

ground biomass, not soil carbon) and • Have used different methods for compiling

overall estimates The variation in the data may be more important than the average figures. It shows the extent of variation between ecosystems and between different studies.

Evaluation of interventions Forest protection, restoration and regeneration In absolute carbon terms, the protection of forests, and specifically the avoidance of deforestation, delivers the highest carbon saving. The maintenance of 1ha of moist tropical rainforest (that would otherwise have been converted to an agricultural use) represents a saving of up to 200 t C, (720 t CO2 e).

vi


Guaranteeing an actual carbon saving through forest protection is, however, not straight forward. The effectiveness of protection depends on many variables including population pressure, the availability of environmental goods and services elsewhere in the surrounding landscape, and the opportunity cost for land users to not clear new land

SFM in logging concessions The overall carbon emissions from logging are small on a per hectare scale, and may even be offset by increased rates of sequestration in recovering forest. In tropical Africa, the carbon sequestration benefits of reduced impact logging (RIL) alone are marginal. Note, however, that studies on the carbon benefits of RIL have considered only the difference between conventional legal forest management and best practice involving RIL. They have not considered the magnitude of illegal harvesting that occurs in tropical Africa. Therefore, Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (FLEG) initiatives are important. These will help reduce current levels of illegal over-harvesting.

Community forestry Community forest management (CFM) has been shown to promote forest recovery (increased quality of forest) in some parts of Tanzania. However, it is possible that high population density and high rates of forest loss have helped promote the success of CFM in Tanzania. CFM requires years of investment to build capacity for forest management and there are few examples of working CFM from West and Central Africa.

efficient charcoal production. Both are attractive because interventions are relatively easy to implement at a local scale and have clear economic benefits to the participants due to reduced requirement for resources. However, demonstrating an overall carbon saving is problematic. More efficient fuel use has only an indirect effect on rates of fuel wood extraction from natural forest. Demonstrating the causal relationship between the project activity and the desired result is extremely challenging.

Pasture and grazing land The areas of rough grazing land and savannah grasslands are very significant in Africa, so although carbon sequestration benefits of interventions are limited on a per hectare basis, the cumulative effect could be large. However, project based interventions tend not to be replicable over large geographical areas, as local conditions vary. It is also important to note that interventions to intensify the production of fodder and move away from extensive grazing depend as much on cultural concerns and animal husbandry traditions as they do on technical ones.

Agriculture Improving agriculture can increase the stock of carbon held in the biomass and soil. Data from the literature suggested that carbon stocks in agroforestry systems are around 28% higher than those in agricultural systems.

Plantations Plantations on cleared land deliver fast above ground carbon sequestration in woody biomass. Plantations of exotic tree species have been shown to sequester carbon at average rates above 5 t C per ha per year over the rotation period. Plantations of native species (especially mixtures of native species) may not deliver such fast growth rates, but are likely to provide longer term benefits with respect to soil and biodiversity. However, the success of a plantation project depends heavily on appropriate site and species selection and attentive management of the plantation, particularly at establishment phase and in the early years of growth.

Woodfuel and charcoal interventions The two dominant types of intervention for reducing fuel wood collection are efficient cooking stoves and

Agroforestry systems can increase the rate at which the land sequesters carbon (average rates of 2.51 tC/ha/ yr (n=17), which is approximately double the average values reported for annual agriculture). However, agricultural interventions are often assumed to lead to a decrease in deforestation resulting from agricultural expansion. This may not be justified. Preventing the expansion of shifting cultivation lands involves addressing the cultural traditions that underlie this agricultural practice. Increasing productivity on the farm requires investment of money or effort in the land for a long-term payoff of increased or sustained yields. These techniques are rarely used by shifting cultivators, as investment in the land is specifically avoided.

vii


Lessons from carbon projects Carbon markets have developed stringent reporting requirements that place emphasis on the accurate calculation of baseline emissions, and require accounting for leakage effects. Philanthropic projects should take note of these requirements, whether or not they are planning to obtain carbon market finance, as they are widely believed to be good guarantors of project success.

The most common project focus was on plantations and avoided deforestation (17 projects) followed by forests and sustainable agriculture (16 projects). We carried out detailed interviews with 10 of these projects which were specifically relevant to the areas of interest to FPAN. These interviews brought to light several issues, including: • The importance of clear and uncontested land

rights and property rights in project areas • The importance of detailed planning including

However, methods for this are largely untested in the African context, due to the small number of projects to date and the paucity of primary data on stocks and emissions. Experience also shows that land-use related projects in Africa present specific challenges due to the small scale and diffuse nature of emissions, which makes accounting for baselines and demonstrating impacts complex and costly.

Review of existing projects We reviewed project information relating to 52 land use related carbon sequestration projects in Africa. 59% of the projects were based in East Africa, 29% in West Africa with only 10% and 2% in Central Africa and North Africa respectively. Project budgets ranged from USD 150,000 for a project implementing improved cooking stoves in Mali, to USD 16 million for reforestation in Ghana. Highland forest in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania cc flikr: dimitri 66

feasibility studies • The importance of detailed stakeholder

consultation and local buy-in • The need to include institutional training and

capacity building in project activities • The importance of group organisation of the

relevant land users • The existence of a dispute resolution mechanism • The need for the involvement of local

entrepreneurs and for land users to have an active stake in the financial benefit from the project

viii


Dry forest in Kruger Park, South Africa ( cc Stephen Downes)

1


INTRODUCTION

The Forests Philanthropy Action Network (FPAN) is a UK-based funders group, formed in January 2008 to help coordinate and inform philanthropic support for work on the whole range of global forest and terrestrial carbon issues. FPAN initiated the African Tropical Forest Review (ATFR) research project in September 2008 with the goal of providing funders with information and guidance on philanthropic priorities for protecting and enhancing terrestrial carbon across tropical Africa. Within the ATFR project, there is a strong focus on assessing the effectiveness of specific interventions.

• Carbon: what is and what is not known about

Examples of such interventions include modifying agricultural practice, the establishment of plantations or community forest management systems. But interventions may also include the building of human capacity or the manipulation or markets to alter pressures on natural resources.

The report is set out in five sections:

However, there remains a lack of reliable and credible data on the carbon stocks emissions and sequestration from different land uses within the region. There is also an absence of systematic analysis of the effectiveness of different interventions to promote carbon storage or sequestration. As a result, certain land uses may be promoted on the basis of assumptions which are not borne out by fact.

• Section 3 looks at the likely impact of various

carbon stocks and fluxes from different land uses in tropical Africa and what implications this has for the types of intervention which are likely to be effective for carbon conservation or sequestration; • Effectiveness of interventions: what is and is

not known about the effectiveness of different interventions, both in terms of carbon and in relation to other aspects such as costs, environmental and social co-benefits and successful implementation, and how this relates to market requirements.

• Section 1 provides an overview of terrestrial carbon

in Africa • Section 2 examines the primary data for carbon

stocks and fluxes for Africa and analyses both their extent and the gaps. interventions on terrestrial carbon stocks and fluxes • Section 4 reviews the lessons for philanthropists

from the carbon markets • Section 5 looks at the potential effectiveness of

different interventions based on a review of projects already under way in Africa • Section 6 summarises the main conclusions for

This report has been produced to provide a better basis for decision makers by providing accurate information on: Tea plantation on the forest border, Uganda cc Francesco Veronesi

funders considering investing in a terrestrial carbon project

2


1 TERRESTIAL CARBON IN AFRICA This section provides a macro-level overview of terrestrial carbon stocks in forests and other ecosystems both globally and, in more detail, in Africa. It then examines the impacts of deforestation and land-use change on carbon in African forests and other ecosystems. The information in this section is based on a review of the scientific and policy literature providing overviews and models of ecosystem cover and carbon stocks and fluxes for terrestrial ecosystems. The information presented in this section is based on data reviewed in September 2009.

1.1 Overview of carbon stocks Global terrestrial carbon To quantify global terrestrial carbon involves looking at two major carbon pools, the above-ground carbon

in vegetation biomass and the below ground carbon in soil (see Box 1.1). Several organisations have published summary data, including the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), United Nations Environment Programme/World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP/WCMC) and the Terrestrial Carbon Group (TCG). However, there are differences between the data sets. The differences may arise from different measurements of vegetation or soil. Figure 1.1, below, compares the data sets presented by IPCC and the UNEP-WCMC recent publication The Natural Fix 1. Both of these sources used the same information for soil carbon figures (Ruesch and Gibbs, 2008) but used different classifications of land use or biome types. This results in significantly different estimates of the contributions of different biomes to total terrestrial carbon, though the general patterns remain similar (see Figure 1.1 and Table 1.1 below).

384

428

559

548

Tundra

Figure 1.1

Croplands

The distribution of terrestrial carbon stocks by land cover type/ biomes based on total stored carbon including vegetation and soil (Gt C). Data from (a) IPCC and (b) UNEPWCMC

Wetlands

159

Deserts and semi deserts

155

Temp grassland and shrubland 127 131

330

Trop savannah and grassland

178 315

Temperate forest

240 304

199

184

Tropical forest

285

Boreal forest (a) IPCC

(b) UNEP-WCMC

Table 1.1

Data from IPCC2 and WCMC3 on terrestrial carbon stocks (Gt carbon) IPCC Figures Land cover type Tundra

Area (M ha)

Plants

Soil

Total

Total 155.4

950

6

121

127

Cropland

1600

3

128

131

Temperate forest

1040

59

100

159

314.9

Deserts and semi deserts

4550

8

191

199

178

350

15

225

240

Wetlands Temp grassland and shrubland

1250

9

295

304

183.7


2250

66

264

330

285.3

Tropical forest

1760

212

216

428

547.8

Boreal forest

1370

88

471

559

384.2

15120

466

2011

2477

2049.3

Total 1

WCMC Figures

Trumper K, Bertzky M, Dickson B, van der Heijden G, Jenkins M and Manning P WCMC (2009) The Natural Fix: the role of ecosystems in climate mitigation. 4 UNEP Cambridge, UK. 2 http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/land_use/index.php?idp=3. 3 WCMC: Trumper et al 2009. CDIAC cdiac.ornl.gov.

3


Looking at carbon stock per unit area using the IPCC figures, it is possible to see the relative carbon ‘densities’ of the different forest types, (see Figure 1.2). Interestingly, tropical forests hold about as much terrestrial carbon in total as temperate grasslands and shrublands, and much less than boreal forests or wetlands. This is primarily due to the much lower volumes of soil carbon in tropical forest ecosystems (see Figure 1.2 below). It is also important to note that tropical savannahs and grassland, although they contain much less carbon per hectare than tropical forests, do still contain a significant amount.

Considering the role of Africa with regard to terrestrial carbon stocks, data from Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre4 and the Terrestrial Carbon Group5 suggest that about half of the world’s terrestrial carbon is stored in non-Annex 1 countries6 and that Africa accounts for about a quarter of this total and about 10% of the global total (see Table 1.2).

Figure 1.2

Vegetation

Terrestrial carbon storage tonnes of carbon per ha: Global average figures (Source: IPCC 2001)

Soil

Wetlands

Boreal forest

Temp grassland and shrubland

Tropical forest

Temperate forest


Tundra

Cropland

Deserts and semi-deserts

Table 1.2

IPCC data on global terrestrial carbon stocks (Gt C) Comparison of global terrestrial carbon stocks

Total

Forest

Global terrestrial carbon stocks

2477

1146

Non-Annex1 countries

1109

538

Africa

2807

171

5 Terrestrial Carbon Group www.terrestrialcarbon.org. 6 Annex 1 countries are all the developed countries which agreed to legally binding targets on GHG emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. Non-Annex 1 countries are the less developed countries which do not yet have binding targets. 7 Data from Williams et al (2007) African and the Global Carbon cycle. Carbon balance and management 2: 3.

4


Soil Carbon

Box 1.1

Organic carbon is generally found though distributed throughout the soil profile, and though the quantity diminishes with depth, nevertheless the amount of soil carbon reported is strongly linked to the depth of sampling. In general, most of the carbon which is affected by any land-use change is likely to be found in the top 1m and so this is a reasonable depth for calculations. However, where soil data have been collected to examine soil fertility it is common to measure only to 30 or 40 cm as most of the available soil nutrients in tropical forests tend to be found at this depth, while other studies look at carbon to much greater depths. If total soil carbon is calculated only for the top 30-40 cm this will give a very different result from a calculation of quantities of carbon to a depth of 1 m (and further differences appear if depths greater than this are used). Therefore, the depth of soil used when calculating soil carbon is crucial. The most commonly referenced macrolevel source of information for soil carbon content is Ruesch and Gibbs (2008). This study estimated carbon stocks in soil to a depth of 1m. A further critical factor to consider is the proportion of soil carbon that is likely to be released under a given land use scenario (the labile soil carbon component). Terrestrial Carbon Group used the Ruesch and Gibbs (2008) data and assumed the labile fraction of these was 25% based on information in the literature.

Forests and forest cover in Africa The African continent contains 635 million hectares of forests which account for 21.4% of its land area. Tropical Africa8 contains about 580 M ha of the total forest in Africa and accounts for about 36% of global tropical forests (see Table 1.3). The total forest area is distributed among many countries with the Democratic

Republic of the Congo (DRC) having by far the largest area (see Figure 1.3). However, this forest is divided into different types, with tropical Africa containing large areas of dry forest and scrub, as well as moist forest. WCMC mapped forest cover for Africa in 1997. The extent of forest cover by different forest type is shown in Figure 1.3 and the distribution of each type can be seen in Figure 1.5. Table 1.3

Forest cover (M ha) Total global forest cover (FAO)

3952

Total tropical forest cover (FAO)

1760

Total African forest cover (CDIAC)

635 Figure 1.3 Forest area by country for tropical Africa. (Million ha) Source: FAO 2009

8 This study considered forest cover and land use in Tropical Africa, which is defined using the same system as the Woods Hole Research Centre: 41 countries having a total area of 22.7illion km2. The countries included are Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zaire, Zambia and Zimbabwe. As defined here Tropical Africa does not include countries in Mediterranean and Southern Africa (i.e., Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Western Sahara, South Africa, Lesotho, and Swaziland).


Figure 1.4 Vegetation cover in Africa in 2000 (Global Vegetation Cover map)

Figure 1.5 African forest cover extent by forest type (million ha) Source: Iremonger et al (1997)9 WCMC.

Iremonger, S., C. Ravilious and T. Quinton (1997.). A statistical analysis of global forest conservation. In: Iremonger, S., C. Ravilious and T. Quinton (Eds.) A global overview of forest conservation. Including: GIS files of forests and protected areas, version 2. CD-ROM. CIFOR and WCMC, Cambridge, U.K. 9

5

6


Within tropical Africa, forest ecosystems can hold 250-300 tonnes of carbon per ha in biomass and soil combined. However, the amount of carbon stored varies according to the type of forest. Permanently moist or humid evergreen forest generally stores more carbon than dry or seasonally dry forest. Furthermore, grasslands and savannah also store carbon. Thus the terrestrial carbon stock is strongly dependent on the biome type. As an example, DRC has the largest area of ‘forest’ at 133 M ha. However, as shown in Figure 1.5, only just over half of the forests of DRC are in the category of lowland moist forests. The remaining area is made up of dry forest and treed savannah.

3.5

The classification of land uses is a major potential source of error when trying to calculate average values from studies in different ecological contexts. However, the major source of variation in quoted average figures is the extent to which soil carbon is considered. Houghton and Hackler (2006) is one of the key references for this report, and many other land-use change studies. They modelled carbon flux from different forest types following conversion to agriculture. Their average values for different intact (pre-disturbance) forest types are shown in Figure 1.7 below.

Dense moist forest Degraded forest

15.7

Dry forest Agriculture and savannah crop mosiac 41.3

Grassland

Figure 1.6 Percentage breakdown of land cover for DRC. Data from Vavcutsem et al (2009)10

Other

14.8

12.1 12.6

Original biomass

350

Original soil

300

Rainforest

250

200

Figure 1.7 Average total ecosystem carbon for different forest types in Africa. Source Houghton and Hackler (2006)

Moist forest

150

100 50

Dry forest

Shrubland

0 Vavcutsem C, Pekel J, Evrard C, Malaisse F, and Defourny P (2009) Mapping and characterizing the vegetation types of the Democratic Republic of Congo using SPOT VEGETATION time series Int J of Appl Earth Obs and Geoinformation 11 62–76. 10

7


These average figures are based on estimates to 1m soil depth. There remains uncertainty as to how much of the soil carbon could be considered ‘labile’ (see Box 1.1). It is important to ensure consistency in the way soil carbon values are compared. There is a difference between studies attempting to quantify total soil carbon, and those seeking to determine how much soil carbon is emitted when land-use changes. The latter is the more relevant measure when considering land use interventions, but, as we discuss in section 2, there are very few studies that have quantified this in African ecosystems.

Forest loss and deforestation in Africa Forests are a major component of terrestrial carbon stocks in tropical Africa. Much of the continent is covered by dry and semi-arid scrubland, and desert which stores far less carbon overall despite the large areas of coverage. Furthermore, tropical forests and, more specifically, carbon emissions as a result of deforestation and forest degradation are now central to the ongoing discussions on addressing climate change. However, in practice estimates of carbon emissions from forests are seldom the result of direct measurement. Rather they are calculated by looking at rates of forest degradation and loss and then multiplying this by the estimated amount of carbon per area of forest. Therefore, information on forest degradation and loss is crucial to understanding carbon. Tree Nursery, Kenya cc Excellent Development

There are parts of West and East Africa where the evidence of forest loss is clear. In western Africa, such as in western and eastern regions of Nigeria and the Accra plains in Ghana, deforestation has led to increases in derived savannas because of a decline in soil fertility as a consequence of intensive cultivation, annual bush burning and overgrazing (Vagen et al 2005). However, there are also studies that suggest the estimates of recent deforestation in West Africa and degradation of woodlands are highly exaggerated, and to some extent built on myths and misconceptions about historical land use and land-use change (Vagen et al. 2005). For example, there is now evidence from the Congo basin that very large areas of what was considered ‘pristine’ tropical rainforest, was cultivated savannah land within the last 2000 years (Lee White pers. comm. and Ref11). In fact we are only just beginning to uncover the palaeobotanical history of Africa’s forest lands, and it is highly likely that the area and distribution of forest lands has shifted considerably over this period. In more recent years (since the publishing of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Forest Resource Assessment12 (FRA) in 2001), there has been a re-evaluation of rates of deforestation, leading to a general reduction of the suggested rates of forest loss. In 2001, FAO estimated annual rates of change in forest area (deforestation minus afforestation) for humid, sub-humid and semi-arid sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) at 5.2 M ha per year (FAO, 2001). The more recent FAO figures for the period 2000-2005 put the annual extent of forest loss at 3.8 M ha per year (FAO 2009). However, this could be compared to 0.376 Mha per year reported by DeFries et al (2002). Houghton and Hackler (2006) compared potential (predisturbance) forest areas with the areas present in 1850 and 2000. They suggested that 60% of Africa’s forests were lost before 1850 and an additional 10% lost in the last 150 years.

White, Lee J. T. “The African Rain Forest: Climate and Vegetation.” in eds. W. Weber, L. White, A. Vedder, and L. Naughton-Treves, African Rain Forest Ecology and Conservation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001. 12 The FRA is a regular review from FAO that collects global, country level data on forest cover and rates of forest loss. FAO has been monitoring the world’s forests at 5 to 10 year intervals since 1946 11

8


3500 3000

S and C America

Figure 1.8

Tropical Africa

Forest cover change (Million ha) for the three tropical forest regions between 1850 and 1990. (http://cdiac. ornl.gov/epubs/ ndp/ndp050/ ndp050appA. html)

SE Asia

2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

1850

1990

Nevertheless, according to Houghton and Hackler, the last 150 years have seen the forest area in tropical Africa reduced from around 800 M ha to less than 650 M ha. This suggests an average deforestation rate of 1M ha per year, which puts the estimate somewhere in the middle of the range of estimates in the scientific literature. The FAO revised its estimates of deforestation down after 2000, in the light of increasingly reliable estimates of forest cover derived in part from satellite imagery, and an increased ability to ground-check the national self declaration data submitted by country

governments. Nevertheless, of the four deforestation rates listed in table 1.5, only the DRC figures were significantly reduced. Rates of forest loss in both Cameroon and Tanzania were actually revised upwards. It should not be overlooked that remote sensing and the analysis of satellite imaging do not provide simple answers. Hannerz and Lotsch (2006)13 compared estimates of land cover derived from satellite image analysis with statistics from the FAO database. They found considerable variation in the results from the remote sensing studies, and between these and the FAO data.

Table 1.4

FAO Data on forest loss from selected tropical Africa countries (FAO 2009) Country

% of land area

Area loss (2000-2005) (000 ha)

133,610

58.9

319

Cameroon

21,245

45.6

220

Tanzania

35,257

39.9

412

5,517

24.2

115

DRC

Ghana

13

Forest area 2005 (000 ha)

Hannerz F & Lotsch A, 2006. Assessment of land use and cropland inventories for Africa. CEEPA Discussion Paper No. 22.

9


Table 1.5

Estimated deforestation rates in 1990-2000 and 2000-2005 (FAO 2009) Country

% area loss (1990-2000)

% area loss (2000-2005)

DRC

0.4

0.2

Cameroon

0.9

1

Tanzania

1

1.1

Ghana

2

2

Figure 1.9 Comparison of estimates of agricultural land area in four different countries derived from five different remote sensing approaches, and compared with FAO figures. (Source Hannerz and Lotsch 2006)

To provide an example of the implications of changes in the rate of deforestation, Figure 1.10 shows the projected loss of forest area under four different percentage deforestation scenarios. Under the worst case scenario described here, (deforestation at 0.4% area per year) forest cover in DRC would decline from 133M ha to 111M ha by 2050. There remains much debate about the drivers of forest loss, and the results of deforestation with respect to terrestrial carbon. What is clear is that the measurement of forest clearance depends strongly on the definition of the subsequent land use. Even within FAO, there are different approaches taken to measure this. FAO’s Forest Resource Assessment considers forest conversion to shifting agriculture to be deforestation, while the FAOSTAT database does not.

In 1993 FAO estimated only 16% of the change in forest area between 1980 and 1990 was accounted for by the establishment of permanent crop lands (FAO 1993). The remainder was the conversion of forest to short and long fallow (shifting) agriculture. This has major implications for the calculation of carbon emissions, as a major portion of emissions from conversion to shifting agricultural lands will be re-sequestered as tree cover re-establishes itself on cropland that has passed out of use. However, if land use intensifies, tree cover may not be re-established, and the loss of carbon becomes permanent. The problem is that this change may take place over many years and is extremely difficult to measure at national or regional scales.

10


Figure 1.10 Projected deforestation in DRC until 2050 under different percentage rates of annual forest loss. Projections based on forest cover figures in 2005 (FAO 2009)

1.2 Carbon emissions and land-use change The rate of change of atmospheric CO2 reflects the balance between anthropogenic carbon emissions and the dynamics of a number of terrestrial and ocean processes that remove or emit CO2. A generally cited figure is that global emissions from land-use change are around 1.5 Gt C per year14. This is the basis for the suggestion that land-use change (and predominantly deforestation) contributes around 20% of global C emissions (1.5 of a total of 8 Gt C per year).

However, these figures are self reported and generally considered to be fairly inaccurate, to some extent at least illustrating the difficulty of obtaining reliable continent-wide data on land use related emissions in this way.

However, the extent to which land-use change plays a role in carbon emissions is hotly debated, particularly in Africa. Africa contributes a disproportionately small fraction of the total global carbon emissions. For example, during the 1990s fossil fuel emissions from Africa were only 3% of global fossil fuel related emissions (Williams et al 2007). Furthermore, UNFCCC data15 suggest that land-use change in tropical Africa does not add significantly to these emissions, indicating that overall there are no net emissions from land-use change in tropical Africa. The UNFCCC figures for selected tropical African countries are shown in Figure 1.11.

14 15

See for example CDIAC: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/landuse/houghton/houghton.html. UNFCCC FCCC/SBI/2005/18/Add.2 25th October 2005

Moist tropical forest, Gabon cc Alex Rouvin


11

Figure 1.11 Country level emissions and sequestration data for tropical Africa, showing wide variation in self-reported land-use changerelated emissions (Source: UNFCCC emissions data for tropical African countries (FCCC/ SBI/2005/18/ Add.2)) million tonnes of CO2 equivalent.

There are five key papers in the scientific literature which have tried to make better estimates of the actual situation: • DeFries et al 200216 • Houghton and Hackler 200617 • Williams et al 200718 • Canadell et al 200719, and Canadell et al 200920

The arguments are briefly summarised below: DeFries et al studied rates of deforestation using satellite imagery. Their results indicated that previous FAO/FRA estimations of deforestation had been high. They estimated that Africa was a net emitter of approximately 0.1 Gt C per year from land- use change. This study compliments work by Achard et al (2004)21 that revised down earlier estimates of emissions from deforestation in the tropics.

Houghton and Hackler (2006) considered land-use change in Africa, and modelled the impacts of different types of land-use change and compared this with FAO and FRA reported data. By comparing various estimates of change, they arrived at an annual average net emission of 0.287 Gt C per year, 90% of which was attributable to deforestation. Williams et al (2007) notes that ‘Deforestation is the largest term in current assessments of tropical land use emissions, with Africa contributing 25% to 35% of total tropical land clearing from deforestation, and as much as 0.37 Gt C per year, in the last decades’. However, they explain that these emissions do not show up in atmospheric measurements of carbon dioxide made by satellite. They hypothesise that emissions from landuse change and biomass burning (which they estimate to be around 0.4 Gt per year) must be compensated by biotic uptake and sequestration.

DeFries R, Houghton R, Hansen M, Field C Skole D, and Townshend J (2002) Carbon emissions from tropical deforestation and regrowth based on satellite observations from the 1980s and 1990s. PNAS 99 (22) 14256-14261 17 Houghton R and Hackler J (2006) Emissions of Carbon from land-use change in Sub-Saharan Africa. J of Geophysical Research 111 G02003 18 Williams C, Hanan N, Neff J, Scholes R, Berry J, Denning AS, and Baker D (2007) African and the global carbon cycle. Carbon balance and management 2 (3) 19 Canadell J, Le Quere C, Raupach M, Field C, Buitenhuis E, Ciais P, Conway T, Gillett N, Houghton R and Marland G (2007) Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth from economic activity, carbon intensity and efficiency of natural sinks. PNAS 20 (104) 18866-18870 20 Canadell J, Raupach M and Houghton R, (2009) Anthropogenic CO2 emissions in Africa. Biogeosciences 6 463-468 21 Achard F, Hugh D, Mayaux P, Stibig H, and Belward A (2004) Improved estimates of net carbon emissions from land cover change in the tropics Global biogeochemical cycles 18 GB2008 16

12


Finally, Canadell et al (2007 and 2009) suggest that the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations must be a result of, first, increased fossil fuel emissions and, second, a decrease in the efficiency of sequestration in sinks. They suggest that global emissions from land-use change averaged 1.6 Gt C per year during the 1990s, and Africa’s contribution to this was 0.24 Gt C per year (about 15% of the total). This resulted from work modelling land-use change emissions based on data sets of overall forest loss. This avoids variation from country self reporting, but is also prone to complexities and uncertainty. This is due to the difficulties in quantification of deforestation and re-growth rates, initial biomass and the fate of the carbon. It is also due to the difficulties in observing an actual emissions signal in the atmosphere. Canadell et al used figures from the Energy Information Administration for fossil fuel emissions, and calculated likely emissions from land-use change using a bookkeeping model. They suggested that Africa emitted around 0.5 Gt C per year, of which half was emissions from land-use change. Not surprisingly the numbers for individual country emissions are substantially different. Strikingly, in Canadell et al (2009), DRC is reported to be a net emitter of around 0.040 Gt C per year. Thus, Houghton and co-workers have used a bookkeeping model to account for carbon emissions, based on data for deforestation and land-use change. They suggest a significant net emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. On the other hand, Williams et al do not observe this carbon dioxide signal in the

atmosphere. Although they acknowledge that there are large uncertainties in the measurements, they conclude that the carbon emitted from land-use change must be sequestered in re-growing vegetation, and that Africa is, to all intents and purposes, carbon neutral. Regarding the uncertainty over a detectable emissions signal from land-use change, in 2001, Zhang and Justice22 wrote that, based on their estimates of land-use change, it appeared that global tropical deforestation was contributing between 1.6 and 2.4 Gt C per year. Therefore deforestation must be contributing very substantially to global emissions “unless the assumption about the steady state condition of the carbon budget of mature tropical forests is greatly challenged”. Recently Lewis et al (2009) have suggested that mature tropical forests are indeed sequestering carbon at significant rates, and that the steady state assumption is wrong. They estimated that old growth African tropical forests were sequestering approximately 0.34 Gt C per year, which is clearly sufficient to sequester the emissions from land-use change calculated by Houghton et al. In conclusion, there remains considerable uncertainty at a macro-level about what is happening to carbon in Africa’s forests. While this has significant implications for policy at a national and regional level, it is less relevant at a sub-national or project level since it is also clear that there are certain types of land-use change which unquestionably have an impact on terrestrial carbon. Matrix of agricultural lands converted from previously forested areas, Burundi cc Jane Boles

22

Zhang Q and Justice C, (2001) Carbon emissions and sequestration potential of central African ecosystems Ambio 30 (6) 351-355

13


2 REVIEW OF THE UNDERLYING DATA ON TERRESTRIAL CARBON IN AFRICA This section considers the availability of primary data on carbon stocks that can be used to support land use based models of carbon emissions or sequestration.

2.1 Systematic review of the published literature The data on stocks and sequestration presented in this report are the result of a systematic review of the published literature on carbon stocks and sequestration in Africa. The information presented in this section is based on data reviewed in September 2009. The methodology was based on the approach developed by the Cochrane Collaboration (www.cochrane.org) for evidence-based medicine. The literature databases used were: • Web of Knowledge • Scopus • CABI Forest Science

Search terms used were: carbon, sequestration, land use/land-use, Africa, quantif*, tropical. These were used independently and in all combinations. For example, ’carbon AND sequestration AND Africa’ Additional searches were specifically carried out for literature relating to woodfuel, extractive industries, infrastructure, reduced impact logging. • The total number of references assessed was 8265 • The total number of references included in the final

library was 2283 Where studies included quantitative data on stocks sequestration or emissions, these data points were compiled into an Excel database. The data points used were from individual quantitative measurements (e.g. of soil carbon in a particular forest type). The carbon stock measurements drawn from the literature did not re-sample average figures used in overview reports, or models of carbon flows or fluxes (such as the work by Canadell et al (2009) or the Terrestrial Carbon Group). Nevertheless, Annex 1 of

this report contains the reference list of articles citing relevant carbon modelling research work. In the database the data points were recorded along with all relevant land use, location and measurement details, (e.g. country, land use type, carbon pools measured and authorship and reference details). Where studies recorded rates of carbon accumulation, rather than just stock values, these were recorded separately along with the time period over which the accumulation was measured. The data points were then amalgamated into summary sheets and classified by land use (e.g. plantation forest, natural forest), and by carbon pool (carbon in soil, carbon in biomass, total carbon) and divided according to three global regions: • Temperate • Tropical Africa • Tropical not Africa

These summary tables were then used to calculate averages, maximum and minimum values and standard errors for each land use type in each global region. Discussion points and more information relating to land use interventions were drawn out from the literature. This information was used to compile an overview of the state of scientific published knowledge on the effects and implications of different land use interventions in Africa. A summary of the relevant points is contained in Section 3.

2.2 Commentary on data availability from the literature We have used a categorisation of land use by which to evaluate the carbon stocks and content figures presented in the literature. The land use categorisation is shown in Table 2.1. Using these land use categorisations we can comment on the number of data points presented against each one for studies in tropical Africa.

14


Carbon stocks The table below shows the total number of data points drawn from the literature for the measurement of carbon stocks in the different carbon pools. Number of data points recovered from the literature for carbon measurements in different land use categories Code

Major classification

No of data points Soil carbon

Biomass carbon

Total carbon

1

Dry intact forest

5

3

5

2

Dry degraded forest

0

0

2

3

Moist intact forest

14

15

14

4

Moist degraded forest

0

0

1

5

Dry plantation forest

9

0

4

6

Wet plantation forest

7

Annual agriculture

8

Perennial agriculture

9

Mixed systems

10

Improved agriculture

11

Agriculture on cleared forest

12 13 14

Dry lands, grassland, savannah & shrub land

2

8

0

36

0

1

1

1

(1)

10

2

2

26

0

0

0

0

0

Pasture

3

0

0

Silvo-pasture

0

0

0

29

7

2

135

36

32

Totals

Note: these numbers do not include studies that measured only biomass without converting the figures to carbon values. There were a further 31 data points for biomass content measurements, 18 of which were from forest or plantation ecosystems.

It is worth noting that the literature review uncovered no studies that had measured carbon stocks specifically in peatlands or wetlands in Africa, biomass or biofuel plantations in Africa, or mining and infrastructure projects in Africa.

Using the results in Table 2.1 (above) it is possible to see that most studies have focused on the measurement of soil carbon. However, the data have been assigned to different land use classes and some categorisations may be inappropriate. For example, the table shows that only one study reported carbon stock data from perennial agricultural crops in tropical Africa. Many of the studies reviewed may have included perennial crops under mixed/agroforestry systems. Some perennial crop systems have may also been classified as plantations.

Accumulation and sequestration data The data base contains somewhat more limited data on carbon sequestration. Table 2.2 gives an overview of the data coverage. Total number of data points obtained for sequestration rates was 96, of which only 5 are from natural forest. These can be further broken down into studies measuring biomass or measuring carbon, and studies measuring accumulation in different carbon pools.

Table 2.1

15


Table 2.2

Number of studies measuring carbon sequestration rates for different land uses in tropical Africa Land use and code Natural forests (3,4)

No. of data points 5

Plantations (5,6)

33

Annual agriculture (7)

11

Mixed systems (9)

17

Improved agriculture (10)

19

Pasture (12) Grassland and savannah (14) Totals

2.3 Limitations of the data Overall number of studies While there is a large body of scientific literature reporting measurements of carbon, it is important to distinguish clearly between carbon content measurements and biomass measurements, and between measurements of content and measurements of the rate of carbon accumulation. The database includes studies of all types, but the overall number of studies in any one category may be small.

Few studies using inconsistent methods Average values need to be calculated from measurements that were derived in similar ways. However, the coverage of data is patchy with respect to studies using similar methods to compare values. This can be shown by filtering the database to show values for certain aspects. For example there were 578 individual data points for carbon values in tropical Africa. Of these, 176 were specific to forests, 63 of which included measurements of soil carbon. In all, 21 of these data points were measurements of soil carbon to 30cm depth (the others including measurements up to 1m depth or without specifying soil depth measured). All but two of these measurements were taken from plantations, so there were only two data points for soil carbon to 30cm depth in tropical African natural forest ecosystems.

2 9 96

For measurements of total ecosystem carbon for forests in tropical Africa there were 18 data points of which 10 were for undisturbed natural forest.

Uncertainties in classification We classified data by different land use categories (as shown in Table 2.1) in order to standardise comparisons. However, the initial classification of the data into land use categories introduces some error. We used terms such as ‘dry forest’, ‘wet forest’, ‘agriculture’ or ‘pasture’ but this inevitably involves some interpretation of the land use or land cover type where the original measurements were taken.

2.4 Forest and plantation values Figure 2.3 shows figures for total ecosystem carbon, i.e. numbers taken from those studies that measured both biomass carbon and soil carbon; with soil measurements to a depth of 30cm. Figures for temperate forest ecosystems and plantations are included here for comparison. The number of studies that is the basis for these average figures is shown in Table 2.3. No data are shown here for those land uses for which no total ecosystem carbon measurements were found in the literature survey.

16


Table 2.3

Mean values (with error) for total carbon stocks of different forest types in tropical Africa (t C per ha). Temperate forest values are included for comparison Forest type

Mean

Std Dev

Std Err

Trop moist intact forest

240

87.8

20.70

Trop moist degraded forest

113

7.1

7.09

Trop dry intact forest

251

43.2

17.65

Trop dry plantation forest

158

24.1

12.03

Temp moist intact forest

147

80.96

21.64

Temp moist degraded forest

87

16.77

9.68

Temp dry plantation forest

120

31.98

12.09

The number of data points on which these values are based is shown in Figure 2.1 (below). There is a chronic lack of primary data on carbon stocks in degraded forest ecosystems. Only one study for tropical Africa is cited in the literature database. The mean values for dry forest appear on the high side of what would be expected. This appears to be

a consequence of bias induced by the small number of studies. When the mean values are compared with the maximum values recorded for the different forest types, one can see the potential range of carbon values. Maximum values recorded for moist forest ecosystems are higher than those recorded for dry forests, as would be expected.

Figure 2.1 The number of data points recovered from the scientific literature for total ecosystem carbon measurements in each of the forest land use classifications

Comparison of average and maximum total ecosystem carbon values drawn from the literature review (t C per ha) Forest type

Mean value

Max value

Trop moist intact

240

680

Trop moist degraded

113

113

Trop dry intact

251

440

Trop dry plantation

158

280

Table 2.4

17


Figure 2.2 Mean and maximum total ecosystem carbon values for different tropical African forest types (t C per ha) based on samples recovered from the literature database

2.5 Grassland and savannah ecosystems

2.6 Agricultural systems

This category includes improved and ‘natural’ grassland, intensive and extensive grazing lands (i.e. both pastures and rough grazing land). Levels of aboveground biomass are obviously much lower than for forest ecosystems. Pasture lands are likely to have only 3-5 tonnes per ha of carbon stored in above-ground biomass, with perhaps the same amount in roots.

In this section agricultural systems include annual and perennial crops, and mixed (agroforestry) systems. No data points were recovered for perennial agriculture systems in Africa. However, some of these systems may have been classified in the literature as agroforestry systems or plantation crops. Table 2.5 below shows a comparison of total ecosystem carbon values for annual and agroforestry systems in Africa. An average value for perennial crop systems (not Africa) is included for comparison.

Clearly therefore, the amount of soil carbon is the determining factor in the role of grasslands in terrestrial carbon fluxes. Again, the depth of measurement of soil can have a very significant impact on the apparent amount of carbon stored in these systems. For the data used here, we have included only studies that measured soil carbon to a depth of 30cm. The average figure was 64 +/- 6.3 t C per ha. (n=10) (See Table 2.5 below).

Table 2.5

Mean values (with error) for total carbon stocks of different agricultural land uses in tropical Africa (t C per ha) Land use

Mean

Std Dev

Std Err

Grassland/savannah

64

19.9

6.29

Annual agriculture

69

15.5

6.31

Perennial agriculture (not Africa)

76

11.0

6.50

Agroforestry/Mixed systems

95

29.4

8.88

18


The figure given here for agriculture is skewed upwards due to one unusually high figure reported for cassava cultivation in Cameroon (230 t C per ha). Such a high value is likely to be the result of the inclusion of large amounts of residual forest biomass (e.g. following slash and burn). Note that without this value the average figure is 36.7 t C per ha. The number of data points taken from the literature is shown in Figure 2.3 (below). These figures are based on data from studies that measured total ecosystem carbon only (as for forestry and plantation land uses reported above).

2.7 Summary The primary data reviewed for this report show average values for land uses and interventions in Africa are often built on scarce data points. 14 data points for intact moist tropical forest in tropical Africa is less than one study for every two countries. This is far too few on which to base calculations of average values across the continent. To put this in context, the UK Forestry Commission carries out a regular assessment of woodlands in the UK to collect size, distribution, composition and condition of Britain’s woodlands. This assessment is

used as the basis for national estimates of woodland cover and condition. The survey is based on over 15,000 one-hectare plots of woodland across England, Scotland and Wales, and on a vegetation classification scheme that itself is built on over 35,000 vegetation samples. Reviews of medical treatments carried out by the Cochrane Collaboration have made use of an average of 4954 data points per specific medical complaint23 . While it is possible to construct average values for different forest types from the African literature database we have compiled, it is essential to be aware of the limitations of the underlying data. While many studies have been carried out, these studies: • Are geographically widespread • Have measured different aspects (e.g. aboveground

biomass, not soil carbon) and • Have used different methods for compiling overall

estimates In fact, the variation in the data may be more important than the average figures. It shows the extent of variation between ecosystems and between different studies.

Figure 2.3 The number of data points recovered from the scientific literature for total ecosystem carbon measurements (t C per ha) in each of the agricultural land use categories for which data were available.

23

Data analysis based on 76 new reviews from The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2009

19


3 INTERVENTIONS AND THEIR EFFECTS This section discusses the main types of interventions possible in each major land use category and describes the consequences of these for the carbon stocks or rated of accumulation. The commentary is derived from the literature survey. Under the general heading, ‘forests’, we discuss the following aspects: • Measures to reduce the intensity of timber

harvesting (or reduce damage and wasted timber) through interventions or approaches such as reduced impact logging • Community forestry and joint (participatory) forest

management • The protection of forest, and the recovery and re-

growth of secondary forests • The establishment of timber plantations • The collection of fuel wood and its impact on forest

carbon Under the general heading, ‘pasture’, we discuss the possible interventions in grassland ecosystems and land-uses involving grazing land. Under the general heading, ‘agriculture’, we discuss measures to promote carbon storage in soil and biomass by changing cultivation practices. This includes reducing soil disturbance and the application of mineral fertilizers. It also includes the use of tree crops in an agricultural setting. Industrial timber logging on a forest plantation, Ghana cc Proforest

3.1 Forests Industrial logging State of knowledge In terms of area coverage, industrial logging concessions probably cover more land than other land uses in the moist forest biome of tropical Africa. While it is true that much of this area is fallow in any given year, it suggests that modifications to the way industrial logging is carried out could have major implications for carbon emissions reductions. The carbon-related impacts of logging are principally dependent on three factors: • Respect for legally prescribed cutting limits • The amount of forest set aside in conservation areas • The implementation of reduced impact logging

techniques Much of the literature on commercial logging focuses on the implementation of reduced impact logging (RIL) techniques. However, the opportunities for carbon savings from RIL appear more limited in Africa than they do in South East Asia and Brazil. In Africa, the difference in carbon stocks and sequestration potential between the ‘business as usual approach’ and the ‘best practice approach’ is smaller in Central Africa than in South-East Asia or South America. In studies of dipterocarp forest in the Philippines, unlogged forests had mean C stocks of 258 tonnes of C per hectare, of which 34% was in soil organic carbon (SOC). After logging using conventional silviculture, above-ground C stocks declined by about 50% (100 tonnes C ha-1) (Lasco et al. 2006). The figures for carbon savings from improved forest management in South East Asian forests such as these are particularly striking. Putz et al (2008, and earlier studies24) have shown that the loss of above-ground biomass can be reduced through the practice of reduced impact logging (RIL). Overall, where RIL was practised, the loss C was reduced by about 30 tonnes per ha. In the best cases there is a net carbon ‘saving’ of about 30% of the carbon that would have been emitted under conventional logging.

For example Palace M, Keller M, Asner G, Natalino J, Silva M and Passos C (2007) Necromass in undisturbed and logged forests in the Brazilian Amazon. Forest Ecology and Management 238 309–318 24

20


Figure 3.1 A diagrammatic representation of the carbon balance of conventional logging (CL) and reduced impact logging (RIL). Under RIL, less carbon is lost from the forest during logging and carbon stocks recover more quickly towards prelogging levels.

South-East Asian forests have high densities of commercial species, and conventional logging in these forests is particularly destructive. In South East Asia, better planning of harvesting operations and more careful felling can dramatically reduce damage to the residual stand, maintaining more above ground biomass but also speeding the recovery and re-growth of the forest. However, in central African forests, the density of valuable timber species is much lower, and the levels of damage from timber extraction correspondingly reduced. In most central African forests harvest levels are around 1-3 trees per ha (compared with 10-15 in rich South East Asian dipterocarp forest). As a result, in Africa it is normal practice to plan access and extraction routes for felled trees, while in Asia extraction costs are proportionately less of the value of the timber yield, and savings are less important. As a result the scope for emission reductions from implementing improved logging practices in these forests is much more limited. The difference between carbon emitted under conventional logging and carbon emitted under reduced impact logging will be less significant on a global scale.

25

Nevertheless, the benefits of improved silviculture (through RIL) in Africa should not be discounted. Companies follow these practices because they increase the efficient use of machinery, reduce fuel costs and reduce the wastage of timber through better recovery of cut logs. These economic benefits can clearly translate into carbon emissions avoided, although no studies have attempted to quantify these effects in African conditions. Furthermore, it should be noted that the studies of Putz et al and others have compared forestry operations that follow legally prescribed felling limits. While it is certainly true that legally prescribed rates of timber extraction are low in Central Africa, it is also true that actual harvests often far exceed legal limits. (See for example Smith and Applegate (2004)25 Companies frequently harvest over quota, under diameter and/or obtain additional volumes from outside legally permitted areas. In addition, the rate of turnover in concession ownership can be very high. Instead of the legally prescribed rotation minimum of 20 years small forest permits in Gabon are regularly turned over every 3-4 years. While this process is technically illegal it means that much of the forest estate is subjected to timber harvesting at much higher rates than are deemed sustainable.

Smith J and Applegate G (2004) Could payments for forest carbon contribute to improved tropical forest management? Forest Policy and Economics 6 153–167

21


Implications In tropical Africa, the carbon sequestration benefits of reduced impact logging alone are marginal. However, the carbon saving from increased law enforcement could be very substantial. The effective enforcement of sustainable harvesting limits and protected forest areas through the application of forest laws would lead to a far greater carbon saving over the business as usual scenario. However, due to the clandestine nature of much illegal forestry activity, there is very little reliable information about the extent of the problem. We are, therefore, a very long way from being able to quantify the possible magnitude of these carbon savings.

Community forestry State of knowledge Many tropical African countries have substantial areas of forest outside the industrial timber concession estate. These areas are often not subjected to any formal forest management. In Tanzania, where much forest is under open-access ownership patterns, there have been observed declines in forest quality due to over-use (Blomley et al 2008)26 . Similarly, in Gabon, Cameroon and Ghana, where extra-concession lands are substantial, governments have been slow to develop effective regulation of timber harvesting. There is considerable interest in promoting communitybased or participatory forest management (CFM or PFM) systems in these countries. Community forestry approaches devolve forest management control and responsibility to the local community. This gives local people responsibility for timber harvesting that occurs in these lands and a direct stake in the benefits that the forest provides. There is now some evidence of the effectiveness of this approach in Tanzania where community forestry policy is most advanced. Blomley et al (2008) show an increase in basal area and standing volume in community forestry and joint community and government managed areas compared with the state forest lands and open access areas.

continued demand for fuel wood) that have not been assessed. The success of CFM in Tanzania is also likely to be related to the high rates of forest loss and rapidly growing population pressure. The effects of forest loss and particularly the loss of environmental goods and services (such as fuel wood) are very obvious to rural communities. In the moist tropical zone (e.g. Cameroon, Gabon) the baseline conditions are different. Population pressure is lower relative to the abundance of forest resources, meaning that the environmental service value of forest land is lower in the eyes of the people. The environmental service benefits of forest, being less keenly felt by local people, have not been emphasised in community forestry policy. As a result, in Cameroon and Gabon, CFM is promoted as a way of engaging communities with logging and the timber sector. However, when considering timber value alone, the marginal benefits of CFM are less evident. In Gabon, communities have limited incentives to engage in forest management themselves, when the alternative of leasing logging rights to timber exporting companies delivers rapid cash payments to villagers.

Protection, restoration and regeneration Forest protection Forest protection, or the maintenance of forest in strictly protected areas, remains an effective way to conserve the forest biodiversity and forest carbon in that specific location. The protection of forests against logging and conversion to agriculture has always been thought of only as a way of reducing emissions. Lewis (2009)27 has shown that mature forests in Africa are accumulating carbon in above-ground biomass at significant rates (approximately 0.6 t/ha/yr). This suggests that the protection of mature forests can have an on-going sequestration benefit.

Implications Blomley et al (2008) translated into carbon sequestration values. Also, care should be taken in drawing conclusions about carbon savings due to possible leakage effects (for example due to the

Blomley T, Pfliegner K, Isango J , Zahabu E, Ahrends A, and Burgess N. (2008) Seeing the wood for the trees: an assessment of the impact of participatory forest management on forest condition in Tanzania Oryx, 42(3), 380–39. 27 Lewis, S. L. (2009) Increasing carbon storage in intact African tropical forests. Nature (London) 457:1003-1006. 26

22


Recovery following clearance Houghton and Hackler (2006) used values for carbon accumulation following disturbance to different forest types in their book-keeping model. They used the literature to determine average pre-disturbance carbon stocks for rainforest, moist forest, dry forest and shrubland, and similar values for swidden agriculture in those areas. They obtained figures for carbon accumulation (through re-growth) from Bellefontaine et al (2000)28 . Their data for carbon loss and re-growth following shifting cultivation in rainforest ecosystems are shown below in Figure 3.2. Figures estimated for annual rates of accumulation in re-growth following agriculture in different biomes are shown in Table 3.1. Silver et al (2000)29 reviewed a range of studies looking at carbon accumulation in recovering secondary forest and plantations in the tropics. For recovering secondary forests they suggest longterm average rates of accumulation of 2.9 t/ha/ yr (biomass carbon) and 0.4 t/ha/yr (soil carbon). Accumulation was faster in the first 20 years then slowed as the trees became older. During the first 10-15 years of re-growth tropical secondary forests have been reported to accumulate up to 5 t C/ha/yr. Silver et al

(2000) also noted that forests growing on abandoned agricultural land accumulate biomass faster than other past land uses, and that soil carbon accumulates faster on sites that were cleared but not developed, and on pasture sites. Fehse et al (2002) measured re-growth in natural forest in Ecuador and found that carbon sequestration was peaking 7-8 years after the start of re-growth. At this point, above ground carbon was being added at approximately 7 t/ha/yr, while the long-term (45 year) average was approximately 2.6 t/ha/yr.

Implications The carbon benefits for protecting old growth forest or regenerating secondary forest appear substantial. However, when ‘protecting’ an area of forest, calculations of the emissions saving must consider off-site or indirect effects of ‘leakage’. This remains problematic, due to the huge range of possible effects and the difficulty of identifying direct causal links between them. These complexities have so far prevented protection activities from inclusion under the Clean Development Mechanism. But payments for forest protection may be acceptable when made under a national plan for Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) where leakage at larger scales can be effectively tackled.

Rates of C accumulation in re-growth following shifting cultivation (total biomass and soil, tonnes per ha) (Source: Houghton and Hackler 2006) Rainforest

Moist forest

Dry forest

Shrubland

1.5

1.9

0.18

0.058

However, the major issue is that protecting a forest area means taking the forest area out of productive use. This in turn means tackling pressure from commercial timber companies and communities seeking agricultural land. It is evident, but important, to recognise that these are very different stakeholder groups. The effective protection of a forest area requires successful interaction with both sets of stakeholders.

Table 3.1

Figure 3.2 Carbon loss and subsequent accumulation following shifting cultivation in African rainforest ecosystems. The fallow period is given as 16 years. (t C per ha) Original values

Following cultivation

Mature fallow

Bellefontaine R, Gaston A, and Petrucci Y (2000) Management of natural forests of dry tropical zones FAO Conservation Guide 32. FAO, Rome Silver, W R. Ostertag, and A. E. Lugo. (2000). The potential for carbon sequestration through reforestation of abandoned tropical agricultural and pasture lands. Restoration Ecology 8:394-407 28

29

23


It has recently been argued that logging concession rights can be substituted for ‘conservation concessions’ through a simple financial payment for the logging licence. However, this risks ignoring the important employment generation role of logging companies, and does not address the question of timber demand. On the other hand, it has long been recognised that combating agricultural clearance is a much more complex issue. Addressing pressure from itinerant agriculture necessarily means engaging with questions of land rights, food security and cultural norms, and generally requires landscape-scale integrated approaches to community livelihoods. A long-term EU-funded project has been assessing the state of protected areas in Africa (http://bioval.jrc. ec.europa.eu/PA/index.html). The project has classified protected area status by two measures: biodiversity value and population/degradation pressure. The results are presented by country. Two examples are shown below. The effectiveness of a protected area depends on many factors that vary even within an individual country, and it is therefore unwise to generalise about the likely success of protected area initiatives. However, there is growing experience in the evaluation of factors that

Figure 3.3 An example of the results from the EC Joint Research Council assessment of protected area status in Africa. Individual protected areas are rated for their biodiversity value and the pressure they are under from population growth and encroachment

affect the success of protected management. Both IUCN and WCMC are currently carrying out research on related issues. In summary, creating protected areas requires successfully addressing powerful economic factors such as the demand for land from the timber sector, and the need for agricultural land in countries with expanding populations. In countries where both are strong, protected area initiatives are highly unlikely to be successful without very careful thought as to how these economic pressures can be mitigated.

Plantations State of knowledge Rates of above-ground C accumulation in plantations ranged from 0.8 to 15 tonnes C per ha per year, during the first 26 years following establishment (Lugo and Brown 1993). A similar range was found in the data derived from the literature survey. Above-ground carbon accumulation was in the range 4 to 10.2 t/ha/ yr (n= 5) and soil carbon accumulation averaged 0.58 t/ha/yr (n=18). Niles et al (2002) used estimates of 0.5 to 2.5 tC ha-1 yr-1 for dry tropical regions to 2.5 to 5.0 tC ha-1 yr-1 for humid tropical areas for carbon accumulation in vegetation; including soil accumulation would elevate this range.

24


Note, however, that Guo and Gifford (2002)30 reported high values of soil carbon in pasture, relative to tree plantations, and the fact that C stocks in soil can actually decline following the conversion of pasture to plantation forest. This is likely to be a consequence of soil disturbing operations prior to planting, and soil erosion during the early years of plantation establishment. Commercial plantation ventures usually use exotic species that have been bred or adapted for fast growth in monoculture conditions. These plantations generally deliver the fastest rates of biomass growth. Exotic species are often also promoted for fuel wood use. In this context, nitrogen fixing species can be used to help soil amelioration and the production of animal fodder. The combined production of fuel wood and animal fodder can reduce pressure on natural forest and reduce grazing pressure on rangelands. The use of exotic species in plantations can have negative environmental consequences, and needs to be carefully planned. In particular, attention needs to be paid to soil nutrient levels, and the availability of water. Fast growing trees require a great deal of water, and have been shown to reduce levels of groundwater recharge in some catchments. Poorly managed plantations can lead to increased soil erosion. Soil is exposed during preparation for planting, and when intensive weed control is practiced during the early stages of plantation establishment. Soil erosion – which equates to soil carbon loss, will be strongly related to the quality of ground cover that can be established under the plantation, and the extent to which litter build up is allowed. As many plantation species out-compete native vegetation, it is sometimes necessary to employ ground cover crops (or in some cases, agroforestry techniques) during plantation establishment. Exotic species support limited biodiversity, and should not be seen as an adequate replacement for the multiple benefits that natural forests provide. An interesting project is underway in Ghana, where large natural forest areas are being re-planted with native species to combine carbon sequestration and biodiversity benefits. (See Box 3.1)

30 31

Implications Plantations clearly have great potential for fast aboveground carbon sequestration in woody biomass. However, while carbon sequestration is fast, it may not be permanent, and carbon calculations need to consider the end use of the wood that is grown. Furthermore, large amounts of carbon can be lost through soil disturbance that takes place during plantation operations and soil erosion can result if good quality ground cover is not established. Plantations of native species (especially mixtures of native species) may not deliver fast growth rates like some popular exotic plantation species, but are likely to provide longer term benefits with respect to soil and biodiversity. The more complex ecosystems that develop with native species are also likely to go on building carbon stocks for much longer than fast growing exotics.

Degradation from fuel wood collection State of knowledge There remains a great deal of debate on fuel wood collection and its effects on forest cover and carbon stocks. Some claims in the literature stand out: Makundi (2001)31 reported that 70% of forest loss in Tanzania is attributable to woodfuel consumption (charcoal and firewood), of which 43% is due to direct removals (mostly attributable to charcoal). However, there is certainly no consensus on the overall effect of firewood collection (and charcoal manufacture) on forest cover, and generalisations should be avoided. Bensel (2008) states that it has become apparent that woodfuel production is seldom a direct cause of deforestation (although it may be a by-product), and that most woodfuel demand is met by trees and shrubs growing outside forest areas. In fact there is abundant anecdotal evidence that fuel wood collection, particularly for industrial charcoal production is a driving force in forest loss in Tanzania (N. Burgess personal communication). The debate is concerned with whether or not fuel wood collection is driving deforestation. But in fact the important question is: are we able to measure its effect in the carbon balance?

Guo L and Gifford R, (2002) Soil Carbon stocks and land-use change: a meta analysis. Global Change Biology 8 345-360 Makundi W and Okitingati A (1995) Carbon flows and economic evaluation of mitigation options in Tanzania’s forest sector. Biomass and Bioenergy 8 381-393

25


Box 3.1

Project Oware in Ghana Project name: Project Oware

Country: Ghana

Intervention type: Reforestation/ sustainable forest management

Project size: 20,000ha

Crediting period: 50 years from 2010

Project status: Pending validation

Project manager: Arborcarb

Carbon credit owner: Carbon Finance Limited

The project aims to carry out reforestation within degraded natural Forest Reserves in the Brong Ahafo, Ashanti and Western egions of Ghana to return it as close to their original form as possible. Planting will use a mix of indigenous tree species. Arborcarb established a Ghana forest company called ‘Carbon Forest Limited’ (CFL) as a standalone business to manage the establishment and management of the project. To establish the project, CFL entered a commercial plantation agreement with the State (who governs the forest area), a benefit sharing agreement with the State and the Landowners and a social responsibility agreement with the Landowners and Fringe communities. As well as forest areas in need of restoration, clear and unambiguous land rights were a key factor in determining the suitability of project areas. Project activities: Nursery development: nurseries to produce high quality seedlings from 15 different species for large scale plantings. Tree planting: A mix of indigenous tree species is being used for reforestation. Monitoring and maintenance activities: Annual verification against the VCS. Carbon methodologies & measurements: The project will establish 20,000ha of semi-natural forest over 15 years. This is estimated to absorb over 11 million tonnes of CO2e generating 6.88 million tonnes of CO2e for sale as Voluntary Carbon Units. Estimates were generated using a plantation model, which meets IPCC Tier 3 requirements, based on long-term inventory data from Ghana forests. Potential leakage threats mean that the net GHG removals will approximately be 20-25% of total carbon sequestered within planted trees. The project aims to generate carbon credits for sale in the voluntary carbon market being validated to the VCS and CCB standards. Economic, environmental and social benefits: Economic: approx 150 full-time and 1200 part-time jobs for members of forest reserve fringe communities. Communities will receive carbon revenues, longer term timber revenues and an annual per hectare rent for their land. Environmental: biodiversity conservation and restoration of ecological services. Social: broadened livelihood opportunities; improved education and primary health care services; improved infrastructure; short-term food crop production on planted land until canopy closes. Trust fund for the local community to be established to generate income for livelihood needs Project costs: Total cost approx USD800/ha over 20 years. Mostly during the first four years of (establishment and maintenance of planted trees) Reference: Michael Packer (Arborcarb)

26


The Canadell et al (2009) model of carbon emissions from land-use change does not include a value for fuel wood. Their reasoning for this is that a) fuel wood that is harvested from secondary forests will be compensated by re-growth in those forest areas, b) most fuel wood is harvested from agricultural areas and therefore already counted in measurements of land-use change. If one assumes fuel wood is collected from areas being converted to permanent agriculture, the carbon emissions from this activity will be counted in the overall emission from deforestation. If, on the other hand, fuel wood is collected from shifting cultivation areas, one would need to decide how to model the change in carbon stocks in these areas following conversion. As we have discussed, it is possible to measure carbon gains during the fallow period after shifting agriculture. These are likely to be in the range 2-5 tC/ha/yr. Fuel wood collections can easily exceed this value. But this would suggest these areas would appear as permanently cleared land. Data from the FAO Forest Resource Assessment and data from FAOSTAT differ widely on deforestation rates, (with FRA the higher). This is because one counts the transformation of forests to shifting cultivation as ‘forest loss’ while the other considers shifting cultivation as part of the forest system. Houghton and Hackler (2006) included the transition to shifting cultivation In their analysis. They showed that this was responsible for the biggest change in the area of dense forest, or in other words was a major driver of the change of dense to secondary forest. Their estimated figure for gross emissions from fuel wood harvesting was 0.17 Gt C per year (almost as big as the total figure for land-use change in Africa). But they calculate that the net flux was only 0.007 Gt C per year, because emissions were largely offset by forest regrowth. This represents only 2.3% of their estimated overall figure for land use related emissions.

Implications At more local scales the implications of high levels of fuel wood collection can be clearer. The E+ Charcoal Stoves Project in Mali estimates that fuel wood collections were approximately double the rate of wood biomass growth in the area around Bamako (see Box 3.2) The approach taken to address this was to promote the use of fuel efficient stoves amongst the urban population. Calculating the carbon benefits of such projects is notoriously complex, due to the many possibilities for leakage and the difficulty of establishing a causal link between the project activity (e.g. stove use) and any resulting decrease in fuel wood extraction. To demonstrate an overall carbon saving, the E+ project would need to demonstrate that fuel wood ‘saved’ will remain as living biomass. This would require the producers of the surplus charcoal to reduce their levels of production, and the cutters of the surpluss wood to abandon their work for other activities. Both factors are beyond the control of the project. Therefore there are fundamental questions that remain to be answered. If fuel wood collection is driving land clearance, is this effect being detected by conventional measures of deforestation? Secondly, is it possible to mitigate the deforestation effect of fuel wood collection by supplying alternative fuels? Women carrying fuel wood, Sudan cc Margaret W Nea/Bread for the World

27


Box 3.2

The E+ Charcoal stove project in Mali Project name: Improved Household Charcoal Stoves in Mali

Country: Greater Bamako region, Mali

Intervention type: Energy efficiency

Project size: 318,748 stoves

Crediting period: 2007 – 2016

Project status: Pending verification

Project manager: E+Carbon and Katene Kadji

Carbon owner: Katene Kadji

Wood and charcoal accounts for around 85% of the city’s fuel requirement. The project calculates that wood is being harvested at approximately twice the rate of re-growth The project aims to reduce the demand for fuel wood and charcoal from Bamako, through the provision of fuel efficient charcoal stoves (made by Katene Kadji). This will be done through product marketing and conducting outreach campaigns in the communities to raise the awareness of the health and environmental risks associated with traditional stove usage. The demand for wood and charcoal appears to exert heavy pressure on the surrounding area, which is also being cleared for crops, and is susceptible to fire. Population growth in the city is increasing this pressure. The improved charcoal stoves (SEWA stove), which are about 40% more efficient than traditional stoves, will be subsidised to end-users from revenues generated from carbon credits once the project is verified. Carbon methodologies & measurements: The project expects to generate about 721,117 tonnes of CO2e in 10 years from the sales of 318,748 stoves. Each average sized stove reduces charcoal use from approx 3kg per day to approx 2.4kg. Assuming a wood to charcoal ratio of 5-1 this saves the consumption of 3kg of wood per day per household, or about 1 tonne per year. The project is generating credits in the voluntary carbon market using the Gold Standard VER Methodology titled ‘Indicative Programme, Baseline and Monitoring Methodology for Improved Cook-Stoves and Kitchen Regimes Version 1’. Data collection Data collection for carbon monitoring purposes is conducted by Berkeley Air Monitoring Group BAMG and includes • An assessment of fuel savings achieved at the household level; •

Re-assessing fuel mix and use by each cluster bi-annually;

•

Surveying for leakage factors;

•

Data collecting regarding stove-age and its emission reduction performance by each cluster bi-annually;

•

Assessments of the wider social and economic impacts of the project.

Economic, environmental and social benefits: Economic: increase in families’ disposable income due to lower expenses associated with woodfuel purchase (estimated saving: USD50 per year for an initial investment of USD7-13). Environmental: improved air quality; reduced pressure on the forest. Social: improved health; improved livelihood; increased employment opportunities – in (stove manufacture, distributing, retailing and maintenance); improved business capacity. Project costs: Carbon financing – monitoring, verification and validation can cost approximately USD 150,000 per project Reference: Erik Wurster (E+Carbon), The Gold Standard PDD

28


3.2 Pasture

grazing land. The more forage produced the greater reduction in grazing pressure that can be achieved.

State of knowledge Un-managed or under-managed grasslands and savannahs are abundant, particularly in the drier regions of tropical Africa. These ecosystems are often under heavy pressure from un-controlled grazing and the collection of fuel wood. According to figures quoted in Ringius (2002) pasture and grazing land covers more area in Africa than forest.

Only one data point was recovered from the literature survey where rates of carbon accumulation had been measured in pasture land where silvo-pastural techniques were in use. However, this study (Gomiero 2008) reported an increase in soil carbon of 0.32 tC/ ha/yr.

Figures for different general land uses in Africa (M ha). Source Ringius (2002) Agricultural land

Pasture/grazing land

Forest land

187

793

683

The degradation of grasslands and grazing lands is a problem on the global scale. The 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report highlighted work by Lal (2001)32 that suggested dryland ecosystems contributed between 0.23 and 0.29 Gt C per year to the atmosphere, which is around 3 % of all global emissions. Because pasture is the largest anthropogenic land use, improved pasture management through the better management of grazing pressures, the use of trees, improved pasture species, fertilization, and other measures could potentially sequester more C than any other terrestrial sink. There would also be additional benefits, particularly preserving or restoring biodiversity in many ecosystems. In dryland pastures, some aspects of dryland soils may help in C sequestration. Dry soils are less likely to lose C than wet soils, as lack of water limits soil mineralization and therefore the flux of C to the atmosphere. Consequently, the residence time of C in dryland soils is sometimes even longer than in forest soils. However, the rate at which C can be sequestered in these regions is low, (usually less than 1 tonne per ha per year) (Steinfeld and Wassenaar 2007).

The use of deep-rooted pasture grasses is recommended by Ringius (2002) to increase carbon storage in soil.

Implications The areas of rough grazing land and savannah grasslands are very significant in Africa, so although carbon sequestration benefits of interventions are limited on a per hectare basis, the cumulative effect could be large. However, project based interventions tend not to be replicable over large geographical areas, as local conditions vary. On an individual project basis, the results of silvo-pasture type interventions will not be very large. Finally, it is important to note that interventions such as stall feeding require advances in animal husbandry knowledge and expertise, and may not be compatible with animal husbandry traditions in all cases.

In the humid tropics, silvo-pastoral systems are one approach to C sequestration and pasture improvement. Silvo-pasture includes the incorporation of forage into the diets of grazing animals, usually produced from trees or hedges that are grown on or around the 32

Table 3.1

Lal R (2001) Potential of desertification control to sequester carbon and mitigate the greenhouse effect. Climatic Change 51 (35-72)

Savannah landscape, South Africa cc Trym Asserson

29


3.3 Agriculture

chemical fertilizer (Rutunga and Neel 2006, Brown 2008).

State of knowledge Much of the history of agricultural research, and therefore most of the scientific literature, focuses on the question of agricultural productivity. Interventions are normally aimed at increasing crop yields or soil fertility. These interventions may deliver increasing carbon storage (e.g. by increasing soil organic matter) but that has rarely been the primary objective. Intensification (or increasing productivity per unit area) is often promoted as a means of reducing pressure on forest lands, by reducing the need to clear additional areas for crops. However, the relationship between agricultural productivity and rates of deforestation is not direct, and the scientific literature contains little documented evidence of attempts to address both issues simultaneously. The following section addresses factors affecting onfarm carbon storage. Both conventional agriculture and agroforestry/mixed systems are discussed. From the scientific literature on carbon sequestration in agricultural land uses, the average values for sequestration in agriculture is 1.2 t C/ha/yr (n=11). But all 11 studies looked at soil carbon only. Mineral fertilizer: The serious depletion of soil organic matter (SOM) and soil nutrient capital is the primary cause of low yields in much tropical agriculture. Without artificial amendments degraded arable soils are unable to sustain continual losses due to intensive cropping and erosion, and have very low productivity, creating negative feedback loops that lead to further degradation, and further carbon emissions. Agricultural intensification may proceed, either by increased inputs (both infrastructure and resources such as fertilizers and irrigation), or by increased effort (Clay et al. 1998). Increased effort without increased inputs typically leads to rapid degradation of natural resources, and increased input of low-nutrient content organic amendments, such as plant compost, are typically insufficient to sustain nutrient and carbon losses. The most effective treatment for degraded soils is the simultaneous application of organic amendments, especially legume leafy biomass, and 33

The application of fertilizer can increase the yield of crops and increase the rate at which carbon is sequestered in the soil. In a study in the Western Sudanian savannah, treatments receiving cow dung in combination with fertilizers, or a combination of crop residues and mineral fertilizers, had higher soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks (Vagen et al. 2005). Unsurprisingly, it is severely degraded soils where organic amendments are most effective when combined with chemical fertilizers. However, this is usually because phosphorus is the major limiting nutrient in many central African (most Rwandan) soils and plant compost is deficient in this element. The importance of phosphorus is especially relevant because the carbon sequestration benefit of the use of mineral fertilizers needs to account for the carbon cost of fertilizer manufacture. It is nitrogen fertilizer that is most energy intensive to produce and that is associated with the increased release of N2O. But at the same time it is nitrogen that is most readily available from non-mineral forms of fertilizer, such as plant mulch and manure. There are concerns that the carbon cost of N fertilizer will negate a large proportion of the carbon sequestration benefits on the farm (up to 50% of the carbon storage effect). However, the carbon costs and benefits of fertilizer application is a complex area, and there have been few attempts to quantify these effects using full life-cycle analyses. See WH Schlesinger (2000)33, Alvarez (2005) and Izaurralde et al (2000) for more information. Other specific technologies and approaches: There are a very large number of specific agricultural techniques and technologies for increasing agricultural productivity, which we will not attempt to summarise here. Instead, we distinguish two distinct themes: Carbon storage in soil: This can be promoted by increasing soil organic matter through the application of manures or the direct addition of carbon (e.g. ‘biochar’). Indirectly, it can be increased by reducing soil erosion, through cultivation techniques or the use of hedges and shelter belts (Turkelboom et al. 2008). Some studies have reported evidence that soil carbon can be increased by reducing tillage.

Schlesinger WH (2000) Carbon sequestration in soils: some cautions amidst optimism. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 82 121-127

30


However, the evidence for this is not compelling (Baker et al. 2007) (Yang et al. 2008). Carbon storage in biomass: This can be promoted by the use of more woody elements in the crop mix (generally described as Agroforestry, discussed below) or by including a fallow period that enables woody biomass regeneration on fallowed land. The former implies diversifying crop production (producing less of any one crop). The latter implies increasing the total farm area to allow for land rotation (Bostick et al. 2007).

Because agroforestry reduces the total productive area for a given monoculture, and requires labour inputs (Drechsel et al. 1996), many farmers regard the prospect of increased supplies of fodder and fuel wood in the future as insufficient benefit to justify the loss of land and investment of effort (Brown, 2008). Therefore, the applicability of agroforestry techniques will depend on the farmers’ willingness to diversify production and to become less dependent on maximising the production of one commodity.

Implications Agroforestry: Agroforestry can: increase the SOC, especially through litter fall, check soil erosion, diversify the farm income, increase land productivity- including through production of green leaf manure, fodder and fuel wood production, and reduce C losses over current practices. In addition, it can help alleviate rural poverty, protect biodiversity and deflect additional deforestation (many refs. See Cooper et al. 1996 for overview). Data from the literature survey show that on average, agroforestry systems accumulate carbon at 2.51 tC/ha/ yr (n=17) which is approximately double the average values reported for annual agriculture. However, the studies that measured rates of carbon accumulation in agroforestry systems only looked at soil carbon. No data points were recovered for biomass carbon in agroforestry systems.

Compared to industrialized countries, opportunities for soil C sequestration in developing countries are less well known, and the technical potential for soil C sequestration in Africa and other developing regions is more uncertain (Scholes and van der Merwe, 1996; Lal and Kimble, 2000). Nonetheless, it is widely believed that agricultural intensification, the amelioration of degraded lands and the slowing of desertification in Africa offer additional opportunities for C sequestration. It is important to clarify the debate about agriculture as it relates to terrestrial carbon. Agricultural interventions are assumed to deliver carbon benefits in two ways: 1. An increase in on-farm carbon storage or sequestration through farming techniques aimed at increasing, among other things, soil organic matter 2. The decrease in deforestation resulting from agricultural expansion

Reduced tillage: yes and no In essentially all cases where conservation tillage (i.e. the avoidance of tillage) was found to sequester C, soils were only sampled to a depth of 30cm or less, even though crop roots often extend much deeper. In the few studies where sampling extended deeper than 30cm, conservation tillage has shown no consistent accrual of SOC, instead showing a difference in the distribution of SOC, with higher concentrations near the surface in conservation tillage and higher concentrations in deeper layers under conventional tillage. These contrasting results may be due to tillage-induced differences in thermal and physical conditions that affect root growth and distribution. Long-term, continuous gas exchange measurements have also been unable to detect C gain due to reduced tillage. Though there are other good reasons to use conservation tillage, for example, to reduce soil erosion, and maintain long-term productivity, evidence that it promotes C sequestration is not compelling (Baker et al. 2007) (Yang et al. 2008) also found in their review that although many studies suggest that no-tillage increases soil organic carbon within the soil profile, other studies suggest that it only stratifies the SOC, where a near-surface increase in SOC is offset by a concomitant decrease in the subsurface.

Box 3.3


As the data in this report clearly shows, preventing deforestation delivers a much greater carbon saving than increasing on-farm carbon storage. It is widely believed that shifting cultivation (combined with population growth) is one of the main drivers of deforestation. Furthermore, it is often assumed that increasing productivity on the farm will result in decreased forest clearance for new agricultural land. However, much of the research carried out on specific agricultural techniques is applied to farmers who are permanent. All techniques require investment of money or effort in the

31

land for a long-term payoff of increased or sustained yields. None of these techniques are applicable in shifting cultivators, where investment in the land is specifically avoided. Therefore serious attention needs to be given to the question of who a given intervention is aimed at. Increasing the productivity on permanent farms will not change the practices of shifting cultivators. Changing shifting cultivation into permanent cultivation requires a cultural shift that will not be achieved by any one specific technology.

Smallholder tea plantation, Kenya cc Nikki McLeod

32


4 LESSONS FROM TERRESTRIAL CARBON RELATED PROJECT ACTIVITY 4.1 Introduction

4.2 Africa and carbon markets

This section discusses the lessons that philanthropic interventions can learn from the experience in carbon markets. Much of the implementation experience related to terrestrial carbon storage and sequestration has come from studying climate change and mitigating strategies. Mitigation strategies have, to a large extent, been driven by the establishment of markets for carbon, both regulated (under the UNFCCC), and voluntary. Markets have provided a stimulus to develop systematic methodological approaches for quantifying carbon benefits. This is particularly true for forestry-based activities but the wish to access carbon finance is also a driving force behind efforts to better quantify carbon benefits of agricultural and other land use interventions. The message of this section is that whether or not a specific activity is destined to generate carbon credits (for finance), there is much to learn from these markets and the standards that support them.

The theoretical potential of tropical Africa for carbon project activities is high. Fossil fuel emissions are rapidly growing because of demographic developments and relatively high economic growth rates in many countries. There are significant opportunities to implement fossil fuel-based emissions reductions and renewable energy projects, but the potential to promote land-use related sequestration is very large. This is partly due to the relatively large availability of land (per capita) that could be available for project development.

Carbon market finance is one of the mechanisms that can help fund projects that deliver a terrestrial carbon benefit. Carbon markets are a relatively new phenomenon but they are rapidly developing and promise great potential to finance emission reductions sustainably. However, a number of very real challenges exist to generate carbon credits through activities in the land use sector and from projects in Africa. These challenges arise principally on two levels, namely: • accounting for carbon emission reductions or

sequestration reliably and in a way that meets the requirements of carbon market standards, and

The share of African projects in carbon markets, however, has remained very small to date. For the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) the figure is just 2% of all registered projects and even less when measured by carbon credit volume. Most of the 33 projects making up this number are located in South Africa, Egypt and Morocco, i.e. not in tropical Africa. For the voluntary markets, the share of African projects transacted market volume in 2008 was estimated at just over 1%, originating from only a handful of projects (UNEP Risoe, Hamilton et al. 2009 ). The implication is that while interest is high, most projects do not advance beyond the planning stage. The reasons for this are the same challenges affecting most kinds of market-based investment in the region. Among these are a high investment risk of activities in the country and lack of access to project finance (to fund the underlying project activities). A consequence of risk is the reduced availability of start-up funding and upfront carbon payments for projects.

• finding a market for these projects and carbon

credits. Being realistic about these challenges can help in the design of activities, because it focuses projects on what are verifiable emissions reductions. Despite creating many challenges, it is evident that the rigorous accounting approaches demanded by carbon markets are actually very useful in quantifying carbon benefits and measuring the real impact of interventions. Overall, the most significant challenge to generating carbon credits remains the successful implementation of the underlying project activity that is intended to sequester carbon or avoid emissions.

There are structural disadvantages for carbon projects in very poor countries, including many African countries. Again, many of these challenges are as relevant to philanthropic interventions as they are to profit-oriented entities trying to obtain quantifiable emission reductions. Some of the barriers are noted below: • Many terrestrial emissions in Africa occur at the

household level, and such distributed sources are much more difficult to target and organise in a carbon project (compare, for example, a point-source like a coal-fired power plant to many thousand dispersed cooking stoves).

33


• The diffuse nature of emissions and therefore

reductions means the ratio between carbon credits and transaction and implementation costs is not favourable. • The stringent technical and monitoring

requirements that have been developed for widelyaccepted carbon standards (mainly as a response to civil society criticism) may often be more adapted to a ‘highly organised’ project context with readily available data, measuring technologies, technical expertise, and overall high institutional capacity. These factors cause difficulties for land-use-related activities in gaining access to carbon markets which undermines the potential of the region’s most ‘competitive’ sector. They also lead to problems of eligibility in various carbon markets due to methodological bottlenecks and complexities and the reliability of producing verifiable and predictable emission reductions. The combination of these factors may explain the general observation that most projects in Africa are very small-scale in terms of emission reductions generated and they are very frequently promoted by NGO or public sector organisations. It is often not clear whether the non-market ‘subsidies’ provided for these projects and to cover transaction costs will ever be justified in terms of carbon revenues generated.

Figure 4.1 Baselines and project carbon benefits

4.3 Carbon accounting for terrestrial carbon projects Most experience in generating emissions reductions comes from carbon markets. These markets require proof that CO2 has been reliably sequestered or stored. In a market context it is of paramount importance that the carbon offsets purchased do indeed represent a real and quantifiable carbon reduction. To this end, a variety of accounting standards has been developed for carbon projects, which all potential investors should understand.

Data needs How can the reduction of 1 tonne of CO2 be measured and demonstrated? Most fundamentally, there needs to be a benchmark or reference scenario that indicates the emissions level in the absence of any intervention. In the case of entities that aim to cut their emissions, this reference value could be a company’s emissions in the previous year or a country’s emissions in 1990 (as in the case of the Kyoto Protocol). In the case of offset projects, the approach is usually more complex and involves projecting a baseline of emissions into the future. The climatic benefits correspond to the difference between this baseline and the actual emissions, if any, that continue to occur as the project is being implemented (see Figure 4.1).

34


In order to determine the difference in emissions compared to the baseline scenario, the project performance of the project needs to be measured, monitored, and verified. In many cases, projects do not eliminate all baseline emissions but rather reduce them more or less successfully. Baseline calculations must also account for emissions generated by project activities. Finally, interventions that reduce emissions in one place have the potential to displace activities that create these emissions to elsewhere, a process called leakage. This can occur in different ways, for example, because the actors responsible for emissions simply shift their activities to another location, or because the project suppresses the production of a good which is then produced elsewhere to satisfy an existing market demand. The following formula captures the main data items that need to be produced in order to calculate the carbon benefit of a project: ERnet = (ERproject – ERbaseline – EOproject) * (1 – L) * (1 – BD) Where: ERnet

= Net Emission Reductions / Carbon Sequestration

ERproject = Project Emission Reductions / Carbon Sequestration34 ERbaseline = Baseline Emission Reductions / Carbon Sequestration35 EOproject = Other Project Emissions (e.g. fuel use) L

= Leakage (%)

BD

= Buffer Discount for non-permanence (%) (some standards only)

Another type of documentation is needed to demonstrate additionality, i.e. the fact that it is the generation of carbon credits that enables this project to happen. It is a requirement for both the voluntary and the regulatory carbon markets that it can be demonstrated that the carbon credits – and therefore the emission reductions or sequestration that they represent – would not have been generated in the absence of carbon finance and so are additional to what would have existed if the finance had not been available.

Finally, carbon credits should represent permanent emission reductions. In the case of terrestrial carbon projects, there is often a risk that achieved carbon benefits may be reversed, e.g. because a reforestation project burns down or because improved farming practices are abandoned. Permanence cannot be demonstrated ex ante but needs to be ensured throughout project implementation. However, at the start of a project its proponents need to elaborate a risk profile of factors that could represent permanence risks, such as frequent fires in the vicinity or reduced food production due to the project, and provide details on how these risks will be addressed. These calculations are often based on estimates of impacts and consequences, both of which may be essentially unknowable at the time of project implementation. These impacts will therefore need to be continually monitored to ensure that the accuracy of the estimates is continually improved. The requirements or methodologies for identifying and quantifying these risks have been set out by some standards (i.e. Voluntary Carbon Standard). In addition, to reduce this risk, the VCS requires all certified projects to put some of their credits into a ‘credit bank’ or ‘buffer’ so that if one certified project fails, there are sufficient credits held in the credit bank to compensate.

4.4 Challenges in producing these data for terrestrial carbon projects Terrestrial carbon projects can face some additional challenges in producing the required data for carbon project design and credit generation. This is partly the result of the controversial political history of mitigating climate change through forestry and agricultural projects. The opposition and continued criticism of a number of environmental NGOs led to very restrictive treatment of this sector in the UN Framework agreement and resulted in severe limitations in access to regulatory markets. In particular, the UNFCCC imposed stringent and complex methodological approaches to demonstrating carbon benefits. Although voluntary markets have generally been much more open and flexible regarding the sector, they are nevertheless affected by the high level of requirements under the CDM.

Emission reduction and carbon sequestration in this context refers to the sum of verifiable changes in carbon stocks in the carbon pools within the project boundary. 35 Emission reduction and carbon sequestration here refers to changes in carbon stock in the carbon pools within the project boundary that would have occurred in the absence of the project 34

35


On the other hand, challenges to reliably demonstrate carbon benefits from terrestrial interventions exist because of the nature of this sector, mainly the substantial difficulty in producing accurate scientific data, the ‘living’ and volatile nature of natural systems such as soils and forests, and the complex socioeconomic dynamics influencing them (e.g. agricultural practices). The preceding chapters have highlighted some of these challenges.

Baselines Projecting a baseline of future emissions in the absence of a project is per se fraught with difficulties and uncertainties. This is because such an emissions scenario is of course hypothetical and because many of the factors affecting this scenario are bound to change. In the case of energy-sector carbon projects, the economics of electricity production could change, technology will develop, the legislative environment may evolve, etc. A reforestation project may need to project the future land use practices of local populations, the market demand for agricultural products that may compete for the available land, and affect, say, natural regeneration or succession in the project area. These challenges have been addressed in different ways for different sectors. For example, in the energy sector it is common to calculate a baseline based on ‘grid emission factors’ which assign an average CO2 emission value per kWh of electricity generated in a specific country, based on the mix of the electricity-generating facilities. To reflect technological advances and other developments, these factors take into account the ‘built margin’ of electricity infrastructure over the last several years. For most types of land-use based carbon projects, such baseline reference values are not as easily available. The benefit of more efficient cooking stoves, for example, usually depends strongly on very localised resource use patterns that determine what percentage of the used fuel wood is being harvested unsustainably. Since biomass cooking stoves are not connected to any electricity grid, a detailed project-area specific baseline study needs to be carried out and fuel-use patterns of the local target population needs to be analysed and monitored. In the case of REDD projects, three general

approaches to project baseline emissions are being tested by predominant carbon standards (most notably the Voluntary Carbon Standard, VCS). These are: • Historical baselines, based on deforestation and

degradation trends over a representative number of years before project start (these can follow a ‘frontier’ or ‘mosaic’ deforestation pattern) • Modelled baselines, based on projected

developments of key determinant variables, such as demographic and infrastructure developments (again in a frontier or mosaic pattern), and • Planned deforestation or degradation baselines, e.g.

where permits and concrete plans for agricultural conversion or commercial logging exist These baseline trends frequently have to be made spatially explicit in order to capture differing carbon stocks in an area, e.g. where different types of forests or different levels of degradation exist which would influence the emissions generated per unit of affected area. Reliably determining such a reference scenario for a carbon project is challenging to say the least. In many cases, some of the required data may be very difficult to produce or key variables may be unknown. Forest carbon stocks themselves are only very approximately known. Except for where detailed forest inventories have been carried out, (e.g. to prepare commercial exploitation for timber), only broad ranges for different forest types may be available. Even where commercial timber volumes have been estimated, allometric factors that allow inferring of biomass in branches and roots may not be known for the type of forest. Such data are particularly difficult to come by for Africa (compared to, for example, the Amazon) because of a lack of scientific studies. Wherever local or regional carbon data are not available, conservative estimates have to be made based on available broad default values, such as those published by the IPCC. This means that the carbon benefits of an intervention that can be demonstrated (and claimed in the form of carbon credits) may be significantly lower than would be the case with good data availability.

36


Box 4.1

Example of reduced deforestation To illustrate this, take the example of a project slowing the rate of encroachment through shifting agriculture in Central Africa, a common cause of deforestation in the region. The rate of encroachment may be influenced by growing population density, possibly due to a mixture of endogenous growth and in-migration from remote areas, a decrease in productivity following reduced soil fertility due to over-use, and changes in types of crops used in cultivation technologies over time. Emissions may furthermore be influenced by the location of encroachment due to varying levels of forest carbon stocks in the area. Finally, the agricultural systems replacing mature (or already degraded or secondary) forest can have a range of different carbon stock values depending on the type of crops being cultivated, the regeneration rate of secondary forests in the area, the fallow time between agricultural rotations and on whether some large trees (e.g. with hard wood and difficult to fell) are left standing during clearing.

Leakage Three types of leakage commonly have to be accounted for in land-use projects: activity shifting, market leakage, and direct leakage. They have to be addressed during project design and implementation, and, depending on the project type and standard used, leakage that has not been mitigated may have to be deducted from the projects carbon benefits. • Activity shifting refers to the risk that the agents

that cause emissions (e.g. through deforestation) are merely displaced through the project intervention and create emissions elsewhere (e.g. by encroaching on different areas of forest). The analogous cases are agents that use the land destined for a reforestation project and which may shift their activities (e.g. agriculture or fuel wood collection) to a presently forested area. • Market leakage describes a situation where a

project intervention suppresses the production of a good (e.g. timber or crops) without creating a substitute supply. Unless demand for this good is similarly reduced, production elsewhere will likely increase, and, depending on the way in which this production occurs (e.g. sustainable or destructive logging), similar or even greater emissions could be created. • Direct leakage comprises emissions directly cause

by the project activities but which occur outside the project area (e.g. through transport or emissions during fertiliser production). Another type of market leakage that does not have to be accounted for under existing carbon standards (neither for land-use nor energy-based projects) is

created through price effects. If a project sustainably increases supply of a product (e.g. sustainable timber or renewable energy) this will lower prices for this product. Lower prices could suppress alternative supply sources of the same product (e.g. by reducing incentives for timber plantations), or they could increase demand (e.g. for electricity) through ‘rebound effects’, which could be met through sustainable or unsustainable production of the given product. In either case, the net carbon benefit of the project intervention will be reduced. In all of the above cases, it is frequently challenging to determine the extent of leakage that occurs and has to be deducted from a project’s carbon benefits. There are two main concerns: • Calculating the magnitude of leakage • Attributing responsibility

For example, small-scale farming activities may be displaced locally to forests around the project area. But how can one attribute an increase of deforestation in this ‘leakage belt’ to the project’s impact rather than to general land-use trends. Similarly, where would commercial timber production most likely increase in response to reduced supply of timber from a carbon project area, and would this increase in supply be met through responsible logging or lead to lasting forest degradation? Are the affected forests as rich as or even richer in carbon than those protected through the project activity (with corresponding effects in terms of generated emissions)?

37


The proposed solutions in (draft) carbon standards and methodologies partly call for a direct monitoring of ‘baseline actors’, e.g. in the case of mosaic smallscale deforestation, or the application of default discount factors, e.g. in the case of commercial timber production. Both approaches are not without challenges, and direct monitoring of a large number of actors whose behaviour is influenced by a host of socio-economic factors is likely to be very challenging in many cases. The ‘best’ solution for project proponents in terms of leakage accounting would be to completely negate the potential for leakage, e.g. through creating an equivalent supply of timber through tree plantations on unused land, or through increasing agricultural productivity to the extent that ensures an equivalent ‘baseline’ output without creating additional emissions through synthetic fertiliser use. However, this is rarely feasible to the full extent and leakage accounting and discounting then needs to be undertaken.

Monitoring project performance The monitoring of project performance can follow two broadly different approaches, and each can utilise various technologies. These approaches can also be used when determining a historical emissions baseline. • In inventory-based accounting, also called ‘stock-

difference’ method, the carbon stocks that are targeted in the project area are measured at two points in time (t1 and t2). The difference in these values, compared to those values in the baseline scenario (t1-b and t2-b), would represent the project’s performance (minus leakage and project emissions). For example, a reforestation project would quantify increasing tree biomass during certain time intervals by directly measuring volumes in the field. • Activity-based accounting, also called ‘gain-loss’

approach, measures changes from a carbon stock at the start of project activities (t1) by monitoring a set of activity data to which emission factors have been assigned. This approach measures not so much carbon stocks but rather fluxes of carbon stocks to infer emissions. For example, an improved forest management project may compare extracted timber volumes and constructed logging roads to what can be inferred for the reference scenario (e.g. based on pre-project forest management plans).

Challenges arise from scientific uncertainty. This is especially significant in Africa due to the small number of studies. Many changes in carbon stocks may be difficult to capture with cost-effective monitoring technology, e.g. selective illegal logging or fuel wood collection, which is hard to detect on commonly used satellite imagery, or changes in soil carbon, which usually requires sophisticated laboratory analysis to be quantified (more or less) reliably. The fact that terrestrial carbon projects often deal with multiple actors and distributed emission sources (or sinks) also presents barriers to cost-effective, reliable monitoring. The performance of a REDD project involving hundreds of smallholders, or a cooking stove project involving thousands of households is much more challenging to monitor than, e.g., a large hydro-power plant. Although statistical approaches and stratification of land areas and users can reduce the necessary sampling effort, and remote sensing technologies can aid in monitoring of large areas, many components still require extensive field measurements (or ground truthing).

Accounting for non-permanence Quantifying and discounting for non-permanence risks is a challenge unique to terrestrial carbon projects. Unlike in energy-based emission reduction projects where emission reductions represent a permanent climatic benefit, carbon sequestered in sinks has the potential to be released back into the atmosphere. There is some controversy as to the extent to which this also applies to reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation; however, common sense thinking suggests that a certain risk of reversal also exists. Different approaches to dealing with this nonpermanence risk have been suggested, including issuing temporary credits that have to be replaced periodically (as in the CDM), using financial insurance instruments, discounting land-based carbon credits by a time-equivalence factor (as in the tonne-year approach, and setting aside a certain percentage of credits in a risk buffer. The latter approach is establishing itself as the predominant mechanism for non-permanence insurance and is used, for example, by the VCS. It involves assessing any terrestrial carbon

38


project against a list of risk factors that have the potential to lead to carbon reversals and assigning certain likelihoods to each of them. Their combination then results in a discount factor of credits that have to be set aside in a risk buffer. If integrated well into project planning, systematically determining non-permanence risks can be an effective risk management tool for project developers. On the other hand, it imposes an additional requirement for producing data that can be audited. A multitude of factors needs to be considered and somewhat quantified, for example the potential for reduced employment opportunities, losses in agricultural output, fire risk, drought risk, demographic pressure, nearby infrastructure, the presence of high-value fossil resources (metals, oil) or valuable timber species. More importantly, for commercial projects, it can greatly reduce the credits available for trading and for generating carbon finance to enable the project. Depending on a project’s risk profile, risk buffers can amount to 70% of credits – which would arguably indicate that the project’s risk management or overall set-up needs to be substantially improved.

Challenging standards or tricky projects? What is important to point out, however, is that many of the above hurdles in demonstrating carbon benefits under accepted carbon standards actually represent very real risks and challenges in ensuring carbon benefits through terrestrial project interventions. Challenges like preventing and accounting for leakage or non-permanence are not unique to ‘carbon projects’, rather, they point to real-world problems. These problems risk negating the atmospheric benefits that a project is set up to deliver. Carbon standards, in a way, simply force these issues to be tabled. For example, leakage due to displaced deforestation may go unnoticed in a ‘classical’ conservation project, whereas the design of the same activity under a carbon standard can help uncover such risks and design appropriate mitigation strategies and monitoring approaches. Similarly, many ‘traditional’ reforestation and conservation projects have proved to be unsustainable in the long run because they have not created the

necessary local benefits or because they did not devise effective risk management projects. Employment and income opportunities in agriculture may have been reduced, and ‘alternative livelihoods’ may not have materialised. Other reforestation and restoration projects have literally gone up in flames because fire risks due to agricultural practices or climatic conditions had not been recognised and effectively addressed. Being forced to systematically and periodically evaluate a range of such risks to long-term project success can prove to be very helpful in designing a comprehensive risk management approach. High risk ratings moreover indicate that an intervention is unlikely to yield the long-term climatic benefits. Whether or not a project is intended to generate carbon credits, assessing and mitigating leakage and non-permanence risks is therefore vital for any project intended to generate climatic benefits. Carbon standards and the associated formalised tools and methodologies can provide a systematic approach to carrying out such assessments. On the other hand, it can be argued that there has also been an unhelpful trend towards ever more ‘sophisticated’ and stringent standards, and requirements for accurate and precise data may simply be unrealistic.

4.5 Other common difficulties In the course of project development or at the time of validation or verification, it is not uncommon to find that actually generated carbon credits are significantly below previous predictions. This can be due to a combination of overly optimistic assumptions regarding aspects such as baseline emissions, leakage, ability to monitor carbon benefits, actual project performance on the one hand and restrictive or conservative approaches by available standards and methodologies on the other.

Baseline calculations One common ‘disappointment’ is the difficulty of demonstrating high baseline emissions. Again, this may be due to actual uncertainties regarding fundamental factors determining baseline trends. The common sense perceptions of project proponents may be at odds with what can be demonstrated transparently. For example, when would nearby farmers start encroaching

39


into an existing forest reserve, and would they actually cross the boundary when the historically expanding agricultural zone reaches the reserve? Would the much heralded mining project actually be financed and take off, or would it face long delays? How far would people walk to collect fuel wood? And, are destructive logging practices of the past in fact a good predictor of forest management approaches that would be adopted in newly issued concessions, or are there other economic pressures already driving improvements? Potential leakage is frequently underestimated – or cannot be reliably proven to be insignificant or limited. The principle of conservativeness applied in carbon accounting also implies that uncertainties should lead to high-end assumptions about possible leakage.

Availability of monitoring methodologies Measuring and monitoring project performance is frequently a very large expense. It can, for example, prove very complicated to design a reliable sampling and monitoring system to capture the actual uptake and use patterns of improved cooking stoves, while at the same time monitoring changes in the fuel mix and its origins. Agricultural practices of a great number of small-scale farmers, including ploughing techniques, fertiliser use, etc., are similarly difficult to monitor. Particularly challenging to quantify and monitor are illegal activities. Illegal logging does not usually follow a forest management plan or generate documented extraction volumes (which is one reason that draft REDD methodologies do not include avoided illegal timber harvest at present). It can also prove difficult to find accepted methodologies that fit the planned project activities. New methods may have to be developed and tested, leading to increased costs. Agricultural carbon projects have so far faced particularly high hurdles in this regard (due to both types of reasons) and there are virtually no such projects in the tropics. Most existing projects are implemented in the US, and this is mainly because they are allowed under a popular carbon standard (CCX) which has much less rigorous requirements than are demanded elsewhere. Again here, whether or not a project is intending to sell credits, market standards provide a useful benchmark. If carbon benefits are hard or impossible to

demonstrate under high-quality carbon standards, this should give reason for caution, and stimulate additional scrutiny of project design.

The challenge of multiple benefits Many carbon projects are conceived from a multiplebenefit perspective. For example, they may seek to mitigate emissions while promoting rural development, restoring biodiversity, improving watershed functionality and encourage gender equality. ‘Cobenefits’ can be instrumental to a carbon project’s success, (e.g. by creating local ownership of the project through diversifying income sources). But, aiming at many different benefits can easily lead to trade-offs between objectives. For example, a mix of a great number of native species may be less attractive to local communities than a small number of fruit tree or fastgrowing timber species, even exotic ones. Diversifying agricultural crops in an arid forestland area may generate tangible rural development benefits but may create few carbon emission reductions. Clearly, there are equally valid goals and motivations. There simply needs to be clarity about the primary objective. Where projects aim to generate carbon benefits with limited available resources and where trade-offs exist, then coand core benefits need to be carefully balanced.

Over-estimation of benefits Many proponents of land-use based carbon projects significantly overestimate the likely success of the intervention. The drivers leading to ecosystem degradation and emissions or preventing regeneration and carbon sequestration are almost always complex and difficult to address. There is rarely a straightforward technological fix, and even if there was, the human behavioural component may be much more difficult to address. Some of the barriers that are so easily cited to demonstrate project additionality, such as cultural barriers to the uptake of an improved agricultural technique, prove to be very difficult to overcome indeed. Added to this are governance challenges, lacking institutional capacity, or political instability that can jeopardize project success.

40


4.6 Carbon markets for terrestrial carbon Brief market introduction In 1997, most of the world’s nations agreed to sign the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This was the first international agreement to define quantified targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions which are responsible for anthropogenic climate change. The Kyoto Protocol also established three ‘flexible mechanisms’ that are meant to facilitate the implementation of emission reduction measures where they are economically most efficient and costeffective. The flexible mechanisms allow for the trade of emission allowances between countries and carbon credits generated by emission reduction projects. The Kyoto Protocol thereby laid the foundation for an international market for greenhouse gas emission reductions – or ‘carbon markets’– referring to the main unit of measurement, CO2. In parallel to the Kyoto markets – fundamentally compliance markets shaped by governmental regulation – voluntary carbon markets have emerged. Companies, as well as individuals and other organisations without formal emission reduction obligations increasingly choose purchase carbon credits voluntarily through these markets and use them to ‘offset’ their own emissions. In particular, a growing sense of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and concerns about individual air travel have fuelled the voluntary markets and more and more organisations are trying to reduce their carbon footprint or even to become ‘carbon neutral’. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), one of the Kyoto Protocol’s flexible mechanisms, regulates the crediting of emission reduction projects implemented in non-Annex 1 countries, i.e. developing countries. There has been significant investment into the CDM, with over 1700 projects registered in mid 2009 and several thousand more at advanced stages of development. Overall, Kyoto markets have grown dramatically in size since the Protocol entered into force in 2005, to an overall volume of USD 119 billion in 2008, including secondary trading, of which USD 1.2 billion were transacted through the CDM (Capoor & Ambrosi 2009).

The value of transactions in the voluntary carbon markets is estimated to have reached USD 705 million in 2008. They are thus orders of smaller magnitude than the regulatory markets but are growing rapidly. Some of the recent growth has also been linked to increasing ‘pre-compliance’ efforts in the wake of expected US federal climate change legislation.

Markets for terrestrial carbon The history of negotiations about the role that the terrestrial sector should play in mitigating climate change has been controversial and in part ideological. Fears about a ‘distraction’ from the core issues of industrial and fossil-fuel based pollution through ‘flooding’ the markets with (presumably) cheap forestry and land-use credits, along with concerns about the scientific reliability and permanence of these led to severe restrictions of the land use sector in regulatory carbon markets during the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (until 2012). Currently, reforestation and afforestation are the only two ‘land use, landuse change and forestry’ (LULUCF) project types that qualify under the CDM. Forest conservation and forest management projects were specifically excluded, as were agricultural land management. To date, there are only a handful of registered forestry projects under the CDM, accounting for less than 0.5% of the expected CDM emission reduction volume until 2012. Unlike under Kyoto, offset projects in the voluntary carbon markets are not limited to planting and forest establishment, but can include avoided deforestation, avoided degradation and forest management activities as well. The share of terrestrial projects in 2009 has been estimated at 11%, making voluntary markets much more significant for these projects than the CDM. Most projects in this sector are conservationoriented reforestation activities, with the remainder being attributed to REDD, productive plantations, forest management and soil carbon. However, although still growing in overall volume, the share of land-use projects in these markets has been steadily declining over the last few years with the sector being plagued by the same criticisms and controversies as in the regulatory markets. However, as the Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period approaches its end in 2012, negotiations on

41


a ‘post-2012’ agreement are underway and the role of forests has become very prominent. One of the main agenda items is the inclusion of REDD+ which is a combination of forest conservation, reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases from deforestation and forest degradation and enhanced removals of greenhouse gases from afforestation and reforestation. This represents a potentially huge future mitigation opportunity and is central to both the ongoing negotiations and to the non-binding Copenhagen Accord produced at COP 15 in December 2009. It is not yet clear what the final agreement on REDD+ will be under any post-2012 agreement since some details can only be finalised when further progress has been made with the main negotiations. However, in the interim a REDD+ Partnership36 has been formed by almost 60 interested governments. The developed country partners have pledged USD4 billion in funding between 2010 and 2012. Developing country governments have committed to make progress with developing and implementing strategies to maintain existing forests and reduce rates of forest loss. There are still several crucial elements of the emerging REDD+ approach which are unclear. Of particular relevance are: • Scale: there is a strong focus on national level

planning, monitoring and accounting with some actors suggesting that all activities and funding should be managed nationally. However, there is also a growing awareness that many of the activities which will be required for REDD+ to succeed will need to be undertaken at a subnational level and that it may be useful to have a number of projects ‘nested’ within a national process. • Funding: There is strong debate about how

REDD+ will be funded. Some developing countries have expressed a strong preference for fundbased payments with no carbon credits attached. However, others feel that it is unlikely that this type of ‘voluntary payment’ approach can raise the amount of money required. Therefore, there is also discussion about compliance-based funding, either at a government to government level or through a mechanism similar to the CDM. Other important markets for REDD and the international land-use sector are emerging in the US at the State and federal level. In fact, established 36

climate regulatory regimes in California and other States already incorporate terrestrial credits and may well allow for the use of international offsets in the near future, and the recent American Power Act which specifically includes REDD as an element could create a very substantial market for international REDD credits, potentially surpassing the EU ETS in size.

Standards for terrestrial carbon The only permissible standard under Kyoto – for project-based credits from developing countries is the CDM. In a fundamental difference to regulatory markets, there are no mandatory standards for carbon credit generation that need to be followed in voluntary markets. As a consequence, a large variety of third-party verified and proprietary standards have been used until recently. These differ widely in quality and level of formalisation (and have attracted a similarly wide range of prices). However, there has been a strong trend towards high-quality and independently verified standards with VCS leading the way (CAR in the US). Many projects that are certified against the CDM also sell ‘preregistration credits’ on the voluntary markets. Overall, standards have emerged as the main price determinant in voluntary markets, whereas the project type had previously been the best indicator. This is a clear indication of the importance now attached to quality and independent verifiability of carbon credits also in the voluntary markets. For reforestation credits, the VCS has already emerged as the preferred voluntary market standard although projects have so far mainly applied CDM-approved methodologies, which can be used under the VCS. Also for international REDD projects, the VCS is set to become the dominant standard because of its broad acceptance across various categories of offset projects across all sectors. Importantly, the first two forestry projects (reforestation) have recently been successfully validated against the VCS and many more projects are eagerly awaiting VCS validation and verification. Its application to REDD projects is thus far hampered by the absence of approved methodologies. In the meantime, project developers are applying the guidance provided for the land use sector by the VCS, relying on draft methodologies, and pursuing

Further information on the REDD+ Partnership can be found at http://www.forestcarbonportal.com/resource/interim-redd-partnership-established-oslo

42


Climate Community and Biodiversity Standard (CCBS) certification. Additional certification under the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) or the CCBS may be sought by carbon forestry projects. Unlike the above-described standards, FSC and CCBS constitute a quality certificate related to the design, set-up and co-benefits of a project, and are not aimed at the issuance of carbon credits. Co-Certification under the CCBS or FSC schemes formalises the additional environmental and sustainable development attributes of a project. In conjunction with a high-quality carbon standard such as the VCS, this has become best practice for ambitious projects and enables projects to potentially obtain higher carbon prices as well as improved market access. In addition, the CCB and FSC standards are also a valuable riskmanagement tool in that they provide an adaptive instrument for ensuring good community relations and lowering non-permanence risks in forestry projects. The Plan Vivo standard offers an interesting alternative for small-scale reforestation projects and can also potentially be used for avoided deforestation or degradation projects. While not aiming at the same level of formalisation as the CDM or the VCS, Plan Vivo projects do need to follow approved ‘technical specifications’ (methodologies), but there are substantially lower hurdles regarding documentation and verification in order to lower transaction costs. Although much less widely known as its big brothers, there are in fact more registered Plan Vivo than VCS projects at present.

CCBA and CARE are working together to develop a social and environmental standard for REDD+ at a national level since this appears likely to be an important scale of planning and monitoring. The REDD+ Social and Environmental Standards (REDD+ SES) is being developed by a multi-stakeholder group including representatives of government, NGOs, Indigenous Peoples and local communities and will undergo field testing in late 2010.

4.7 Summary This section has discussed the ways that philanthropists can use carbon markets, or, more specifically, the experience derived from carbon markets, to deliver philanthropic ends. Markets have developed stringent reporting requirements that place emphasis on the accurate calculation of baseline emissions, and require accounting for leakage effects. Methods for this, however, are largely un-tested in the African context, due to the small number of projects to-date and the paucity of primary data on stocks and emissions. Experience also shows that land-use-related projects in Africa present specific challenges. This is often due to the small scale and diffuse nature of emissions, which makes accounting for baselines and demonstrating impacts complex and costly. Both factors diminish the marginal benefit of such projects in terms of pure carbon finance. Nationally coordinated REDD schemes offer some opportunities to share methodological approaches and account for diffuse leakage problems. This is an emerging area of interest to philanthropists. Jatropha planting, Zambia cc Proforest

43


5 REVIEW OF EXISTING CARBON PROJECTS IN AFRICA This section presents an overview of existing carbon sequestration projects in Africa. It is based on a survey that was undertaken of projects currently being implemented on the ground in Africa with the aim of conserving or sequestering terrestrial carbon, and where project design and development documents were publically available37 . The aim of this section is to compare and contrast the different on-going initiatives, to highlight similarities and differences between projects and to draw out the lessons learned by the implementing organisations on what makes a successful intervention.

• Systematic review of project development

documents registered with UN organizations • Snowball sampling’ of Networks/ Alliances/

Research Institutions, Consulting/ certification companies and non-government organizations

2% 10%

Regional distribution of project activities

Through a survey of publicly available literature, we identified 68 carbon–related projects in Africa. Of these, publicly available project documents were available for 52. The information for these 52 projects was analysed to provide insights into several aspects: • The geographical spread of project activities

conserved • The cost of activities • Key lessons from implementation experience

Geographical spread of activities in Africa The 52 projects were spread within the African continent as shown in Figure 5.1 below: This information corresponds with what is known about deforestation, which indicates that the East African zone countries have registered higher rates of population growth and higher rates of land clearance than countries in central Africa. However, it is perhaps surprising that more work has not been carried out in West Africa, where deforestation continues at high rates within the Guinea-Congo moist forest biome. The possibility remains that there are projects ongoing in Francophone West Africa for which project literature may not have been detected.

59%

29%

37

5.2 Analysis of the data

• The amount of carbon likely to be sequestered/

A survey was conducted of publicly available project documents, reports and other ‘grey’ literature materials relating to existing carbon projects. Developing a clear systematic methodology for research in grey literature is difficult due to the scope of information available, therefore to ensure that the data collected were representative the following methodology was used:

East Africa

represented the various intervention mechanisms. Discussions were conducted on the phone following a questionnaire guide, which can be found below

• The common types of interventions used

5.1 Methodology

Figure 5.1

• Semi-structured interviews with practitioners that

West Africa

Central Africa

North Africa

Review of carbon projects in Africa was based on data available on September 2009.

44


The number of projects by country is shown in Table 5.1 below. Table 5.1

Carbon projects by country Country

No of projects recorded

DRC

3

Cameroon Madagascar Burundi Ethiopia Mozambique Rwanda Kenya Tanzania Uganda Sudan Mali Mauritania Niger Benin Burkina Faso Ghana Senegal

2 6 1 1 1 1 6 6 9 1 2 1 1 2 2 4 2

Nigeria

1

Total

52


5.3 Land use interventions Common interventions that are being implemented can be broadly defined in the following categories. • Afforestation/ reforestation • Natural/ assisted regeneration • Community based forest/ plantation management • Community based agriculture/ agroforestry/

silvopastural management • Avoided deforestation/ forest protection • Biodiversity Conservation • Poverty alleviation • Energy efficiency

It is clear from the studies reviewed that most of the projects are engaging with more than one land– use type. The majority of case studies encountered did not possess only one type of intervention but a combination of different interventions. The prevalent combinations of land-use interventions can be noted in Figure 5.2.

Figure 5.2 The number of projects in Africa using interventions in the different intervention categories

45

We classified projects within the main thematic areas of agriculture, forestry, pasture and energy efficiency practices. The theme of ‘agriculture’ includes sustainable and intensified agricultural and agroforestry practices. ‘Forestry’ includes sustainable forest and plantation management, avoided deforestation and protection of forests. ‘Pasture’ includes rangeland and silvopastural management while ‘energy efficiency’ includes activities such as installation of PV solar panels and dissemination of energy efficient stoves. The breakdown of project activities is shown in Figure 5.2 below. As can be noted from Figure 5.2, fewer than half of the ‘forestry’ interventions are solely focused on forestry activities. Around 40% are in combination with agricultural interventions, followed by 20% with pasture activities. Most interventions involving pasture lands were implemented with agricultural activities, (92%). Agricultural interventions are most commonly combined with forestry activities, whereas energy efficiency projects are usually implemented without direct reference to one or other land use.

46


5.4 The amount of carbon likely to be sequestered/ conserved The presence of 68 plus carbon sequestration, avoided deforestation and reduced emission intervention projects in tropical Africa is a step in the right direction in regards to combating deforestation and its associated carbon emissions. However, it is more important to understand the likely impacts these projects will have in tropical Africa. The breakdown of rates of carbon sequestration or conservation is shown in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2

Carbon rate data by country Country

Project title

Project intervention

Size (ha)

Carbon rate (tC/yr)

Benin

Village–based management of woody savannah, employment of agrosylvopastoral measures and the establishment of woodlots for carbon sequestration

Reforestation/ afforestation Sustainable forest/plantation mgmt Agricultural management, agrosilvo

176,000.00

266,908.4

Burkina Faso

Burkina Faso Sustainable Energy Management Project

Reforestation/ afforestation Sustainable forest/plantation mgmt Energy efficiency

300,000.00

69,444.4

Cameroon

SNI Anacarde

N/A

N/A

13,888.9

DRC

Ibi Bateke Carbon Sink Plantation

Reforestation/ afforestation Sustainable forest/ plantation mgmt Sustainable agriculture, agro-silvo

4,120.00

22,222.2

DRC

Bonobo Peace Forest

Reforestation/ afforestation Sustainable forest/plantation mgmt Biodiversity conservation Sustainable agriculture Protected areas

705,500.00

66,666.7

DRC

Eco Makala

Reforestation/ afforestation Sustainable forest/plantation mgmt

2,000.00

5,378.8

Ethiopia

Humbo Ethiopia Assisted Natural Regeneration Project

Reforestation/ afforestation Sustainable forest/plantation mgmt Biodiversity conservation

2,728.00

8,150.9

Ghana

Improved Household Charcoal Stoves in Ghana

Energy efficient cooking stoves

N/A

18,211.9

Ghana

Project Oware


20,000.00

76,388.9

Kenya

Forest Again Kakamega Forest


473.00

2,930.6

Kenya

Green Belt Movement

Reforestation/ afforestation Sustainable forest/plantation mgmt Non-timber forest products

1,876.00

10,555.6

47


Table 5.2


Project title


Size (ha)

Carbon rate (tC/yr)

Madagascar

Makira Forest Protected Area

Reforestation/ afforestation Sustainable forest/plantation mgmt Biodiversity conservation Sustainable agriculture Forest protection

350,000.00

87,963.0

Madagascar

Ankeniheny–Zahamena – Mantadia Biodiversity Conservation Corridor and Restoration Project

Reforestation/ afforestation Sustainable forest/plantation mgmt Biodiversity conservation Agroforestry, sustainable agriculture

3,020.00

11,111.1

Madagascar


Biodiversity conservation Agroforestry, sustainable agriculture Forest protection

425,000.00

92,592.6

Madagascar

REDD project of the forest community Ampanihy - South Weset Region – Madagascar

Reforestation/ afforestation Avoided deforestation

N/A

5,654.6

Madagascar

REDD and reforestation oriented preservation of forest in Makirovana Tsihomanaomby - Sava Region – Madagascar

Reforestation/ afforestation Avoided deforestation

N/A

1,774.8

Madagascar

Forest carbon projects within the protected area Marolambo

N/A

N/A

4,444.4

Madagascar

Hazovola

N/A

300.00

0.0

Madagascar

Community afforestation for the production of firewood, construction wood and fruits


500.00

1,423.6

Madagascar

Solar and efficient stoves in Southwest Madagascar


N/A

12,406.1

Mali

Improved Household Charcoal Stoves in Mali


N/A

10,383.8

Mali

Acacia Senegal Plantation Project - Mali

Reforestation/ afforestation Sustainable agricultural mgmt

6,000.00

7,407.4

Mali



N/A

20,031.0

Mozambique

N’hambita Community Carbon Project

Reforestation/ afforestation Sustainable forest/plantation mgmt agroforestry

67,754.00 (includes both reforestation & avoided deforestation areas)

338.1

Mozambique

N’hambita Community Carbon Project

Sustainable forest/plantation mgmt Agroforestry Avoided deforestation

67,754.00 (includes both reforestation & avoided deforestation areas)

6,698.9

48


Table 5.2


Project title


Size (ha)

Carbon rate (tC/yr)

Niger

Acacia Senegal Plantation Project - Niger

Reforestation/ afforestation Sustainable forest/plantation mgmt Agro-silvo plantation

17,000.00

18,981.5

Sudan

Community based rangeland rehabilitation for carbon sequestration and biodiversity (direct benefits)

Reforestation/ afforestation Sustainable forest/plantation mgmt Community based rangeland Sustainable agriculture management

700.00

919.2

Sudan

Community based rangeland rehabilitation for carbon sequestration and biodiversity (indirect benefits)

Reforestation/ afforestation Sustainable forest/plantation mgmt Community based rangeland, sustainable agriculture management

700.00

3,050.0

Tanzania

The Uchindile and Mapanda Forest Projects


10,814.00

6,843.9

Tanzania

The Idete Forest Project - Reforestation in grassland area of Idete, Mufindi District, Iringa Region, Tanzania

Reforestation/ afforestation Sustainable forest/plantation mgmt Biodiversity conservation Forest protection

6,000.00

33,736.8

Uganda

Uganda: UWA-Face - Mount Elgon National Park


8,600.00

19,111.1

Uganda

Uganda: UWA-Face: Kibale National Park


10,000.00

25,000.0

Uganda

Trees for Global Benefits, Bushenyi, SW Uganda

Reforestation/ afforestation Sustainable forest/plantation mgmt Agroforestry Biodiversity conservation

N/A

13,888.9

Uganda

Nile Basin Reforestation


2,137.00

1,549.7

Uganda

Namwasa Reforestation Project


8,000.00

3,589.5

TOTAL

949,647.2

49


It is difficult to compare carbon values across projects as the magnitude of the values depends on the sizes of the projects. There are two data point values for avoided deforestation activities, with the remainder representing reforestation activities, agroforestry systems, plantation management or reforestation for protection. From the 68 carbon projects in tropical Africa, it was possible to extract 35 data points representing values in tonnes of carbon dioxide, tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent or tonnes of carbon, per year. The summation of these values suggests that the intervention projects are sequestering carbon at a rate of 969,433.5 tonnes of carbon, annually. As total, African carbon emissions may be as much as 0.3 billion tonnes of carbon per year, this suggests the projects analysed only represent the potential to mitigate 0.32% of the suggested African annual emissions from land– use change.

Table 5.3

A few points that need to be considered when analysing these values: (1) the carbon calculations have been done using different types of methodologies, so there will be variations in carbon values; (2) it cannot be assumed that all the values represent net values; (3) carbon calculations are often done conservatively; and (4) the projects listed are only those for which public domain information was available. Despite these considerations, the result shows that project-based interventions need to be dramatically scaled up if they are to have a significant impact on land-use change and its carbon emissions consequences in Africa.

5.5 The Cost of Activities Project budgets range from USD 0.15 million to USD 31.51million across all types of interventions. The breakdown of project budgets is shown in Table 5.3 below. It should be noted that the project budgets do not always represent total budgets, but particular activities, as can be noted under the ‘Notes’ column.

Project Budgets Country

Project title


Size (ha)

Project Budget (USD million)

Notes

Benin

Village based management of woody savannah, employment of agrosylvopastoral measures and the establishment of woodlots for carbon sequestration

Reforestation/ afforestation Sustainable forest/plantation mgmt Agricultural management, agro-silvo

176,000.00

2.50

Burkina Faso

Burkina Faso Sustainable Energy Management Project

Reforestation/ afforestation Sustainable forest/plantation mgmt Energy efficiency

300,000.00

18.00

DRC

Bonobo Peace Forest

Reforestation/ afforestation Sustainable forest/plantation mgmt, Biodiversity conservation Sustainable agriculture, Protected areas

705,500.00

6.00

For first 3 years. Incorporates capital, development, personnel

DRC

Eco Makala


2,000.00

2.22

Ghana

Project Oware


20,000.00

16.00

For 20 year accounting period

50


Table 5.3


Project title


Size (ha)


Notes

Kenya

Western Kenya Integrated Ecosystem Management Project

Reforestation/ afforestation Sustainable forest/plantation mgmt Agroforestry

30,000.00

9.95

Kenya

Green Belt Movement

Reforestation/ afforestation Sustainable forest/plantation mgmt Non-timber forest products

1,876.00

2.40

Kenya

Forest Again Kakamega Forest


473.00

0.36 0.72

Annual operating expenses

Kenya

Biochar Project – Kenya

Reforestation/ afforestation, Agroforestry Sustainable agriculture

N/A

0.36

Madagascar


Reforestation/ afforestation Sustainable forest/plantation mgmt Biodiversity conservation Agroforestry, Sustainable agriculture Forest protection

425,000.00

2.00 3.00

For initial phase - to get agreement for forest protection & design carbon project (values for Ankeniheny– Zahamena component only)

Madagascar

Makira Forest Protected Area

Reforestation/ afforestation Sustainable forest/plantation mgmt Biodiversity conservation Sustainable agriculture Forest protection

350,000.00

4.7 +

Madagascar

Community afforestation for the production of firewood, construction wood and fruits


N/A

2.71

Mali



N/A

0.15

For monitoring, verification and validation

Sudan

Community based rangeland rehabilitation for carbon sequestration and biodiversity

Reforestation/ afforestation Sustainable forest/plantation mgmt Community based rangeland, Sustainable agriculture

700.00

1.59

Tanzania

Integrated Renewable Energy Development and Environment Conservation (IREDEC), Tanzania

Reforestation/ afforestation PV solar panels, energy efficient cooking stoves

N/A

0.67

For project implementation

51


Table 5.3


Project title


Size (ha)


Notes

Uganda

Trees for Global Benefits, Bushenyi, SW Uganda

Reforestation/ afforestation Sustainable forest/plantation mgmt Agroforestry Biodiversity conservation

N/A

0.93

Uganda

Nile Basin Reforestation


2,137.00

5.46

Uganda

Namwasa Reforestation Project


8,000.00

12.85

Regional (Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda, Tanzania)

Transboundary agroecosystem management programme for the Kagera River Basin (Kagera Tamp)

Reforestation/ afforestation Sustainable forest/plantation mgmt Sustainable agriculture Agroforestry, agro-silvo Biodiversity conservation

N/A

31.51

Regional (Mauritania, Senegal)

Biological Diversity Conservation through Participatory Rehabilitation of the Degraded Lands of the Arid and Semi-Arid Transboundary Areas of Mauritania and Senegal


6,000,000.00

12.37

Regional (Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya)

Reforestation, sustainable agricultural management

Reforestation/ afforestation Sustainable agriculture

N/A

6.48

Much like carbon values, it is often difficult to compare average costs across projects since the magnitude of the cost is dependent on the size, goals and objectives, country and complexity of the project. For the purpose of this cost analysis, costs per hectare values were not calculated as it is not always clear where project activities are implemented. According to interview responses, larger sized projects, despite being more expensive, are more cost efficient as costs per hectare are often much lower than with smaller projects. It was also pointed out that projects should not cover all costs of project components, such as payments for monitoring activities and alternative livelihoods, as this may allow the local communities to become far too dependent on implementing bodies for their livelihoods, and therefore reduce the chances of the project from being sustainable in the long-run.

5.6 Key environment (non-carbonrelated) and social Impacts Many of the case studies describe the expected environmental and social benefits that would arise from the implementation of the projects, as required for carbon reporting, while very few have reported on the actual benefits. It should be noted that the majority of projects implemented in Africa are at very early implementation stages therefore progress reports have not yet been developed. Even the few projects that have been completed may not have made the findings available in the public domain. Therefore, making meaningful comparisons between reported actual benefits versus reported expected benefits may be difficult due to the small sample pool available. Since case studies were chosen for analysis based on one of the main objectives including carbon sequestration and conservation, many of the stated environmental benefits are attributed as ‘co-benefits’,

52


such as improvements in air quality and reduction of soil erosion. According to the project information, ‘improving biodiversity’ is the most often stated environmental co-benefit of land-use intervention projects although no case studies have actually reported biodiversity improvements as a result of project implementation. Once again, it is important to note that many projects are still in their pilot-stage, therefore actual benefits of the projects cannot be determined as of yet. However, projects have focused on less forest destruction, improved hydrology/ watershed quality, reduction in erosion and improvements of biodiversity as key leading co-benefits from land-use intervention projects in Africa. Compared to expected environmental impacts, more case studies have targeted the expected social cobenefits from land use intervention projects. This may be due to a variety of reasons that include implementing bodies realising that successful project implementation depends on these social factors and/or the social focus reflecting on investor/donor preferences. Another reason for the high prevalence of reported expected and actual social benefits can be attributed to social benefits being more easily quantifiable in the short term compared to environmental benefits. When recording environmental benefits, such as increased biodiversity, a longer timeframe is usually required to capture meaningful change. This does not necessarily mean that carbon benefits are not or will not be observed along the environmental gradient in a given project. Lastly, there are a large number of environmental projects being implemented in Africa which do not include carbon sequestration or conservation as a main objective, but which indirectly benefit carbon storage despite not quantifying the amount. However, it is important to highlight that while social benefits are more identifiable in the short-term, effective long-term change also occurs in a longer timeframe. According to the analysis, community development is most frequently cited as a social co-benefit of the project implementation, usually in terms of improved income diversification, more employment opportunities, access to healthcare and education.

Sustainable wood products are also a frequent objective, usually linked to issues such as long-term supply of wood products for fuel, construction, and income generation through timber sales.

5.7 The problems of leakage CDM/ UNFCCC/ Voluntary carbon market projects require that project implementers assess any expected risks or leakages from the project in order to be considered under their regulations. However, the availability of information on how leakage estimates were made was very poor. Our analysis uncovered only a handful of detailed assessments, and in fact most projects focused only on direct leakages from project activities. Leakage of carbon from activities that are displaced due to project activities is regularly flagged as a potential negative impact, but few studies had yet attempted to quantify this in detail. Robust quantification of leakage impacts remains a rapidly evolving field of expertise, but is clearly critical to determine overall benefits of a project intervention.

5.8 Stakeholder questionnaire Of the 52 projects for which documents were obtained, we selected 10 for more detailed follow up. The 10 projects were selected on the basis of their potential relevance to the intervention areas identified by FPAN. Follow up was made through telephone interviews with members of project institutions, using a semistructured interview questionnaire. The questionnaire is shown below, together with the 10 project case study reports generated.

53


Stakeholder Questionnaire Date of Interview: ......................................

Project name: ..................................................

Name of Interviewee:..................................

Country involved: ..........................................

General 1.

Where are the project sites and what size(s) are they?

2.

What is the project duration?

3.

Who are the main collaborators of this project and what are their roles?

4.

What are the main aims/ objectives of this project?

Project Activities and Intervention 5.

What are the main activities implemented to achieve the project goals?

6.

In terms of carbon, what are the main activities being implemented?

7.

How were the project sites chosen?

8.

How was the intervention (s) mechanism (s) decided upon?

9.

In what way do the project activities you mentioned reverse these threats?

Carbon Measurements/ Impacts and Costs 10. What are the baseline carbon values prior to project implementation? 11. What are the carbon sequestration or reduced emission rates the project expects to achieve? 12. What are the measured carbon sequestration/ reduced emission measurements to date? (if any) 13. What are the identified risks or leakages of this project? a. What are their associated carbon values, if any? How do you aim to resolve them? 14. What carbon measuring system is in place? 15. What carbon monitoring system is in place? 16. What economic benefits are being captured? And who receives the benefits? 17. What are the other identified co-benefits expected and/or realised from this project? 18. How are you accounting for the project costs? 19. Is it possible to give a breakdown of the project’s main expenses?

Project Framework/ Evaluation 20. What institutional support has this project required to implement project activities smoothly? 21. What indirect factors (such as capacity building, training, technology transfer, education, healthcare, etc) does the project implement to meet project goals? 22. How are concerns/ disputes regarding project activities identified and resolved? 23. What were the main challenges faced when implementing the project activities? 24. What needed to be considered, in terms of the local context, before implementing this project?

54


5.9 Project case studies A total of ten interviews were conducted, case study reports from these interviews are represented below. Project name: The Ankeniheny-Zahamena Corridor

Country: Eastern Madagascar

Intervention type: Avoided deforestation



Project status: PDD development

Project manager: National Government, Conservation International, WorldBank’s BioCarbon Fund, etc.

Carbon owner: National Government

Decades of deforestation have left Madagascar with only 15% of its original forest. The major threats in this area have been identified as logging, mining and agricultural expansion. The forest is home to several endemic and near threatened species including 11 species of lemurs, 129 reptiles and amphibians and over 2000 plant species. The project aims to create protected areas, based on sites with high biodiversity concentrations, through community-led conservation activities, while developing alternative livelihoods and improving access to basic health care and agricultural support services. Carbon methodologies & measurements: Aim to prevent more than 10 million tonnes of CO2e in 30 years from 425,000ha of forest. Calculations are based on field estimation of aboveground biomass. Aboveground carbon stock was calculated using allometric equations using tree measurements from sample plots. The below ground stocks were derived from above ground stock using standard IPCC formula. The project is generating credits in the voluntary carbon market, specifically for VCS validation. Data collection: Data collection for the purpose of carbon measurements is done by CI staff and graduates from Malagasy Universities. • Tree measurements from sample measurement plots - visited and inventoried in the field •

Monitoring activities of potential leakages

Economic, Environmental and Social Benefits: Economic: Increased income from direct employment activities, alternative livelihoods and carbon revenues (approx 50% of total carbon revenues will go to the communities) Social: The clarification of land tenure issues in some parts of the project area, formalised rights of local communities to access forest resources and access to techniques to improve food security Environmental: Increased biodiversity conservation, soil stabilisation Project Costs: Project – initial phase to get agreement for forest protection & design the carbon project (including conducting public consultations) will cost between USD 2-3 million. Project’s main expenses have been identified as (1) establishment of protected area; (2) conducting carbon measurements, (3) developing conservation agreements and (4) establishing other development activities. Long-term management costs once the project is well established are estimated at approx USD 1 million per year Reference: James MacKinnon (Conservation International – Madagascar), CI (2008).

Box 5.1

55


Box 5.2

Project name: Bonobo Peace Forest

Country: Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)

Intervention type: Avoided deforestation


Crediting period: 25 years

Project status: PDD development

Project manager: Bonobo Conservation Initiative, other local organisations and government

Carbon credit owner: Development process

The forests in the DRC is home to some of the most threatened and endemic species in the world in addition to valuable forest resources that have been over exploited during the recent warfare from bushmeat hunting and mining. The Bonobo Conservation Initiative (BCI) has been active in the DRC for over 10 years, identifying priority bonobo sites and implementing innovative conservation solutions. There are presently 2 main project sites, Kokolopori (400,000ha) and Sankuru (3,000,000ha). The projects see potential in the carbon market, especially in the avoided deforestation component and carbon frameworks are currently being developed. The project aims to establish a system whereby the local people, organisations and institutions lead in the development, management and enforcement of protecting the forest. This will involve establishing protected areas, building the capacities of Congolese partners and indigenous communities and increasing global awareness about conservation and carbon. Carbon methodologies & measurements: Based on preliminary estimations, the project hopes to generate 4.5 to 7.5 million tonnes CO2e per year for 25 years from 700,000ha of land in Sankuru. In Kokolopori there is a reforestation component which will be aimed for CDM validation, whereas the avoided deforestation component will aim for the voluntary market. Data collection: Data collection for the purpose of carbon measurements and monitoring, which will predominantly be conducted by local entities with expert expatriate advice and supervision, include: • Baseline biodiversity pre-feasibility studies to find areas of high bonobo/ biodiversity conservation •

Baseline carbon assessments – using field measurements based on sample field plots and using land-sat maps, estimations of carbon was possible.

•

Monitoring activities of potential leakages and carbon measurements.

•

Wider socio-economic and environment/ biodiversity assessments

Economic, Environmental and Social Benefits: Economic: Expected impacts from alternative livelihoods and carbon revenues. Social: Communities benefited from construction of schools and health centres, increased technical capacity by local institutions (individuals developed conservation centres by themselves, were trained in carbon measuring), community empowerment Environmental: Biodiversity conservation (especially bonobos) Project Costs: The project will approximately cost USD 6 million in 3 years, and incorporates capital, development and personnel components. Reference: Michael Hurley (Bonobo Conservation Initiative)

56


Project name: Forest Again, Kakamega Forest

Country: Western Kenya

Intervention type: Reforestation, biodiversity conservation, sustainable plantation management

Project size: 473 ha (Site A: 212ha, Site B: 261ha)

Crediting period: 2009 - 2049

Project status: Feasibility workshop in 2008

Project manager: : Kenya Forest Service, Kakamega Environmental Education Programme, National Museum of Kenya, Moi University (MOI), Masinde Muliro University (MMU), BIOTA and others

Carbon owner: Making Connections

50% of the Kakamega Forest has been lost since it was gazetted for protection in 1933. There is high demand for timber products and forest-related income, driven by population growth and poverty levels (>60%). Fuel wood extraction rates are estimated at 87,500 tonnes of wood per year, which is much higher than the sustainable level of harvest, (modelled to be 7260 tonnes per year). These extraction levels, coupled with the high degree of poverty (over 90% of forest adjacent people use forest to supplement their income), have led to severe fragmentation of the Kakamega National Forest. The project aims to sequester carbon dioxide in Kakamega forest through reforestation, enhanced forest management, biodiversity conservation, development of alternative income projects and fuel wood reduction strategies (fuel efficient cooking stoves) on grassland habitats. Carbon methodologies & measurements: The project aims for net GHG removals of 422,003 tonnes CO2 (in 40 years) or 900 tonnes of CO2 per ha (40 years). Baseline and leakage estimates measured to be 9460 and 292 tonnes of CO2, respectively. Carbon estimations are based on aboveground, belowground and deadwood biomass. The project is hoping for validation against CCB by Rainforest Alliance. Data collection: Carbon estimates, measurements and monitoring will be done by MOI, BIOTA and MMU. Activities include: • Carbon stock estimations based on sampling design of reference forest (adjacent to project sites) using GIS, satellite imagery, published studies and interviews. •

Allometric equations used to calculate aboveground, belowground and deadwood biomass.

•

Monitoring of carbon-related activities done annually, while deadwood biomass done every 5 years.

•

Monitoring and measuring of biodiversity and other socio-economic variables.

Economic, Environmental and Social Benefits: Economic: Creation of more than 100 jobs in the local community. Social: Women empowerment, access to healthcare and education. Environmental: Less forest exploitation due to on-farm tree planting, promotion of alternative livelihoods and usage of fuel efficient cooking stoves, and biodiversity conservation. Project Costs: The project estimates a cost of USD 5-10 per carbon ton and USD 2.2 – 4.3 million in projected total revenue. Annual operating expenses are forecasted at USD 360,000-720,000 and wages/ benefits USD 70,000-80,000. Costs do not fully include livelihood development expenses (clean water, electricity, schools). Reference: Benjamin Okalo (KEEP), Lung (2008)

Box 5.3

57


Box 5.4

Project name: The Idete Forest Project

Country: Mufindi District, Iringa Region, Tanzania

Intervention type: Reforestation, biodiversity conservation, sustainable plantation management

Project size: 6000ha


Status: Pending validation

Project manager: Green Resources Limited, Tanzania (GRL)

Carbon owner: GRL

Deforestation in Tanzania is linked to poverty, population growth and poor agricultural practices. Demand is increasing over the available supply; therefore, there is a need to manage the remaining forests and resources sustainability. The project area has been in a steady state of grassland for over three decades, experiencing frequent fires which prevented the grassland from regenerating naturally. The communities near the proposed project area are very poor and comprise mostly small scale subsistence agriculture farmers. The project aims to meet this growing demand for wood products and sequester carbon, while contributing to sustainable environment management, community development and poverty alleviation through the establishment of well-managed plantation forests on degraded grasslands and forest protection for environment conservation. Carbon methodologies & measurements: The project expects to generate about 3.04 million tonnes of CO2e in 25 years from 6000 hectares of planted area. Biomass estimations are 0.961 tonne of C per ha for the current crediting period. Baseline value will be reassessed in the next crediting period. GRL is generating credits in the voluntary carbon market using CDM approved Afforestation/ Reforestation methodology AM0005 for the CCB standard. Data collection: Data collection for the purpose of carbon measurements is conducted by GRL and includes: • Vegetation data collection (DBH, height, root to shoot ratio, survival rate of trees) from sample plots. •

Allometric equation for biomass to carbon emission conversion.

•

Weeding, thinning, pruning and harvesting activities rates.

•

Surveying of leakage factors (illegal harvesting, fires, fertiliser usage etc.).

•

Assessments of the wider social, economic and environmental impacts of the project.

Economic, Environmental and Social Benefits: Economic: Increase in income from project employment and carbon revenues (10% of carbon sales goes to the community). Social: Increased employment opportunities (90% or more of labour force will come from the nearest community), women empowerment, improved healthcare, infrastructure and technical capacity. Environmental: Improved soil fertility, protection of water sources, and enhancement of biodiversity. Project Costs: Main expenses have been identified as Capital and Staff Salaries. Lessons Learned: •

Importance of support from Designated National Authority (DNA) for CDM inclusion.

Reference: Jenny Henman (Green Resources AS), UNFCCC PDD

58


Project name: The International Small Group Tree Planting Program (TIST) Kenya

Country: Meru and Nanyuki, Kenya

Intervention type: Community reforestation, sustainable agricultural management

Project size: 3,926,775 trees

Crediting period: Pilot project began in 2001

Project status: Development process

Project manager: TIST, Institute for Environmental Innovation, Clean Air Action Corporation

Carbon owner: Development process

The main threats determined in this area are desertification of land from historical logging, continuing agricultural practices and poverty. With growing local populations, subsistence farmers are unable to grow sufficient yields to meet their basic livelihood needs, which can be attributed to the poor land conditions and severe droughts faced in the area. The project area is reported to have minimal tree presence and there is an interest by local communities to reverse this condition. The project aims to empower small groups of subsistence farmers and to reverse the effects of deforestation, drought and poverty through reforestation and sustainable agricultural practices. To date, there have been over 3,926,775 trees planted in Kenya. Trees chosen for replanting are local and have shown the ability to survive in the harsh drought conditions and benefit the environment. Carbon methodologies & measurements: This project is not generating any certified carbon credits, as yet, but aims to generate approximately 4.47 million tonnes of CO2 in 31years. This is based on the project’s growth rate of 2.4 ha a day. TIST is planning on starting 10 new areas in the next 8-9 years which plans to sequester approx 24 million tonnes in 30 years. The project is currently assessing carbon based on CDM methodology ar-ams0001and is aiming for CDM validation and perhaps VCS and CCA. Data collection: Data collection for the purpose of estimating and monitoring the carbon potential of replanting activities include the following activities: • Data measurements of tree locations and measurements, grove area done by quantifiers (local participants) using GPS and Palm Pilots. Quantifiers are audited every month to ensure high level of accuracy is being met. •

Measurements to occur annually after initial baseline calculations.

Economic, Environmental and Social Benefits: Economic: Income from tree planting (2 cents a tree per year), income from carbon revenues (70% of net carbon revenues), income from alternative livelihoods, such as from higher agricultural yields. Social: Community empowerment (involved with measurement, planning, management, access to market), improved technical expertise (training in agricultural best practices, monitoring and measuring, use of GPS technologies, computer), HIV/Aids conscience (educational campaigns). Environmental: Expected impacts from improved soil fertility, windbreaks, reduced erosion. Project Costs: The project costs are considerably low (between USD 2-5 per tonne CO2 sequestered) and incorporates all costs except the 2 cent per tree per year payments and the 70% net profit share from carbon revenues. Reference: Andrew Dinsmore (TIST), Jindal et al. (2009)

Box 5.5

59


Box 5.6

Project name: N’hambita Community Carbon Project

Country: Sofala Province, Gorongosa, Mozambique

Intervention type: Reforestation, afforestation, avoided deforestation

Project size: 67,754 ha

Crediting period: 2003-2008

Project status: Issuing credits

Project manager: Envirotrade, University of Edinburgh (UoE), ECCM

Carbon owner: Envirotrade

The Miombo region represents natural open woodlands where the high population growth rate (approx 2.4%) has led to the rapid land use conversion of these habitats. Pressure on Gorongosa National Park (GNP) for natural resources also rose due to over 10,000 people returning to the area after being displaced during the civil war. The major threats to GNP include poverty (the country is one of the poorest in the world), food security and over-exploitation of natural forest resources (charcoal, slash and burn). The project location was chosen to provide a buffer for encroachment into the park. The project aims to alleviate poverty and to develop sustainable rural communities by planting trees to sequester carbon, protecting forests to avoid future deforestation and promotion of sustainable land use practices in the buffer zone of GNP. Planting activities included establishment of agroforestry system, woodlots or orchards and boundary planting. Carbon methodologies & measurements: Based on actual carbon measurements, the project sequestered, on average, 1,217 tonnes of CO2 per year across all types of planting activities (excluding baseline values), and 24,116 tonnes of CO2 emissions were avoided per year. Specific values include: agroforestry - 181 tCO2e/ha and woodlot - 156 tCO2e/ha. Carbon baseline calculations were derived from previous work and equate to 0.55 tonnes C/ha/yr in 10 years. The project is generating carbon credits from the voluntary carbon market using the Plan Vivo methodology, and generated credits for avoided deforestation under REDD. This entailed farmers or communities adopting ‘Plan Vivo’ contracts for various land use practices. Data collection: Data collection for the purpose of estimating the potential of sustainable land use practices to sequester and conserve carbon, students from the UoE and ECCM do the following activities: • Conduct biomass surveys (above ground, below ground and soil carbon) across all agricultural practices and baseline scenarios (bulk density, soil nitrogen, soil carbon). •

Measure regional deforestation baselines (based on consultations/ GIS).

•

Conduct carbon modelling – using data from measurements and deforestation rates.

Economic, Environmental and Social Benefits: Economic: Income gains from carbon revenue (30% of carbon payments made immediately to farmers after planting, then 12% of payments made annually for 5 years), alternative livelihoods (guinea fowl, micro financing) and employment (increased from 8.6% in 2004 to 32.2% in 2008 due to the project). Social: Establishment of school house and health post, improved food security, empowerment of women (40% of project participants are women who benefit directly from payments). Environmental: Maintenance of biodiversity, improvement of soil fertility, reduction of soil erosion, decreased pressure in GNP for resources. Project Costs: The project generally cost about USD 10 per one tonne of CO2 sequestered. Between December 2005 and July 2007, there were six carbon sales ranging from USD5580 to 300,000. The project generated total carbon revenue of USD 650,000 for 79,658 tonnes of CO2. Lessons Learned: •

Important to choose a location where rainfall is more reliable – ensures reasonable biomass production.

•

The project can yield more carbon offsets at a lower cost when smallholder sequestration activities are combined with REDD activities.

Reference: John Grace (University of Edinburgh), Fernando (2005), Grace et al (2007)

60


Project name: Improved Household Charcoal Stoves in Mali

Country: Greater Bamako region, Mali

Intervention type: Energy efficiency

Project size: 318,748 stoves


Project status: Pending verification

Project manager: E+Carbon and Katene Kadji

Carbon owner: Katene Kadji

Wood and charcoal accounts for around 85% of the city’s fuel requirement. The project calculates that wood is being harvested at approximately twice the rate of re-growth. The project aims to reduce the demand for fuel wood and charcoal from Bamako, through the provision of fuel efficient charcoal stoves (made by Katene Kadji). This will be done through product marketing and conducting outreach campaigns in the communities to raise the awareness of the health and environmental risks associated with traditional stove usage. The demand for wood and charcoal appears to exert heavy pressure on the surrounding area, which is also being cleared for crops, and is susceptible to fire. Population growth in the city is increasing this pressure. The improved charcoal stoves (SEWA stove), which are about 40% more efficient than traditional stoves, will be subsidised to end-users from revenues generated from carbon credits once the project is verified. Carbon methodologies & measurements: The project expects to generate about 721,117 tonnes of CO2e in 10 years from the sales of 318,748 stoves. Each average sized stove reduces charcoal use from approx 3kg per day to approx 2.4kg. Assuming a wood to charcoal ratio of 5-1 this saves the consumption of 3kg of wood per day per household, or about 1 tonne per year. The project is generating credits in the voluntary carbon market using the Gold Standard VER Methodology titled ‘Indicative Programme, Baseline and Monitoring Methodology for Improved Cook-Stoves and Kitchen Regimes Version 1’. Data collection Data collection for carbon monitoring purposes is conducted by Berkeley Air Monitoring Group BAMG and includes: • An assessment of fuel savings achieved at the household level. •

Re-assessing fuel mix and use by each cluster bi-annually.

•

Surveying for leakage factors.

•

Data collecting regarding stove-age and its emission reduction performance by each cluster bi-annually.

•

Assessments of the wider social and economic impacts of the project.

Economic, Environmental and Social benefits: Economic: increase in families’ disposable income due to lower expenses associated with woodfuel purchase (estimated saving: USD50 per year for an initial investment of USD7-13). Environmental: Improved air quality; reduced pressure on the forest. Social: Improved health; improved livelihood; increased employment opportunities – in (stove manufacture, distributing, retailing and maintenance); improved business capacity. Project costs: Carbon financing – monitoring, verification and validation can cost approximately USD 150,000 per project. Reference: Erik Wurster (E+Carbon), The Gold Standard PDD

Box 5.7

61


Box 5.8

Project name: Project Oware

Country: Ghana

Intervention type: Reforestation/ sustainable forest management


Crediting period: 50 years from 2010

Project status: Pending validation

Project manager: Arborcarb

Carbon credit owner: Carbon Finance Limited

The project aims to carry out reforestation within degraded natural Forest Reserves in the Brong Ahafo, Ashanti and Western Regions of Ghana to return them as close to their original form as possible. Planting will use a mix of indigenous tree species. Arborcarb established a Ghana forest company called ‘Carbon Forest Limited’ (CFL) as a standalone business to manage the establishment and management of the project. To establish the project, CFL entered a commercial plantation agreement with the State (who governs the forest area), a benefit sharing agreement with the State and the Landowners and a social responsibility agreement with the Landowners and Fringe communities. As well as forest areas in need of restoration, clear and unambiguous land rights were a key factor in determining the suitability of project areas. Project Activities: Nursery development: Nurseries to produce high quality seedlings from 15 different species for large scale plantings. Tree planting: A mix of indigenous tree species is being used for reforestation. Monitoring/ maintenance activities: Annual verification against the VCS. Carbon methodologies & measurements: The project will establish 20,000ha of semi-natural forest over 15 years. This is estimated to absorb over 11 million tonnes of CO2e generating 6.88 million tonnes of CO2e for sale as Voluntary Carbon Units. Estimates were generated using a plantation model, which meets IPCC Tier 3 requirements, based on long-term inventory data from Ghana forests. Potential leakage threats mean that the net GHG removals will be approximately 20-25% of total carbon sequestered within planted trees. The project aims to generate carbon credits for sale in the voluntary carbon market being validated to the VCS and CCB standards. Economic, Environmental and Social benefits: Economic: approx 150 full-time and 1200 part-time jobs for members of the Forest Reserve fringe communities. Communities will receive carbon revenues, longer term timber revenues and an annual per hectare rent for their land. Environmental: biodiversity conservation and restoration of ecological services. Social: broadened livelihood opportunities, improved education and primary health care services, improved infrastructure and short-term food crop production on planted land until canopy closes. Trust fund for the local community to be established to generate income for livelihood needs. Project costs: Total cost approx USD 800/ha over 20 years. Mostly during the first four years of (establishment and maintenance of planted trees). Reference: Michael Packer (Arborcarb)

62


Project name: UWA-Face Natural High Forest Rehabilitation – Mt. Elgon National Park

Country: Uganda

Intervention type: Reforestation


Crediting period: 1994-2002;

Project status: Issuing credits

Project manager: FaceFoundation Netherlands and Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA)

Carbon owner: FaceFoundation Netherlands

Mount Elgon National Park (MENP) in Uganda experienced serious agricultural encroachment between 1970 and 1985 that resulted in the destruction of over 25,000 ha of primary forests. High immigration rates over the years resulted in 17% of the reserve being deforested by 1990 and presently, 30% of the 112,100ha National Park is affected by encroachment. Local communities surrounding this area are impoverished and depend heavily on MENP for their livelihood. The project aimed to address the forest pressure by reforesting 8,600ha of formerly encroached areas of MENP with native species and has restored the integrity of the degraded land, enhanced biodiversity while providing employment opportunities to the communities adjacent to MENP. Carbon methodologies & measurements: The project generated a net amount of 390,000 tonnes CO2e (risk free amount of 200,000 tonnes CO2e) between 1995 and 2002 based on 8,600 ha and almost 3.5 million trees. CO2 captured within the first 20 years expected at net 8 tonnes CO2 per ha per year. These calculations were done based on above ground and below ground biomass only. The project generated credits from SGS’s protocol (SGS FM/COC-0980) which is similar to a CDM methodology and has been FSC certified. Data collection: Data collection was done by the local authority and specialist consultants. Activities involved: • A field inventory of carbon stocks in 2002 including the area planted between 1994 and 1999. Tree measurements were done in 273 plots of 2,000m2 each. •

Assessing species to be planted by reviewing MENP forest reserve map from 1966 and previous scientific work.

•

Monitoring tree growth and performance from field data (measurements done in 3, 5, 12, 18, 24 and 36 months).

•

Monitoring of leakages, such as fire outbreaks, and forest maintenance.

•

Assessments of wider socio-economic and environment factors.

Economic, Environmental and Social Benefits: Economic: Increased income due to stable employment (any given point, project employed 500 people) and additional income from revenue-sharing scheme in agreement with UWA. Social: Local communities received non-wood benefits from the forest, experienced improved livelihoods, especially women, increased capacity in technical forestry and conservation skills, access to technology and infrastructure development. Environmental: Maintenance of the watershed, protection against landslides, biodiversity conservation. Project Costs: The project was funded entirely by FaceFoundation and cost breakdowns indicate that the cost per tonne of CO2e to date was EURO20. Please note that this value will become lower over time. Lessons Learned: •

Importance of working in areas where there is clarity in land rights.

•

Difficulties working in areas associated with high population growth and land pressure

•

Importance of combining conservation/ climate mitigation efforts with other land use models

Reference: Denis Slieker (FaceFoundation, the Netherlands), FSC (2007), UWA-Face Project (2008)

Box 5.9

63


5.10 Summary: factors that affect the success of project implementation This section discusses the factors that can increase the successful implementation of projects on the ground. The points highlighted here are drawn from interviews held with representatives of organisations that are currently involved in carbon sequestration or reduced emission projects in tropical Africa. The information is based on 10 different carbon project examples, with project activities of the following types: • Reforestation/afforestation • Avoided deforestation • Sustainable forest management • Agroforestry • Energy efficiency

The background to most of the case studies mentioned here can be found in the case study summary sheets.

Presence of local interest (local entrepreneur, government interest, etc.) Interviews with three projects (Improved Household Charcoal Stoves in Mali; Biochar Project-Kenya; TIST – Kenya) indicated the benefit of having a local partner on the ground. A local partner institution will be both more knowledgeable about the local context and Stakeholder consultation, Ghana cc Proforest

the local political issues, and in a better position to resolve potential political problems. Some stakeholders have mentioned the importance of finding a local entrepreneur (can be an individual, organisation, government entity, etc.) who can take a financial stake in the project, can provide local energy and drive and who can be committed to the project at a more personal level.

Land tenure issues Land tenure rights, or the lack of clear knowledge of rights, can seriously slow down the implementation of projects. It is important for would-be project sponsors to understand how the national government defines and delineates the land, the political history behind the type of land rights in the project area, how property rights have been allocated (i.e. who has authority to determine how a resource is used) and crucially, whether the communities within the proposed project area have clearly defined rights of use. It should be noted that projects can also provide the opportunity to clarify these issues (for example the AnkenihenyZahamena corridor project). Examples of such projects where land tenure issues played an important role in project outcomes are: • Project Oware • UWA-Face

64


The importance of feasibility assessments

Institutional support (training, capacity building, technical support)

Conducting socio-economic, biological, carbon and feasibility assessments should take priority before project sites and objectives are finalised. These assessments will reveal the main threats and issues that need to be addressed in each site and will determine where projects eventually get implemented. With afforestation projects, it is important to allow climatic conditions, such as rainfall and soil type, to determine the appropriate plantation type. Community perceptions and interest in the project is another key component for viable project implementation. Community perceptions will be affected by the degree to which project activities are tailored towards their specific needs and aspirations. Thus, the development needs of the area need to be determined and the extent to which the project is addressing these should be clarified. Baseline information for carbon potential obviously needs to be assessed, as this is a requirement of the certification/accreditation process under the various carbon standards.

Functional institutional frameworks at all levels, ranging from villages/ communities to national governments and organisations, are vital for smooth project-activity implementation. Stakeholders bring along with them a variety of expertise, which plays a vital role in supporting project implementation, from technical capacity building, to field assessment training and financial support. Transparent systems also need to be in place that allows for stakeholder engagement, information sharing and dispute mechanisms, which allows the project framework to continuously evolve to become more effective. These mechanisms help establish viable community development and alternative livelihoods. Clearly defined roles for the different stakeholders in this regard are necessary to ensure that all project objectives are met.

Participatory approach/ stakeholder consultation Participation and consultations with all stakeholders involved with the project is vital to ensure that the variety of activities and their likely implications are well understood by all relevant parties. In particular, projects should ensure that: • the needs of all stakeholders are raised and

addressed • the expectations of the projects are clearly defined • the mechanisms of benefit-sharing are addressed • the roles of each of stakeholder are defined • relevant local traditions and cultures, and national

policies and laws are identified • the economic activities that the project activities will

or may be competing with • the responsible parties for costs incurred are

identified

Group organisation Group organisations (associations or cooperatives) have been useful in regards to: (1) information dissemination; (2) cost and time efficiency – training sessions can be done in groups as opposed to on an individual basis; (3) problem solving; (4) community empowerment and (5) micro-credit schemes. Examples of such projects are: TIST – Kenya, Trees for Global Benefits and Improved Household Charcoal Stoves in Mali.

Self reliance/ incentive for long-term project viability Project managers and investors need to address the viability of their projects in the long-term and how this can be achieved. Several interviewees expressed the importance of: • Involving local stakeholders in project activities

by providing responsibilities and incentives for executing project activities, and • Providing alternative skills that allow for local

communities/ institutions to become more selfreliant in the long run

65


These mechanisms are useful for making the project a personal endeavour for the local communities. Other approaches include: i.

Incorporation of local communities/ institutions into monitoring/ management activities (Project Oware, Bonobo Peace Forest)

ii.

Financial incentives – payments to plant trees, payments dependent on how accurate their measurement activities are, trust funds (TISTKenya, Project Oware)

iii.

Access to the revenues from, for example, sales of timber (Idete Forest Project, Forest Again Kakamega Forest)

iv.

Development of technical skills: Business management, alternative livelihood schools, technology transfer, access to financial market, training and technology transfer of basic techniques to carry out components of the project (TIST-Kenya, Biochar Project - Kenya)

v.

Diversification of income – more reliable source of income– a great buffer against threats of climate change. Alternative livelihoods include beekeeping, fruit and NTFP gardens, etc. (Mantadia Forest Corridor Restoration Project, Improved Household Charcoal Stoves in Mali).

Presence of dispute mechanism The presence of regular forums, meetings to raise concerns or disputes and/or disseminate information, is a key component that allows for continual Forest plantation, Ghana cc Proforest

project implementation and increases community empowerment. These sessions are useful for information and experience sharing, problem solving and provide the opportunity for members to be creative and develop other activities (see, for example: Idete Forest Project).

Benefit Sharing Trust between all stakeholders, especially from the local communities involved, determines how effective projects can be. This can be improved by good stakeholder participation and communication as mentioned above. This understanding can ensure that all key parties will execute their responsibilities effectively and will be committed to the project in the long-term. Key characteristics certain stakeholders have pulled out include: i.

Provision of jobs to the local communities (Examples: Kikonda Forest Reserve Reforestation Project)

ii.

Provision of development and livelihood aspects, such as health care and school construction, alternative livelihood training (Examples: Bonobo Peace Forest, Ankeniheny-Zahamena corridor)

iii.

Provision of economic gains (short term or longterm), such as revenues from timber and carbon credit sales, scholarships, trust funds (Examples: TIST-Kenya, Project Oware, Ankeniheny-Zahamena corridor, Forest Again Kakamega Forest, N’hambita Community Carbon Project)

66


6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 6.1 The scientific basis of estimates and projections Overview of land use related emissions in tropical Africa Fossil fuel emissions from tropical Africa are very small in the global context, and account for about 3% of the global total. It has been widely assumed that land-use change (and particularly deforestation) contributes significantly to African emissions. However, while some studies have estimated that landuse change adds to fossil fuel emissions, other evidence suggests emissions from land-use change are more or less balanced by sequestration going on in existing forests and recovering ‘degraded land’. Some have suggested that African forests have an overall sequestration effect (removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere) despite the apparent rates of land-use change. There is still significant scientific debate on whether or not land-use change in Africa is leading to a net emission of carbon. There are major challenges in accurately accounting for deforestation, and tracking the changes in carbon stocks that follow forest conversion to other land uses. There are also challenges in monitoring actual CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. While it is clear that land use related interventions in Africa can have an impact on the carbon stored locally, this uncertainty should be considered in discussion of the role of African countries in emissions reductions.

Summary of stocks and accumulation figures Models of the impacts of land-use change are built on average values for carbon stocks and assumptions about what happens to this carbon under a given landuse change scenario. The primary data reviewed for this report show average values for land uses and interventions in Africa are often built on scarce data points.

For example, from our literature survey, we recovered only 14 values for total ecosystem carbon in moist tropical African rainforest, which were taken from 3 scientific papers. This amounts to far less than one value per tropical African country! By way of comparison, in the UK the Forestry Commission carries out a regular assessment of woodlands in the UK to collect size, distribution, composition and condition of Britain’s woodlands. This assessment is used as the basis for national estimates of woodland cover and condition. The survey is based on over 15,000 1-hectare plots of woodland across England, Scotland and Wales, and on a vegetation classification scheme that itself is built on over 35,000 vegetation samples. While it is possible to construct average values for different forest types from the African literature database we have compiled, it is essential to be aware of the limitations of the underlying data. While many studies have been carried out, these studies: • Are geographically widespread • Have measured different aspects (e.g. above ground

biomass, not soil carbon) and • Have used different methods for compiling overall

estimates In fact, the variation in the data may be more important than the average figures. It shows the extent of variation between ecosystems and between different studies. Furthermore, there is a rather limited case history of projects and methodological approaches to fall back on. This suggests individual projects will need to do a great deal of experimentation and methodological development to be able to make projections about sequestration possibilities. Despite the degree of variation in the data, it is possible to re-affirm that in all cases mature forests retain and store more carbon than all other land uses considered. Per hectare carbon values depend on the biome, with moist areas generally storing more carbon per hectare than dry areas. But in broad terms natural forests contain 200-300 t C per ha, which is compared with 150-200 for plantations, 90-95 for agroforestry systems and 50-70 for annual agriculture. The conservation or restoration of forest remains the most effective way to maintain terrestrial carbon stocks.

67


With regard to rates of accumulation, tree plantations have the highest recorded average rates of carbon accumulation (frequently above 5 t C per ha) compared with regenerating natural forest areas (approx 2.6-2.9t C per ha), agroforestry systems (around 2.5 t C per ha), improved annual agriculture (1.2 t C per ha) mature natural forest (0.6 t C per ha) and improved grazing land (0.3 t C per ha).

Using stock values in modelling It is possible to multiply these values by area coverage for different land uses to arrive at estimates of, for example, total carbon contained in agricultural lands, or the additional sequestration benefit of changing one land use to another. However, per hectare values are considered more useful measurements. This is because interventions are normally made at specific geographical locations, and need to be adaptable to the needs of local land users. Carbon markets and other ‘buyers’ of carbon sequestration need to be able to measure the impact of their interventions, and impacts can only be effectively measured at local scales. While it is tempting to hypothesise about national or even continent-wide impacts of moving all agricultural land use to an agroforestry model, for instance, hypothetical estimates of the potential carbon sequestration benefit have limited practical value.

6.2 Evaluation of interventions In this section, the different land use related interventions are discussed by major land use category, and the implications for projects in Africa are drawn out. There are measurements in the scientific literature that can be used to project the extent of potential carbon storage and sequestration from different types of intervention. However, as discussed above, there is wide variation in the figures, and sequestration benefits are highly context-dependent. Quoted rates of carbon sequestration vary considerably due to: • Natural regional variation in climate soil type etc • Methodological variations

Forestry: Forest protection, restoration and regeneration In absolute carbon terms, the protection of forests, and specifically the avoidance of deforestation, delivers the highest carbon saving. The maintenance of 1ha of moist tropical rainforest (that would otherwise have been converted to an agricultural use) represents a saving of up to 200 t C, (720 t CO2 e). Assuming a rate of sequestration of 2 t C per ha per year in an agricultural context (using improved agricultural techniques) it would take 100 years to recover this lost carbon. However, assuming that the forest would have been sequestering carbon at 0.6 t C per ha per year this ‘payback’ period would be over 140 years. Guaranteeing an actual carbon saving through forest protection is, however, not straight forward. A European Union project evaluation of protected area status in Africa shows a very wide range of status and condition. The effectiveness of protection depends on many variables including population pressure, and the availability of environmental goods and services from the surrounding landscape. Calculations of the emissions saving must consider offsite or indirect effects, which remain problematic due to the huge range of possible effects and the difficulty of identifying direct causal links between them. National (coordinated) land use plans for Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) appear to offer a major opportunity to account for, and possibly combat, the consequences of leakage at larger scales. A format for accounting and managing carbon flows is yet to be devised, but a number of options are already being formulated and the subject is a specific focus of forthcoming climate talks. While the REDD debate presents the opportunity for payments for forest protection it should be noted that the potential to increase the amount of protected land remains limited in most countries. This is country specific (depending on population density and existing land use) and depends as strongly on factors such as cultural perceptions about productive land use.

68


Clarification of land use rights is necessary. But in many cases land rights are connected with land use and economic development. Where the overall objective is conservation this can lead to complications. Finally, protecting a forest area means addressing the concerns of very different stakeholder groups. Substituting logging concessions for ‘conservation concessions’ through a simple financial payment for the logging licence risks ignoring the employment generation role of logging companies, and does not address the question of timber demand. Furthermore, where there is also pressure from itinerant agriculture, suitable commercial arrangements may be necessary to offset the opportunity cost for land users of not clearing new land. The calculation of this opportunity cost is an emerging area of research. Translating a payment mechanism into an actual reduction in land clearing has yet to be effectively demonstrated.

of the problem. We are, therefore, a very long way from being able to quantify the possible magnitude of these carbon savings. In any case, all interventions to promote sustainable forest management (SFM) (including RIL) depend strongly on legal enforcement to level the playing field and diminish the marginal benefits of illegality. Forest certification has already been shown to have significant traction (and can be used to promote both RIL and increased set-aside) but the attraction of forest certification is also dependent on strong law enforcement to remove the benefits of illegality. Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (FLEG) initiatives are therefore important, not for the narrow reason that illegal timber is carbon leaking out of the forest, but for the wider reason that it will increase the speed with which the industry as a whole moves towards SFM.

SFM in logging concessions The overall carbon emissions from logging are small, on a per ha scale, and may even be offset by increased rates of sequestration in recovering forest. In tropical Africa, the carbon sequestration benefits of reduced impact logging (RIL) alone are marginal. Note, however, that studies on the carbon benefits of RIL have considered only the difference between conventional legal forest management and best practice involving RIL. They have not considered the magnitude of illegal harvesting that occurs in tropical Africa. It should be noted that the issue of illegal logging is very complex and in many cases – particularly in large-scale operations - it is both destructive and unnecessary, and better control would have many benefits beyond just those related to carbon. However, ‘illegal’ activities also include subsistence and smallscale local harvesting which are important to local economies and may not be considered ‘illegal’ by either the practitioners or the consumers. For large-scale illegal logging, the effective enforcement of sustainable harvesting limits and protected forest areas through the application of forest laws would lead to a far greater carbon saving over the business as usual scenario. However, due to the clandestine nature of much illegal forestry activity, there is very little reliable information about the extent

Community forestry Community forest management has been shown to lead to forest recovery in Tanzania (increased quality of forest). It appears that the success of community forestry in carbon terms depends on the alternative land uses that are available, and the role of the forest in the provision of environmental services. Rates of deforestation in Tanzania seem to have helped the success of CFM, as communities are able to see the consequence of forest loss for the environmental goods and services (such as fuel wood) on which they still depend. In the moist tropical zone (e.g. Cameroon, Gabon) the baseline conditions are different. Population pressure is lower relative to the abundance of forest resources. In the moist tropical forest zone CFM is promoted as a way of engaging communities with logging and the timber sector. However, this approach delivers less overall benefit to the communities. The marginal benefits from commercial management of the timber resource are less evident. Certainly, where the alternative land uses are oil palm or other cash crop (cocoa in Ghana) and the forest’s role in environmental service provision is less clear, it is hard to see that community forestry would offer a viable alternative.

69


Plantations Plantations clearly have the greatest potential for fast above ground carbon sequestration in woody biomass, although this depends heavily on appropriate species selection and good management of the plantation. The actual carbon sequestration benefit also depends on the level of soil disturbance that takes place during establishment, and the quality of ground cover that is established. Plantations of native species (especially mixtures of native species) may not deliver such fast growth rates, but are likely to provide longer term benefits with respect to soil and biodiversity. In Ghana, the ArborCarb project is an example of using native species for natural forest restoration using a plantation model. This approach is attractive due to the combination of carbon and other ‘co-benefits’ that can be claimed. However, plantation projects often need to meet more immediate needs of local land users (for e.g. firewood) and house-building timber, so rapid growth may well be the paramount consideration.

Woodfuel and charcoal interventions There are two dominant types of intervention for reducing fuel wood collection: • Efficient cooking stoves • Efficient charcoal production

Both are attractive because interventions are relatively easy to implement at a local scale and have clear commercial benefits to the participants (economisation of resources). Demonstrating an overall carbon saving, however, is problematic because the ultimate goal of the intervention is removed from the intervention activity. More efficient fuel use has only an indirect effect on rates of fuel wood extraction from natural forest. Demonstrating the causal relationship between the project activity and the desired result is extremely challenging. The E+ Charcoal Stoves Project in Mali aims to promote the use of fuel efficient cooking stives. However, demonstrating an overall carbon saving would require the producers of the surpluss charcoal to reduce their

levels of production, and the cutters of the surpluss wood to abandon their work for other activities. Both factors are beyond the control of the project.

Pasture and grazing land The areas of rough grazing land and savannah grasslands are very significant in Africa, so although carbon sequestration benefits of interventions are limited on a per hectare basis, the cumulative effect could be large. Nonetheless, project-based interventions tend not to be replicable over large geographical areas, as local conditions vary. On an individual project basis, the results of silvo-pasture type interventions will not be very large. It is also important to note that interventions to intensify the production of fodder and move away from extensive grazing depend as much on cultural concerns as they do on technical ones. Stall feeding is not compatible with animal husbandry traditions in all cases. Link to fuel wood collection: also a factor promoting the degradation of grazing land.

Agriculture It is widely believed that agricultural intensification, the amelioration of degraded lands and the slowing of desertification in Africa offer additional opportunities for C sequestration. But it is important to clarify the debate about agriculture as it relates to terrestrial carbon. Agricultural interventions are assumed to deliver carbon benefits in two ways: 1. An increase in on-farm carbon storage and sequestration through farming techniques aimed at increasing e.g. soil organic matter 2. The decrease in deforestation resulting from agricultural expansion On a per hectare scale, prevention of deforestation delivers a much greater carbon saving than increasing on-farm carbon storage, and it is often stated that that it is shifting cultivation (combined with population growth) that is the main driver of deforestation.

70


However, preventing the expansion of shifting cultivation lands involves addressing two issues: • the cultural traditions that underlie this agricultural

practice, and • patterns of land rights and ownership

These problems seem specifically significant for the calculation of benefits derived from wood fuel projects. The indirect nature of, for instance, cooking stove interventions, relative to the ultimate goal of reducing unsustainable wood collection, means the effect on forests may be very difficult to quantify.

In terms of the first issue it is often assumed that increasing productivity on the farm will result in decreased forest clearance for new agricultural land. However, much of the research carried out on specific agricultural techniques is applied to farmers who are permanent. All techniques require investment of money or effort in the land for a long-term payoff of increased or sustained yields. None of these techniques are applicable in shifting cultivators, where investment in the land is specifically avoided.

Nationally coordinated REDD schemes offer some opportunities to share methodological approaches and account for diffuse leakage problems. This is an emerging area of interest to philanthropists.

This links to the second issue which is that many farmers involved in shifting agriculture do not have any long-term right to the land and therefore no incentive to manage it for long-term productivity. Furthermore, in some situations, rights to land are based on evidence of use, creating an incentive to clear new areas of forest in order to demonstrate use rights.

6.4 Results of the review of carbon projects in Africa

Accordingly, serious attention needs to be given to the question of who a given intervention is aimed at. Increasing the productivity on permanent farms will not change the practices of shifting cultivators.

6.3 Experience derived from carbon market projects Markets have developed stringent reporting requirements that place emphasis on the accurate calculation of baseline emissions, and require accounting for leakage effects. However, methods for this are largely un-tested in the African context, due to the small number of projects to-date and the paucity of primary data on stocks and emissions. Experience also shows that land use related projects in Africa present specific challenges. This is often due to the small scale and diffuse nature of emissions, which makes accounting for baselines and demonstrating impacts complex and costly. Both factors diminish the marginal benefit of such projects in terms of pure carbon finance.

In addition, there is clearly a need for further research to quantify the effects of different interventions, including changes to socio-cultural practices such as shifting agriculture, and to further understand the interactions between different activities and actors.

Project information relating to 52 land-use related carbon sequestration projects in Africa was reviewed. These projects ranged from large, institutionally backed regional projects with coordinated actions in several countries to small, privately funded initiatives such as improved cooking stoves or reforestation interventions. What was clear from the survey was that most projects were, in effect, a mixture of different interventions. Projects aiming to reduce deforestation will typically work simultaneously towards forest protection, reforestation, agricultural diversification and livelihoods development if they are to succeed. From a project persective, this leads to significant complexities in carrying out baseline calculations, and project projections. From a wider perspective it implies that initiatives to improve terrestrial carbon management are likely to require a combination of different approaches to be deployed in parallel. This in turn implies the need for engagement with a range of different actors both in planning and in distribution of benefits. These findings emphasize the importance of inclusive and effective planning in national REDD preparation processes to develop strategies and plans which recognise this complexity and provide approaches which will work in practice.

71


The variation in focus and effort between the projects makes comparisons of costs and effects difficult with a low overall number of samples. However, we carried out detailed follow up interviews with 10 staff of these projects that were specifically relevant to the areas of interest to FPAN. These interviews brought to light several issues, including: • The importance of clear and uncontested land rights

and property rights in project areas • The importance of detailed planning including

feasibility studies • The importance of detailed stakeholder consultation

and local buy-in • The need to include institutional training/capacity

building in project activities • The importance of group organisation of the

relevant land users • The existence of a dispute resolution mechanism • The need for the involvement of local entrepreneurs

and for land users to have an active stake in the financial benefit from the project. Overall, it is clear that undertaking projects to reduce emissions or increase sequestration of terrestrial carbon in Africa is not straight-forward and if they are to be effective then it will take considerable work and commitment. It should be noted that this is not just the case in Africa – as the global focus on REDD continues it is rapidly becoming clear that it will be a complex issue to address everywhere. National REDD preparation processes, if they lead to effective national strategies, require action plans and capacity building as an important component of success, as well as good research to provide reliable information and pilot projects to provide examples of practical solutions.

6.5 Summary of feedback from project implementation Described below are some key lessons learned based on interviewee responses on their intervention projects. This section focuses on the challenges in project implementation.

• Several interviewees expressed frustration with

the baseline assessments and PDD development process that is necessary for project inclusion into carbon markets. The process is lengthy and intricate and often very costly. A few interviewees that already have projects in place, but have not formally submitted for carbon standard, have expressed concern about the high costs associated with entering the carbon market, which has slowed down the process substantially. • Site selection for project implementation cannot be

based only on the greatest threat to carbon stocks. Instead, projects have tended to be developed where pressure on forests is high, people are most receptive, and where there are fewer political and land-tenure obstacles to overcome. It would be interesting to investigate whether the project sites are in priority areas in terms of carbon. • Very few projects have considered climate change

adaptation in detail. Literature projects potential effects on landscapes, including severe droughts in some areas and floods in others. These issues could negatively affect many of these projects, in terms of carbon, biodiversity and other social indicators. • Most projects focus on capturing social benefits in

the short term. Projects have generally noted the importance of involving local societies in project implementation, as they play a key role for the long-term viability of the intervention. The benefits realised to date have mostly been social co-benefits. • Providing upfront costs to local communities

involved with the project is important. This provides incentives to participate in the project, but also for allowing local communities to understand and therefore appreciate the project. Upfront costs, such as the provision of seedlings, fertilisers, etc., make local community members more willing to join the project. • The monitoring process for carbon, leakage

and other environmental and social indicators, is often complex. This can be very expensive and complicated, and depends on the type of verification or certification desired. • Complex projects are more costly. The involvement

of multiple stakeholders and multiple community development, environment and social components all increases cost. Increasing the geographical scope has the same effect, particularly since projects need consistent monitoring.

72


7 ANNEX 1 – CARBON MODELLING RESEARCH REFERENCES Abbas, F., and A. Fares. 2009. Soil Organic Carbon and Carbon Dioxide Emission from an Organically Amended Hawaiian Tropical Soil. Soil Science Society of America Journal 73:995-1003. Adams, D. M., R. J. Alig, J. M. Callaway, B. A. McCarl, and S. M. Winnett. 1996. The forest and agricultural sector optimization model (FASOM): Model structure and policy applications. Introduction. Usda Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station Research Paper:1. Al-Adamat, R., Z. Rawajfih, M. Easter, K. Paustian, K. Coleman, E. Milne, P. Falloon, D. S. Powlson, and N. H. Batjes. 2007. Predicted soil organic carbon stocks and changes in Jordan between 2000 and 2030 made using the GEFSOC modelling system. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 122:35-45. Apezteguia, H. P., R. C. Izaurralde, and R. Sereno. 2009. Simulation study of soil organic matter dynamics as affected by land use and agricultural practices in semiarid Cordoba, Argentina. Soil & Tillage Research 102:101-108. Bhadwal, S., and R. Singh. 2002. Carbon sequestration estimates for forestry options under different land-use scenarios in India. Current Science 83:1380-1386. Billen, N., C. Roder, T. Gaiser, and K. Stahr. 2009. Carbon sequestration in soils of SW-Germany as affected by agricultural managementCalibration of the EPIC model for regional simulations. Ecological Modelling 220:71-80. Booth, T. H., and T. Jovanovic. 2003. Species-site matching for carbon sequestration plantations. Pages 76-81 in International Workshop on Facilitating International Carbon Accounting in Forests, Canberra, AUSTRALIA. Bottcher, H., A. Freibauer, M. Obersteiner, and E. D. Schulze. 2008. Uncertainty analysis of climate change mitigation options in the forestry sector using a generic carbon budget model. Ecological Modelling 213:45-62.

Campbell, B. M., R. Costanza, and M. van den Belt. 2000. Special section: Land use options in dry tropical woodland ecosystems in Zimbabwe: Introduction, overview and synthesis. Ecological Economics 33:341-351. Campbell, J. E., J. C. Moen, R. A. Ney, and J. L. Schnoor. 2008. Comparison of regression coefficient and GIS-based methodologies for regional estimates of forest soil carbon stocks. Environmental Pollution 152:267-273. Cao, M. K., Q. F. Zhang, and H. H. Shugart. 2001. Dynamic responses of African ecosystem carbon cycling to climate change. Climate Research 17:183-193. Causarano, H. J., J. N. Shaw, A. J. Franzluebbers, D. W. Reeves, R. L. Raper, K. S. Balkcom, M. L. Norfleet, and R. C. Izaurralde. 2007. Simulating field-scale soil organic carbon dynamics using EPIC. Soil Science Society of America Journal 71:1174-1185. Cerri, C. E. P., M. Easter, K. Paustian, K. Killian, K. Coleman, M. Bernoux, P. Falloon, D. S. Powlson, N. Batjes, E. Milne, and C. C. Cerri. 2007. Simulating SOC changes in 11 land use change chronosequences from the Brazilian Amazon with RothC and Century models. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 122:46-57. Chatskikh, D., J. E. Olesen, E. M. Hansen, L. Elsgaard, and B. M. Petersen. 2008. Effects of reduced tillage on net greenhouse gas fluxes from loamy sand soil under winter crops in Denmark. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 128:117126. Collins, J. N., L. B. Hutley, R. J. Williams, G. Boggs, D. Bell, and R. Bartolo. 2009. Estimating landscape-scale vegetation carbon stocks using airborne multi-frequency polarimetric synthetic aperture radar (SAR) in the savannahs of north Australia. International Journal of Remote Sensing 30:1141-1159.

73


Conti, D. S. J. 2008. Carbon sequestration as part of the global warming solution - Using software to combine environmental stewardship with economic benefit. Forestry Chronicle 84:162165. de Koning, G. H. J., P. C. Benitez, F. Munoz, and R. Olschewski. 2007. Modelling the impacts of payments for biodiversity conservation on regional land-use patterns. Landscape and Urban Planning 83:255-267. Deckmyn, G., R. Ceulemans, D. Rasse, D. A. Sampson, J. Garcia, and B. Muys. 2002. Modelling the carbon sequestration of a mixed, unevenaged, managed forest using the process model SECRETS. Pages 143-155 in Workshop on Interface between Reality, Modelling and the Parameter Estimation Process, Sesimbra, PORTUGAL. Dendoncker, N., B. van Wesemael, P. Smith, S. Lettens, C. Roelandt, and M. Rounsevell. 2008. Assessing scale effects on modelled soil organic carbon contents as a result of land use change in Belgium. Soil Use and Management 24:8-18. Easter, M., K. Paustian, K. Killian, S. Williams, T. Feng, R. Al-Adamat, N. H. Batjes, M. Bernoux, T. Bhattacharyya, C. C. Cerri, C. E. P. Cerri, K. Coleman, P. Falloon, C. Feller, P. Gicheru, P. Kamoni, E. Milne, D. K. Pal, D. S. Powlson, Z. Rawajfih, M. Sessay, and S. Wokabi. 2007. The GEFSOC soil carbon modelling system: A tool for conducting regional-scale soil carbon inventories and assessing the impacts of land use change on soil carbon. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 122:13-25. Euskirchen, E. S., J. Q. Chen, H. B. Li, E. J. Gustafson, and T. R. Crow. 2002. Modeling landscape net ecosystem productivity (LandNEP) under alternative management regimes. Ecological Modelling 154:75-91. Falloon, P., P. Smith, R. I. Bradley, R. Milne, R. Tomlinson, D. Viner, M. Livermore, and T. Brown. 2006. RothCUK - a dynamic modelling system for

estimating changes in soil C from mineral soils at 1-km resolution in the UK. Soil Use and Management 22:274-288. Felzer, B., J. Reilly, J. Melillo, D. Kicklighter, M. Sarofim, C. Wang, R. Prinn, and Q. Zhuang. 2005. Future effects of ozone on carbon sequestration and climate change policy using a global biogeochemical model. Climatic Change 73:345-373. Foereid, B., G. T. Barthram, and C. A. Marriott. 2007. The CENTURY model failed to simulate soil organic matter development in an acidic grassland. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 78:143-153. Gaiser, T., K. Stahr, N. Billen, and M. A. R. Mohammad. 2008. Modeling carbon sequestration under zero tillage at the regional scale. I. The effect of soil erosion. Ecological Modelling 218:110-120. Gambiza, J., W. Bond, P. G. H. Frost, and S. Higgins. 2000. A simulation model of miombo woodland dynamics under different management regimes. Ecological Economics 33:353-368. Garcia-Quijano, J. F., G. Deckmyn, R. Ceulemans, J. van Orshoven, and B. Muys. 2008. Scaling from stand to landscape scale of climate change mitigation by afforestation and forest management: a modeling approach. Climatic Change 86:397-424. Garcia-Quijano, J. F., J. Peters, L. Cockx, G. van Wyk, A. Rosanov, G. Deckmyn, R. Ceulemans, S. M. Ward, N. M. Holden, J. Van Orshoven, and B. Muys. 2007. Carbon sequestration and environmental effects of afforestation with Pinus radiata D. Don in the Western Cape, South Africa. Climatic Change 83:323-355. Gonzalez-Estrada, E., L. C. Rodriguez, V. K. Walen, J. B. Naab, J. Koo, J. W. Jones, M. Herrero, and P. K. Thornton. 2008. Carbon sequestration and farm income in West Africa: Identifying best management practices for smallholder agricultural systems in northern Ghana. Ecological Economics 67:492-502.

74


Gutierrez, V. H., M. Zapata, C. Sierra, W. Laguado, and A. Santacruz. 2006. Maximizing the profitability of forestry projects under the Clean Development Mechanism using a forest management optimization model. Forest Ecology and Management 226:341-350. Heijmans, M., D. Mauquoy, B. van Geel, and F. Berendse. 2008. Long-term effects of climate change on vegetation and carbon dynamics in peat bogs. Journal of Vegetation Science 19:307-U354. Hennigar, C. R., D. A. MacLean, and L. J. AmosBinks. 2008. A novel approach to optimize management strategies for carbon stored in both forests and wood products. Forest Ecology and Management 256:786-797. Hill, M. J., S. H. Roxburgh, G. M. McKeon, J. O. Carter, and D. J. Barrett. 2006. Analysis of soil carbon outcomes from interaction between climate and grazing pressure in Australian rangelands using Range-ASSESS. Environmental Modelling & Software 21:779-801. Ito, A. 2008. The regional carbon budget of East Asia simulated with a terrestrial ecosystem model and validated using AsiaFlux data. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 148:738-747. Izaurralde, R. C., J. R. Williams, W. B. McGill, N. J. Rosenberg, and M. C. Q. Jakas. 2006. Simulating soil C dynamics with EPIC: Model description and testing against long-term data. Ecological Modelling 192:362-384. Jones, J. W., J. Koo, J. B. Naab, W. M. Bostick, S. Traore, and W. D. Graham. 2007. Integrating stochastic models and in situ sampling for monitoring soil carbon sequestration. Pages 52-62 in Scientific Workshop on Land Management for Carbon Sequestration in the Sudan-Sahel Region, Bamako, MALI. Keles, S., and E. Z. Baskent. 2007. Modelling and analyzing timber production and carbon sequestration values of forest ecosystems: A case study. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies 16:473-479.

Kroodsma, D. A., and C. B. Field. 2006. Carbon sequestration in California agriculture, 19802000. Ecological Applications 16:1975-1985. Kurz, W. A., G. Stinson, and G. Rampley. 2008. Could increased boreal forest ecosystem productivity offset carbon losses from increased disturbances? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 363:22612269. Kustermann, B., M. Kainz, and K. J. Hulsbergen. 2005. Modeling carbon cycles and estimation of greenhouse gas emissions from organic and conventional farming systems. Pages 38-52 in 1st Scientific Conference of the InternationalSociety-of-Organic-Agriculture Research, Adelaide, AUSTRALIA. La Scala, N., A. Lopes, K. Spokas, D. Bolonhezi, D. W. Archer, and D. C. Reicosky. 2008. Short-term temporal changes of soil carbon losses after tillage described by a first-order decay model. Soil & Tillage Research 99:108-118. Leite, L. F. C., P. C. Doraiswamy, H. J. Causarano, H. T. Gollany, S. Milak, and E. S. Mendonca. 2009. Modeling organic carbon dynamics under notillage and plowed systems in tropical soils of Brazil using CQESTR. Soil & Tillage Research 102:118-125. Liang, Y., H. T. Gollany, R. W. Rickman, S. L. Albrecht, R. F. Follett, W. W. Wilhelm, J. M. Novak, and C. L. Douglas. 2008. CQESTR simulation of management practice effects on long-term soil organic carbon. Soil Science Society of America Journal 72:1486-1492. Liski, J., T. Palosuo, M. Peltoniemi, and R. Sievanen. 2005. Carbon and decomposition model Yasso for forest soils. Ecological Modelling 189:168182. Longdoz, B., M. Aubinet, and L. M. Francois. 2004. Model of forest carbon sequestration incorporating aerial wood radiative budget. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 125:83104.


Lufafa, A., J. Bolte, D. Wright, M. Khouma, I. Diedhiou, R. P. Dick, F. Kizito, E. Dossa, and J. S. Noller. 2008. Regional carbon stocks and dynamics in native woody shrub communities of Senegal’s Peanut Basin. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 128:1-11. McCarney, G. R., G. W. Armstrong, and W. L. Adamowicz. 2008. Joint production of timber, carbon, and wildlife habitat in the Canadian boreal plains. Canadian Journal of Forest Research-Revue Canadienne De Recherche Forestiere 38:1478-1492. McKenney, D. W., D. Yemshanov, G. Fox, and E. Ramlal. 2006. Using bioeconomic models to assess research priorities: a case study on afforestation as a carbon sequestration tool. Canadian Journal of Forest Research-Revue Canadienne De Recherche Forestiere 36:886900. Metzger, M. J., M. D. A. Rounsevell, L. Acosta-Michlik, R. Leemans, and D. Schrotere. 2004. The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land use change. Pages 69-85 in International Workshop on Integrated Assessment of the Land use in Europe - Future of the Land, Amsterdam, NETHERLANDS. Miehle, P., S. J. Livesley, P. M. Feikema, C. Li, and S. K. Arndt. 2006. Assessing productivity and carbon sequestration capacity of Eucalyptus globulus plantations using the process model forestDNDC: Calibration and validation. Ecological Modelling 192:83-94. Milne, E., R. Al Adamat, N. H. Batjes, M. Bernoux, T. Bhattacharyya, C. C. Cerri, C. E. P. Cerri, K. Coleman, M. Easter, P. Falloon, C. Feller, P. Gicheru, P. Kamoni, K. Killian, D. K. Pal, K. Paustian, D. S. Powlson, Z. Rawajfih, M. Sessay, S. Williams, and S. Wokabi. 2007a. National and sub-national assessments of soil organic carbon stocks and changes: The GEFSOC modelling system. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 122:3-12.

75

Milne, E., K. Paustian, M. Easter, M. Sessay, R. Al-Adamat, N. H. Batjes, M. Bernoux, T. Bhattacharyya, C. C. Cerri, C. E. P. Cerri, K. Coleman, P. Falloon, C. Feller, P. Gicheru, P. Kamoni, K. Killian, D. K. Pal, D. S. Powlson, S. Williams, and Z. Rawajfih. 2007b. An increased understanding of soil organic carbon stocks and changes in non-temperate areas: National and global implications. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 122:125-136. Milne, E., M. E. Sessay, M. Easter, K. Paustian, and K. Killian. 2006. Sustainable land management through soil organic carbon management and sequestration - The GEFSOC modelling system. Pages 359-371 in International Workshop on Climate and Land Degradation, Arusha, TANZANIA. Nabuurs, G. J., B. van Putten, T. S. Knippers, and G. M. J. Mohren. 2008. Comparison of uncertainties in carbon sequestration estimates for a tropical and a temperate forest. Forest Ecology and Management 256:237-245. Nelson, E., G. Mendoza, J. Regetz, S. Polasky, H. Tallis, D. R. Cameron, K. M. A. Chan, G. C. Daily, J. Goldstein, P. M. Kareiva, E. Lonsdorf, R. Naidoo, T. H. Ricketts, and M. R. Shaw. 2009. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7:4-11. Ogle, S. M., F. J. Breidt, M. Easter, S. Williams, and K. Paustian. 2007. An empirically based approach for estimating uncertainty associated with modelling carbon sequestration in soils. Ecological Modelling 205:453-463. Pansu, M., L. Sarmiento, K. Metselaar, D. Herve, and P. Bottner. 2007. Modelling the transformations and sequestration of soil organic matter in two contrasting ecosystems of the Andes. European Journal of Soil Science 58:775-785.

76


Paul, K. L., K. Jacobsen, V. Koul, P. Leppert, and J. Smith. Rokityanskiy, D., P. C. Beniez, F. Kraxner, I. McCallum, 2008. Predicting growth and sequestration M. Obersteiner, E. Rametsteiner, and Y. of carbon by plantations growing in regions Yamagata. 2007. Geographically explicit of low-rainfall in southern Australia. Forest global modeling of land-use change, Ecology and Management 254:205-216. carbon sequestration, and biomass supply. Technological Forecasting and Social Change Paul, K. L., P. J. Polglase, and G. P. Richards. 2003. 74:1057-1082. Predicted change in soil carbon following afforestation or reforestation, and analysis of Sathaye, J., W. Makundi, L. Dale, P. Chan, and K. controlling factors by linking a C accounting Andrasko. 2006. GHG mitigation potential, model (CAMFor) to models of forest growth costs and benefits in global forests: A (3PG), litter decomposition (GENDEC) and dynamic partial equilibrium approach. Energy soil C turnover (RothC). Forest Ecology and Journal:127-162. Management 177:485-501. Univ Calif Berkeley, Lawrence Berkeley Lab, Berkeley, CA Persson, T., G. Bergkvist, and T. Katterer. 2008. Long94720 USA. US EPA, Washington, DC 20460 term effects of crop rotations with and without perennial leys on soil carbon stocks and grain Schaldach, R., and J. Alcamo. 2006. Coupled simulation yields of winter wheat. Nutrient Cycling in of regional land use change and soil carbon Agroecosystems 81:193-202. sequestration: A case study for the state of Hesse in Germany. Environmental Modelling & Post, J., F. F. Hattermann, V. Krysanova, and F. Suckow. Software 21:1430-1446. 2008. Parameter and input data uncertainty estimation for the assessment of long-term Schmid, S., E. Thurig, E. Kaufmann, H. Lischke, and H. soil organic carbon dynamics. Environmental Bugmann. 2006. Effect of forest management Modelling & Software 23:125-138. on future carbon pools and fluxes: A model comparison. Forest Ecology and Management Qiu, J. J., C. S. Li, L. G. Wang, H. J. Tang, H. Li, and E. 237:65-82. Van Ranst. 2009. Modeling impacts of carbon sequestration on net greenhouse gas emissions Seidl, R., W. Rammer, D. Jager, W. S. Currie, and M. J. from agricultural soils in China. Global Lexer. 2007. Assessing trade-offs between Biogeochemical Cycles 23. carbon sequestration and timber production within a framework of multi-purpose forestry Rhemtulla, J. M., D. J. Mladenoff, and M. K. Clayton. in Austria. Forest Ecology and Management 2009. Historical forest baselines reveal 248:64-79. potential for continued carbon sequestration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Seidl, R., W. Rammer, P. Lasch, F. W. Badeck, and M. J. Sciences of the United States of America Lexer. 2008. Does conversion of even-aged, 106:6082-6087. secondary coniferous forests affect carbon sequestration? A simulation study under Rickman, R. W., C. L. Douglas, S. L. Albrecht, J. L. Berc, changing environmental conditions. Silva L. Norfleet, and M. Hubbs. 2001. CQESTR, a Fennica 42:369-386. field-level farm carbon sequestration planning tool. Pages 356-368 in 12th International Skog, K. E. 2008. Sequestration of carbon in harvested Conference on Global Warming Science and wood products for the United States. Forest Policy, Cambridge, England. Products Journal 58:56-72.

77


Smithwick, E. A. H., M. E. Harmon, and J. B. Domingo. 2007. Changing temporal patterns of forest carbon stores and net ecosystem carbon balance: The stand to landscape transformation. Landscape Ecology 22:77-94.

Tornquist, C. G., P. W. Gassman, J. Mielniczuk, E. Giasson, and T. Campbell. 2009. Spatially explicit simulations of soil C dynamics in Southern Brazil: Integrating century and GIS with i_Century. Geoderma 150:404-414.

Strengers, B. J., J. G. Van Minnen, and B. Eickhout. 2008. The role of carbon plantations in mitigating climate change: potentials and costs. Climatic Change 88:343-366.

Traore, P. C. S., W. M. Bostick, J. W. Jones, J. Koo, K. Goita, and B. V. Bado. 2008. A simple soil organic-matter model for biomass data assimilation in community-level carbon contracts. Ecological Applications 18:624-636.

Sun, J. F., C. H. Peng, H. McCaughey, X. L. Zhou, V. Thomas, F. Berninger, B. St-Onge, and D. Hua. 2006. Simulating carbon exchange of Canadian boreal forests II. Comparing the carbon budgets of a boreal mixedwood stand to a black spruce forest stand. Pages 276-286 in 3rd Biennial Meeting of the InternationalEnvironmental-Modelling-and -Software-Society, Burlington, VT. Tallis, H., and S. Polasky. 2009. Mapping and Valuing Ecosystem Services as an Approach for Conservation and Natural-Resource Management. Pages 265-283 Year in Ecology and Conservation Biology 2009. Tan, Z., L. L. Tieszen, E. Tachie-Obeng, S. Liu, and A. M. Dieye. 2009. Historical and simulated ecosystem carbon dynamics in Ghana: land use, management, and climate. Biogeosciences 6:45-58. Thomas, S. C., G. Malezewski, and M. Saprunoff. 2007. Assessing the potential of native tree species for carbon sequestration forestry in Northeast China. Journal of Environmental Management 85:663-671. Thomson, A. M., R. C. Izaurralde, N. J. Rosenberg, and X. X. He. 2006. Climate change impacts on agriculture and soil carbon sequestration potential in the Huang-Hai Plain of China. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 114:195209. Thomson, A. M., R. C. Izaurralde, S. J. Smith, and L. E. Clarke. 2008. Integrated estimates of global terrestrial carbon sequestration. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions 18:192-203.

Trusilova, K., and G. Churkina. 2008. The response of the terrestrial biosphere to urbanization: land cover conversion, climate, and urban pollution. Biogeosciences 5:1505-1515. van Noordwijk, M., D. A. Suyamto, B. Lusiana, A. Ekadinata, and K. Hairiah. 2008. Facilitating agroforestation of landscapes for sustainable benefits: Tradeoffs between carbon stocks and local development benefits in Indonesia according to the FALLOW model. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 126:98-112. Wang, J., J. M. Chen, M. C. Li, and W. Ju. 2007. GISbased integrated assessment and decision support system for land use planning in consideration of carbon sequestration benefits - art. no. 67542T. Pages T7542-T7542 in 15th International Conference on Geoinformatics, Nanjing, PEOPLES R CHINA. Wang, L. G., J. J. Qiu, H. J. Tang, H. Li, C. S. Li, and E. Van Ranst. 2008. Modelling soil organic carbon dynamics in the major agricultural regions of China. Geoderma 147:47-55. Wang, X. B., D. X. Cai, W. B. Hoogmoed, O. Oenema, and U. D. Perdok. 2005. Scenario analysis of tillage, residue and fertilization management effects on soil organic carbon dynamics. Pedosphere 15:473-483. Waterworth, R. M., and G. P. Richards. 2008. Implementing Australian forest management practices into a full carbon accounting model. Forest Ecology and Management 255:24342443.

78


West, T. O., C. C. Brandt, B. S. Wilson, C. M. Hellwinckel, D. D. Tyler, G. Marland, D. G. D. Ugarte, J. A. Larson, and R. G. Nelson. 2008. Estimating regional changes in soil carbon with high spatial resolution. Soil Science Society of America Journal 72:285-294.

Yoshimoto, A., and R. Marusak. 2007. Evaluation of carbon sequestration and thinning regimes within the optimization framework for forest stand management. European Journal of Forest Research 126:315-329

Wise, R., and O. Cacho. 2005. Tree-crop interactions and their environmental and economic implications in the presence of carbon-sequestration payments. Environmental Modelling & Software 20:1139-1148.

Yousefpour, R., and M. Hanewinkel. 2009. Modelling of forest conversion planning with an adaptive simulation-optimization approach and simultaneous consideration of the values of timber, carbon and biodiversity. Ecological Economics 68:1711-1722.

Wise, R., O. Cacho, and R. Hean. 2007. Fertilizer effects on the sustainability and profitability of agroforestry in the presence of carbon payments. Environmental Modelling & Software 22:1372-1381.

Yurova, A. Y., and H. Lankreijer. 2007. Carbon storage in the organic layers of boreal forest soils under various moisture conditions: A model study for Northern Sweden sites. Ecological Modelling 204:475-484.

Yadav, V., and G. Malanson. 2008. Spatially explicit historical land use land cover and soil organic carbon transformations in Southern Illinois. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 123:280292.

Zaehle, S., A. Bondeau, T. R. Carter, W. Cramer, M. Erhard, I. C. Prentice, I. Reginster, M. D. A. Rounsevell, S. Sitch, B. Smith, P. C. Smith, and M. Sykes. 2007. Projected changes in terrestrial carbon storage in Europe under climate and land-use change, 1990-2100. Ecosystems 10:380-401.

Yadav, V., and G. P. Malanson. 2009. Modeling impacts of erosion and deposition on soil organic carbon in the Big Creek Basin of southern Illinois. Geomorphology 106:304-314. Yoo, G. Y., T. M. Nissen, and M. M. Wander. 2005. Use of physical properties to predict the effects of tillage practices on organic matter dynamics in three Illinois soils. Pages 1576-1583 in 3rd USDA Symposium on Greenhouse Gases and Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Forestry, Baltimore, MD.

Zhang, Q. Z., R. D. Huang, W. L. Wu, and X. J. Liu. 2008. Estimating soil organic carbon at equilibrium using a logistic model. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 39:627-640.


79

8 REFERENCES Abid, M., and R. Lal. 2008. Tillage and drainage impact on soil quality - I. Aggregate stability, carbon and nitrogen pools. Soil & Tillage Research 100:89-98. Achard, F., H.D. Eva, P. Mayaux, H.-J. Stibig, and A. Belward. 2004. Improved estimates of net carbon emissions from land cover change in the tropics for the 1990s. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 18: 11pgs. ADES. 2009. Solar and efficient stoves in Swouthwest Madagascar. Geneva, The Gold Standard: 63. Al-Kaisi, M. M., and J. B. Grote. 2007. Cropping systems effects on improving soil carbon stocks of exposed subsoil. Soil Science Society of America Journal 71:1381-1388. Alberto, D. M., and J. A. Elvir. 2008. Carbon accumulation and fixation in aerial biomass of Pinus oocarpa in natural forests in Honduras. Investigacion Agraria-Sistemas Y Recursos Forestales 17:67-78. Albrecht, A., and S. T. Kandji. 2003. Carbon sequestration in tropical agroforestry systems. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 99:15-27. Allen, L. H., S. L. Albrecht, K. J. Boote, J. M. G. Thomas, Y. C. Newman, and K. W. Skirvin. 2005. Soil organic carbon and nitrogen accumulation in plots of rhizoma perennial peanut and bahiagrass grown in elevated carbon dioxide and temperature. Pages 1405-1412 in 3rd USDA Symposium on Greenhouse Gases and Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Forestry, Baltimore, MD. Alvarez, R. 2005. A review of nitrogen fertilizer and conservation tillage effects on soil organic carbon storage. Soil Use and Management 21:38-52. Amado, T. J. C., C. Bayer, P. C. Conceicao, E. Spagnollo, B. H. C. de Campos, and M. da Veiga. 2005. Potential of carbon accumulation in no-till soils with intensive use and cover crops in southern Brazil. Pages 1599-1607 in 3rd USDA

Symposium on Greenhouse Gases and Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Forestry, Baltimore, MD. Amichev, B. Y., J. A. Burger, and J. A. Rodrigue. 2008. Carbon sequestration by forests and soils on mined land in the Midwestern and Appalachian coalfields of the US. Forest Ecology and Management 256:1949-1959. Anderson, J. D., L. J. Ingram, and P. D. Stahl. 2008. Influence of reclamation management practices on microbial biomass carbon and soil organic carbon accumulation in semiarid mined lands of Wyoming. Applied Soil Ecology 40:387-397. Andrade, H. J., R. Brook, and M. Ibrahim. 2008. Growth, production and carbon sequestration of silvopastoral systems with native timber species in the dry lowlands of Costa Rica. Plant and Soil 308:11-22. Angers, D. A., and N. S. Eriksen-Hamel. 2008. Full-inversion tillage and organic carbon distribution in soil profiles: A meta-analysis. Soil Science Society of America Journal 72:13701374. Ardo, J., and L. Olsson. 2004. Soil carbon sequestration in traditional farming in Sudanese dry lands. Environmental Management 33:S318-S329. Arevalo, C. B. M., J. S. Bhatti, S. X. Chang, and D. Sidders. 2009. Ecosystem carbon stocks and distribution under different land-uses in north central Alberta, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management 257:1776-1785. Armolaitis, K., J. Aleinikoviene, A. Baniuniene, J. Lubyte, and V. Zekaite. 2007. Carbon sequestration and nitrogen status in Arenosols following afforestation or following abandonment of arable land. Baltic Forestry 13:169-178. Aubinet, M., C. Moureaux, B. Bodson, D. Dufranne, B. Heinesch, M. Suleau, F. Vancutsem, and A. Vilret. 2009. Carbon sequestration by a crop over a 4-year sugar beet/winter wheat/seed potato/winter wheat rotation cycle. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 149:407-418.

80


Aune, J. B. 2005. Carbon sequestration in rural communities: is it worth the effort? 21:69-79. Aweto, A. O. 1981. Secondary Succession and Soil Fertility Restoration in Southwestern Nigeria .2. Soil Fertility Restoration. Journal of Ecology 69:609-614. Baker, J. M., T.E. Ochsner, R.T. Venterea, and T.J. Griffis. 2007. Tillage and soil carbon sequestration - What do we really know? . Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 118: 1-5. Barthes, B., A. Azontonde, E. Blanchart, C. Girardin, C. Villenave, S. Lesaint, R. Oliver, and C. Feller. 2004. Effect of a legume cover crop (Mucuna pruriens var. utilis) on soil carbon in an Ultisol under maize cultivation in southern Benin. Soil Use and Management 20:231-239. Bationo, A., and A. Buerkert. 2001. Soil organic carbon management for sustainable land use in Sudano-Sahelian West Africa. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 61:131-142. Batjes, N. H. 2001. Options for increasing carbon sequestration in West African soils: An exploratory study with special focus on Senegal. Land Degradation & Development 12:131-142. Batjes, N. H. 2004. Soil carbon stocks and projected changes according to land use and management: a case study for Kenya. Soil Use and Management 20:350-356. Bautista-Cruz, A., and R. F. del Castillo. 2005. Soil changes during secondary succession in a tropical montane cloud forest area. Soil Science Society of America Journal 69:906-914. Bayer, C., J. Dieckow, T. J. C. Amado, F. L. F. Eltz, and F. C. B. Vieira. 2009. Cover Crop Effects Increasing Carbon Storage in a Subtropical No-Till Sandy Acrisol. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 40:1499-1511. Bayer, C., L. Martin-Neto, J. Mielniczuk, A. Pavinato, and J. Dieckow. 2006a. Carbon sequestration in two Brazilian Cerrado soils under no-till. Soil & Tillage Research 86:237-245.

Bayer, C., J. Mielniczuk, E. Giasson, L. Martin-Neto, and A. Pavinato. 2006b. Tillage effects on particulate and mineral-associated organic matter in two tropical Brazilian soils. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 37:389-401. Bekele, L. 2006. Soil carbon sequestration under different exotic tree species in the southwestern highlands of Ethiopia. Geoderma 136:886-898. Benbi, D. K., and J. S. Brar. 2009. A 25-year record of carbon sequestration and soil properties in intensive agriculture. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29:257-265. Beringer, J., L. B. Hutley, N. J. Tapper, and L. A. Cernusak. 2007. Savanna fires and their impact on net ecosystem productivity in North Australia. Global Change Biology 13:990-1004. Bernal, B., and W. J. Mitsch. 2008. A comparison of soil carbon pools and profiles in wetlands in Costa Rica and Ohio. Ecological Engineering 34:311-323. Bernoux, M., C. C. Cerri, C. E. P. Cerri, M. S. Neto, A. Metay, A. S. Perrin, E. Scopel, T. Razafimbelo, D. Blavet, M. D. Piccolo, M. Pavei, and E. Milne. 2006. Cropping systems, carbon sequestration and erosion in Brazil, a review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 26:18. Birch-Thomsen, T., B. Elberling, B. Fog, and J. Magid. 2007. Temporal and spatial trends in soil organic carbon stocks following maize cultivation in semi-arid Tanzania, East Africa. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 79:291302. Blomley, T., K. Pfliegner, J. Isango, E. Zahabu, A. Ahrends and N. Burgess (2008). “Seeing the wood for the trees: an assessment of the impact of participatory forest management on forest condition in Tanzania.” Oryx 42(3): 380-391.

81


Boerner, R. E. J., J. J. Huang, and S. C. Hart. 2008. Fire, thinning, and the carbon economy: Effects of fire and fire surrogate treatments on estimated carbon storage and sequestration rate. Forest Ecology and Management 255:3081-3097. Bonino, E. E. 2006. Changes in carbon pools associated with a land-use gradient in the Dry Chaco, Argentina. Forest Ecology and Management 223:183-189. Bono, A., R. Alvarez, D. E. Buschiazzo, and R. J. C. Cantet. 2008. Tillage effects on soil carbon balance in a semiarid agroecosystem. Soil Science Society of America Journal 72:11401149. Borzecka-Walker, M., A. Faber, and R. Borek. 2008. Evaluation of carbon sequestration in energetic crops (Miscanthus and coppice willow). International Agrophysics 22:185-190. Bosques Pico Bonito (BPB). 2009. “Restoring forests for all generations to prosper.” Retrieved July 21, 2009, from http://www.bosquespicobonito. com/. Bostick, W. M., V. B. Bado, A. Bationo, C. T. Soler, G. Hoogenboom, and J. W. Jones. 2007. Soil carbon dynamics and crop residue yields of cropping systems in the Northern Guinea Savanna of Burkina Faso. Soil & Tillage Research 93:138-151. Bot, A. J., U. C. Amado, J. Mielniczuk, and J. Benites. 2001. Conservation agriculture as a tool to reduce emission of greenhouse gasses. A case from Southern Brazil. Pages 407-416 in 1st World Congress on Conservation Agriculture, Madrid, Spain. Brown, S., and A. E. Lugo. 1982. The Storage and Production of Organic-Matter in Tropical Forests and Their Role in the Global CarbonCycle. Biotropica 14:161-187. Brummer, C., U. Falk, H. Papen, J. Szarzynski, R. Wassmann, and N. Bruggemann. 2008. Diurnal, seasonal, and interannual variation in carbon

dioxide and energy exchange in shrub savanna in Burkina Faso (West Africa). Journal of Geophysical Research-Biogeosciences 113. Busse, M. D., F. G. Sanchez, A. W. Ratcliff, J. R. Butnor, E. A. Carter, and R. F. Powers. 2009. Soil carbon sequestration and changes in fungal and bacterial biomass following incorporation of forest residues. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 41:220-227. Calegari, A., W. L. Hargrove, D. D. Rheinheimer, R. Ralisch, D. Tessier, S. de Tourdonnet, and M. D. Guimaraes. 2008. Impact of long-term notillage and cropping system management on soil organic carbon in an Oxisol: A model for sustainability. Agronomy Journal 100:1013-1019. Canadell, J. G., C.L. Que´re´, M.R. Raupach, C.B. Field, E.T. Bultenhuis, P. Ciais, T.J. Conway, N.P. Gillett, R.A. Houghton, and G. Marland. 2007. Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth from economic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks. PNAS 104(47): 18866-18870. Canadell, J. G., M.R. Raupach, and R.A. Houghton (2009). “Anthropogenic CO2 emissions in Africa.” Biogeosciences 6: 463-468 CarbonFix-Standard. “Kikonda Forest Reserve.” Retrieved September 09, 2009, from http:// www.carbonfix.info/Project/Projectslist. html?itemid=69&ipage=0. Carvalho, J. L. N., C. E. P. Cerri, B. J. Feigl, M. C. Piccolo, V. P. Godinho, and C. C. Cerri. 2006. Carbon sequestration in agricultural soils in the Cerrado region of the Brazilian Amazon. Pages 342-349 in HighLand 2006 International Symposium, Mekelle, ETHIOPIA. CASCADeAfrica. “Agrocarburants Locaux, Territoire Rural et Énergie au Mali (ALTERRE) “ Retrieved August 03, 2009, from http://www.cascadeafrica.org/ManageProjects/tabid/91/ctl/Detail/ mid/407/ItemID/58/Source/AreaOfExpertise/ language/en-US/Default.aspx.

82


CASCADeAfrica. “Community afforestation for CO2 sequestration, wood production and energy services, rehabilitation of degraded lands and improving the living conditions of peasants in the town of Antanetikely - Analamanga Region Madagascar.” Retrieved August 03, 2009, from http://www.cascade-africa.org/ManageProjects/ tabid/91/ctl/Detail/mid/407/ItemID/31/Source/ AreaOfExpertise/language/fr-FR/Default.aspx.

CASCADeAfrica. “Community afforestation for the production of firewood, construction wood and fruits, in three municipalities of the Ambato Boéni district (Boény region) “ Retrieved August 03, 2009, from http://www.cascadeafrica.org/ManageProjects/tabid/91/ctl/Detail/ mid/407/ItemID/69/Source/AreaOfExpertise/ language/en-US/Default.aspx. CASCADeAfrica. “Eco Eco Project - Rehabilitation, Revegetation and agroforestry in the zone and Ankazobe Ambohi “ Retrieved August 04, 2009, from http://www.cascade-africa.org/ ManageProjects/tabid/91/ctl/Detail/mid/407/ ItemID/41/Source/AreaOfExpertise/language/ fr-FR/Default.aspx. CASCADeAfrica. “EcoMakala.” Retrieved August 03, 2009, from http://www.cascade-africa.org/ ManageProjects/tabid/91/ctl/Detail/mid/407/ ItemID/65/Source/AreaOfExpertise/language/ en-US/Default.aspx. CASCADeAfrica. “Forest carbon projects within the protected area Marolambo.” Retrieved August 03, 2009, from http://www.cascade-africa.org/ ManageProjects/tabid/91/ctl/Detail/mid/407/ ItemID/50/Source/AreaOfExpertise/language/ fr-FR/Default.aspx. CASCADeAfrica. “Hazovola.” Retrieved August 03, 2009, from http://www.cascade-africa.org/ ManageProjects/tabid/91/ctl/Detail/mid/407/ ItemID/68/Source/AreaOfExpertise/language/ fr-FR/Default.aspx.

CASCADeAfrica. “Improved cooking stoves in Mali “ Retrieved August 03, 2009, from http:// www.cascade-africa.org/ManageProjects/ tabid/91/ctl/Detail/mid/407/ItemID/57/Source/ AreaOfExpertise/language/fr-FR/Default.aspx. CASCADeAfrica. “The improved stoves for sustainable development, ecological and human in the Province of the Far North of Cameroon.” Retrieved August 03, 2009, from http:// www.cascade-africa.org/ManageProjects/ tabid/91/ctl/Detail/mid/407/ItemID/18/Source/ AreaOfExpertise/language/fr-FR/Default.aspx.

CASCADeAfrica. “Large scale application of restoration techniques and management of soil fertility, especially in cropping systems with permanent vegetative cover minimum tillage in the region Bongolava Madagascar “ Retrieved August 03, 2009, from http://www.cascade-africa.org/ ManageProjects/tabid/91/ctl/Detail/mid/407/ ItemID/33/Source/AreaOfExpertise/language/ fr-FR/Default.aspx. CASCADeAfrica. “Mangrove reforestation of 18 000ha in 3 west african deltas in 3 years.” Retrieved August 03, 2009, from http://www.cascadeafrica.org/ManageProjects/tabid/91/ctl/Detail/ mid/407/ItemID/15/Source/AreaOfExpertise/ language/en-US/Default.aspx. CASCADeAfrica. “PRESAL (Restoration of lands in the Senegal groundnut basin).” Retrieved August 03, 2009, from http://www.cascade-africa.org/ ManageProjects/tabid/91/ctl/Detail/mid/407/ ItemID/16/Source/AreaOfExpertise/language/ en-US/Default.aspx. CASCADeAfrica. “REDD and reforestation oriented preservation of forest in Makirovana Tsihomanaomby - Sava Region - Madagascar.” Retrieved August 03, 2009, from http:// www.cascade-africa.org/ManageProjects/ tabid/91/ctl/Detail/mid/407/ItemID/48/Source/ AreaOfExpertise/language/fr-FR/Default.aspx.


CASCADeAfrica. “REDD project of the Forest Community Ampanihy - South West Region - Madagascar.” Retrieved August 03, 2009, from http://www.cascade-africa.org/ ManageProjects/tabid/91/ctl/Detail/mid/407/ ItemID/43/Source/AreaOfExpertise/language/ fr-FR/Default.aspx. CASCADeAfrica. “Reforestation communale use multiple savannah area of the province of Adamawa Meiganga in Cameroon.” Retrieved August 03, 2009, from http://www.cascade-africa.org/ ManageProjects/tabid/91/ctl/Detail/mid/407/ ItemID/17/Source/AreaOfExpertise/language/ fr-FR/Default.aspx. CASCADeAfrica. “Reforestation project using native species in Maringa-Lopori-Wamba region: establishment of the ‘Bonobo Peace Forest’.” Retrieved August 03, 2009, from http:// www.cascade-africa.org/ManageProjects/ tabid/91/ctl/Detail/mid/407/ItemID/55/Source/ AreaOfExpertise/language/en-US/Default.aspx.

CASCADeAfrica. “Reforestation sustainable environmental and community-supported by the carbon chain in the rural municipality of Ankotrofotsy - Menabe Region - Madagascar “ Retrieved August 03, 2009, from http:// www.cascade-africa.org/ManageProjects/ tabid/91/ctl/Detail/mid/407/ItemID/32/Source/ AreaOfExpertise/language/fr-FR/Default.aspx.

CASCADeAfrica. “Reforestation to preserve the forest Vohibe, Commune Ambalabe - Atsinanana Region - Madagascar “ Retrieved August 03, 2009, from http://www.cascade-africa.org/ ManageProjects/tabid/91/ctl/Detail/mid/407/ ItemID/42/Source/AreaOfExpertise/language/ fr-FR/Default.aspx. CASCADeAfrica. “SNI Anacarde.” Retrieved August 03, 2009, from http://www.cascade-africa.org/ ManageProjects/tabid/91/ctl/Detail/mid/407/ ItemID/19/Source/AreaOfExpertise/language/ fr-FR/Default.aspx.

83

CASCADeAfrica. “Verama.” Retrieved August 03, 2009, from http://www.cascade-africa.org/ ManageProjects/tabid/91/ctl/Detail/mid/407/ ItemID/37/Source/AreaOfExpertise/language/ en-US/Default.aspx. Causarano, H. J., A. J. Franzluebbers, D. W. Reeves, and J. N. Shaw. 2005. Soil organic carbon sequestration in cotton production systems of the southeastern United States: A review. Pages 1374-1383 in 3rd USDA Symposium on Greenhouse Gases and Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Forestry, Baltimore, MD. CCBA (Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standards) (2009). Project Design Document - Humbo Ethiopia Assisted Natural Regeneration Project. CCBA (Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standards) (2009). Project Design Document - Indian Farm Forestry Development Co-operative Limited (IFFDC) Wasteland Forestation Project, Indian Farm Forestry Development Co-operative Limited (IFFDC): 98. CCBA (Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standards) (2009). Project Design Document - Kikonda Forest Reserve: 36. CCBA (Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standards). Project Design Document - Reforestation in grassland areas of Idete, Mufindi District, Iringa Region, Tanzania, Green Resources Limited: 61. Central Kalimantan Peatland Project (CKPP) (2008). Provisional Report of the Central Kalimantan Peatland Project, Care, Wetlands International, WWF, BOS, Universitas Palangka Raya, Central Kalimantan Provincial Government: 70. Cerri, C. C., A. Bernoux, and C. E. P. Cerri. 2001. Soil carbon and nitrogen dynamics after pasture installation in the Amazon region. Pages 157159 in 19th International Grassland Congress, Sao Pedro, Brazil. Cerri, C. E. P., K. Coleman, D. S. Jenkinson, M. Bernoux, R. Victoria, and C. C. Cerri. 2003. Modeling soil carbon from forest and pasture ecosystems of Amazon, Brazil. Soil Science Society of America Journal 67:1879-1887.

84


Chambers, J. Q., N. Higuchi, L. M. Teixeira, J. dos Santos, S. G. Laurance, and S. E. Trumbore. 2004. Response of tree biomass and wood litter to disturbance in a Central Amazon forest. Oecologia 141:596-611. Chan, K. Y., and D. P. Heenan. 2005. The effects of stubble burning and tillage on soil carbon sequestration and crop productivity in southeastern Australia. Soil Use and Management 21:427-431. Chaplot, V., P. Podwojewski, K. Phachomphon, and C. Valentin. 2009. Soil Erosion Impact on Soil Organic Carbon Spatial Variability on Steep Tropical Slopes. Soil Science Society of America Journal 73:769-779. Chen, H. Q., S. Marhan, N. Billen, and K. Stahr. 2009. Soil organic-carbon and total nitrogen stocks as affected by different land uses in BadenWurttemberg (southwest Germany). Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science-Zeitschrift Fur Pflanzenernahrung Und Bodenkunde 172:32-42. Chen, L. D., J. Gong, B. J. Fu, Z. L. Huang, Y. L. Huang, and L. D. Gui. 2007. Effect of land use conversion on soil organic carbon sequestration in the loess hilly area, loess plateau of China. Ecological Research 22:641-648. Cheng, C. M., R. S. Wang, and J. S. Jiang. 2007. Variation of soil fertility and carbon sequestration by planting Hevea brasiliensis in Hainan Island, China. Journal of Environmental Sciences-China 19:348-352. Chidumayo, E. N., and L. Kwibisa. 2003. Effects of deforestation on grass biomass and soil nutrient status in miombo woodland, Zambia. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 96:97105. Clay, D., T. Reardon, and J. Kangasniemi. 1998) “ustainable intensification in the highland tropics: Rwandan farmer’ investments in land conservation and soil fertility. Economic Development and Cultural Change 48: 351-377.

Clifton-Brown, J. C., J. Breuer, and M. B. Jones. 2007. Carbon mitigation by the energy crop, Miscanthus. Global Change Biology 13:22962307. Conservacion de la Biodiversidad en la Reserva de la Biosfera Sierra Gorda (CBRBSG) (2009). Retrieved September 10, 2009, from http:// www.sierragorda.net/. Conservation International (CI) (2008). Harnessing nature as a solution to climate change in Madagascar. Antananarivo, Madagascar, Conservation International - Madagascar: 16. Conservation International (CI) (2009). Forest Carbon Project in Quirino Province Sierra Madre Biodiversity Corridor, Luzon, Philippines. Project Design Document., CCBA (Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standards): 54. Cook, G. D., A. C. Liedloff, R. W. Eager, X. Chen, R. J. Williams, A. P. O’Grady, and L. B. Hutley. 2005. The estimation of carbon budgets of frequently burnt tree stands in savannas of northern Australia, using allometric analysis and isotopic discrimination. Australian Journal of Botany 53:621-630. Cooper, P. J. M., R. R. B. Leakey, M. R. Rao and L. Reynolds. 1996. Agroforestry and the mitigation of land degradation in the humid and sub-humid tropics of Africa. Experimental Agriculture 32(235-290). Corbeels, M., E. Scopel, A. Cardoso, M. Bernoux, J. M. Douzet, and M. S. Neto. 2006. Soil carbon storage potential of direct seeding mulch-based cropping systems in the Cerrados of Brazil. Global Change Biology 12:1773-1787. Costantini, A., H. De-Polli, C. Galarza, R. P. Rossiello, and R. Romaniuk. 2006. Total and mineralizable soil carbon as affected by tillage in the Argentinean Pampas. Soil & Tillage Research 88:274-278.

85


Cotta, M. K., L. A. G. Jacovine, H. N. de Paiva, C. P. B. Soares, A. D. Virgens, and S. R. Valverde. 2008. Biomass Quantification and Emission Reduction Certificates for Rubber - Cocoa Intercropping. Revista Arvore 32:969-978.

Dias, A. C., M. Louro, L. Arroja, and I. Capela. 2007. Carbon estimation in harvested wood products using a country-specific method: Portugal as a case study. Environmental Science & Policy 10:250-259.

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) (2005). CEPF Final Project Completion Report - Makira Forest Area Conservation Project. Antananrivo, CEPF, Wildlife Conservation Society: 12.

Don, A., J. Schumacher, M. Scherer-Lorenzen, T. Scholten, and E. D. Schulze. 2007. Spatial and vertical variation of soil carbon at two grassland sites - Implications for measuring soil carbon stocks. Geoderma 141:272-282.

David, M. B., G. F. McLsaac, R. G. Darmody, and R. A. Omonode. 2009. Long-Term Changes in Mollisol Organic Carbon and Nitrogen. Journal of Environmental Quality 38:200-211. DeFries, R. S., R.A. Houghton, M.C. Hansen, C.B. Field, D. Skole, and J. Townshend (2002). “Carbon emissions from tropical deforestation and regrowth based on satellite observations for the 1980s and 1990s.” PNAS 99(22): 1425614261. de Koning, F., R. Olschewski, E. Veldkamp, P. Benitez, M. Lopez-Ulloa, T. Schlichter, and M. de Urquiza. 2005. The ecological and economic potential of carbon sequestration in forests: Examples from South America. Ambio 34:224-229. de Koning, G. H. J., E. Veldkamp, and M. Lopez-Ulloa. 2003. Quantification of carbon sequestration in soils following pasture to forest conversion in northwestern Ecuador. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 17. de Luca, E. F., C. Feller, C. C. Cerri, B. Barthes, V. Chaplot, D. C. Campos, and C. Manechini. 2008. Evaluation of physical properties and soil carbon and nitrogen stocks as affected by burning or green trash management of sugarcane. Revista Brasileira De Ciencia Do Solo 32:789-800. Dell, C. J., P. R. Salon, C. D. Franks, E. C. Benham, and Y. Plowden. 2008. No-till and cover crop impacts on soil carbon and associated properties on Pennsylvania dairy farms. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 63:136-142.

Doraiswamy, P. C., G. W. McCarty, E. R. Hunt, R. S. Yost, M. Doumbia, and A. J. Franzluebbers. 2007. Modeling soil carbon sequestration in agricultural lands of Mali. Pages 63-74 in Scientific Workshop on Land Management for Carbon Sequestration in the Sudan-Sahel Region, Bamako, MALI. Dossa, E. L., E. C. M. Fernandes, W. S. Reid, and K. Ezui. 2008. Above- and belowground biomass, nutrient and carbon stocks contrasting an open-grown and a shaded coffee plantation. Agroforestry Systems 72:103-117. Doumbia, M., A. Jarju, M. Sene, K. Traore, R. Yost, R. Kablan, K. Brannan, A. Berthe, C. Yamoah, A. Querido, P. C. S. Traore, and A. Ballo. 2009. Sequestration of organic carbon in West African soils by Amenagement en Courbes de Niveau. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29:267275. DowChemicals The Birth of a Sustainable Development Project in Tanzania, TIST (The International Small Group & Tree Planting Program): 8. Drechsel, P., K. G. Steiner and F. Hagedom. 1996. A review on the potential of improved fallows and green manure in Rwanda. Agroforestry Systems 33: 109-136. Dulormne, M., J. Sierra, P. Nygren, and P. Cruz. 2003. Nitrogen-fixation dynamics in a cut-andcarry silvopastoral system in the subhumid conditions of Guadeloupe, French Antilles. Agroforestry Systems 59:121-129.

86


Dwivedi, P., C. S. Rathore, and Y. Dubey. 2009. Ecological benefits of urban forestry: The case of Kerwa Forest Area (KFA), Bhopal, India. Applied Geography 29:194-200. E+Carbon (2009). Project Design Document - Improved Household Charcoal Stoves in Ghana. Geneva, The Gold Standard: 99. ECOFYS (2009). Improved Household Charcoal Stoves in Mali. Geneva, The Gold Standard: 104. EcoMakala. 2009. Presentation of the EcoMakala Project, Democratic Republic of Congo Report, WWF, EC, ICCN: 17. ECOTRUST (2007). Trees for Global Benefits Program in Uganda. A Plan Vivo Carbon Offset Project, Uganda, The Environmental Conservation Trust of Uganda, Bio Climate Research and Development: 31. ECOTRUST (2008). The Environmental Conservation Trust of Uganda - Payment for Ecosystem Services, Plan Vivo: 8. El Tahir, B. A., D. M. Ahmed, J. Ardo, A. M. Gaafar, and A. A. Salih. 2009. Changes in soil properties following conversion of Acacia senegal plantation to other land management systems in North Kordofan State, Sudan. Journal of Arid Environments 73:499-505. Elberling, B., A. Toure, and K. Rasmussen. 2003. Changes in soil organic matter following groundnut-millet cropping at three locations in semi-arid Senegal, West Africa. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 96:37-47. Escalona, F. C. P., A. Aldrete, A. G. Guerrero, A. M. Fierros Gonzalez, V. M. Cetina-Alcala, and H. V. Huerta. 2007. Carbon storage in the aboveground biomass of one young Pinus greggii Engelm. plantation. Revista Fitotecnia Mexicana 30:251-254.

Euliss, N. H., R. A. Gleason, A. Olness, R. L. McDougal, H. R. Murkin, R. D. Robarts, R. A. Bourbonniere, and B. G. Warner. 2006. North American prairie wetlands are important nonforested landbased carbon storage sites. Science of the Total Environment 361:179-188. Evrendilek, F., S. Berberoglu, S. Taskinsu-Meydan, and E. Yilmaz. 2006. Quantifying carbon budgets of conifer Mediterranean forest ecosystems, Turkey. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 119:527-543. FaceFoundation. “Ecuador: Profafor.” Retrieved July 20, 2009, from http://www.stichtingface.nl/ disppage.php?op=30601&rp=L13|L27&lang=uk FaceFoundation. “Infapro - Sabah, Malaysia (Brochure).” Retrieved July 20, 2009. FaceFoundation. “Modrava Forest Protection Project Czech Republic (Brochure).” 2009. FaceFoundation. “Profafor - Ecuador (Brochure).” Retrieved July 20, 2009. FaceFoundation. “Sabah, Malaysia: Infapro.” Retrieved July 20, 2009, from http://www.stichtingface.nl/ disppage.php?op=30501&rp=L13|L24&lang=uk FaceFoundation. “The Czech Republic.” Retrieved July 20, 2009, from http://www.stichtingface.nl/ disppage.php?op=30301&rp=L13|L18&lang=uk FaceFoundation. “The Netherlands.” Retrieved July 20, 2000, from http://www.stichtingface.nl/ disppage.php?op=30201&rp=L13|L15&lang=uk FaceFoundation. “Uganda: UWA-Face.” Retrieved July 20, 2009, from http://www.stichtingface.nl/ disppage.php?op=30401&rp=L13|L21&lang=uk FaceFoundation. “UWA-Face - Uganda (Brochure).” Retrieved July 20, 2009. Fang, S., J. Xue, and L. Tang. 2007. Biomass production and carbon sequestration potential in poplar plantations with different management patterns. Journal of Environmental Management 85:672-679.

87


Fantaw, Y. 2006. Soil organic carbon and total nitrogen stocks as affected by topographic aspect and vegetation in the Bale Mountains, Ethiopia. Geoderma 135:335-344.

Follett, R. F., J. Z. Castellanos, and E. D. Buenger. 2005. Carbon dynamics and sequestration in an irrigated Vertisol in Central Mexico. Soil & Tillage Research 83:148-158.

FAO (2004). A review of carbon sequestration projects. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations: 85.

Fornara, D. A., and D. Tilman. 2008. Plant functional composition influences rates of soil carbon and nitrogen accumulation. Journal of Ecology 96:314-322.

FAO (2009). State of the World’s Forest. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organisation or the United Nations: 168. Farley, K. A., E. F. Kelly, and R. G. M. Hofstede. 2004. Soil organic carbon and water retention following conversion of grasslands to pine plantations in the Ecuadoran Andes. Ecosystems 7:729-739. Fehse, J., R. Hofstede, N. Aguirre, C. Paladines, A. Kooijman, and J. Sevink. 2002. High altitude tropical secondary forests: a competitive carbon sink? Forest Ecology and Management 163:9-25. Feldpausch, T. R., M. A. Rondon, E. C. M. Fernandes, S. J. Riha, and E. Wandelli. 2004. Carbon and nutrient accumulation in secondary forests regenerating on pastures in central Amazonia. Ecological Applications 14:S164-S176. Feller, C., A. Albrecht, E. Blanchart, Y. M. Cabidoche, T. Chevallier, C. Hartmann, V. Eschenbrenner, M. C. Larre-Larrouy, and J. F. Ndandou. 2001. Soil organic carbon sequestration in tropical areas. General considerations and analysis of some edaphic determinants for Lesser Antilles soils. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 61:19-31. Fensham, R. J., and G. P. Guymer. 2009. Carbon accumulation through ecosystem recovery. Environmental Science & Policy 12:367-372. Finkral, A. J., and A. M. Evans. 2008. Effects of a thinning treatment on carbon stocks in a northern Arizona ponderosa pine forest. Forest Ecology and Management 255:2743-2750.

Forrester, D. I., J. BauhuS, and A. L. Cowie. 2005. Carbon allocation in a mixed-species plantation of Eucalyptus globulus and Acacia mearnsii. Pages 275-284 in Workshop on Improving Productivity in Mixed-Species Plantations, Ballina, AUSTRALIA. Franzluebbers, A. J. 2005. Soil organic carbon sequestration and agricultural greenhouse gas emissions in the southeastern USA. Soil & Tillage Research 83:120-147. Franzluebbers, A. J., and J. A. Stuedemann. 2008. Early response of soil organic fractions to tillage and integrated crop-livestock production. Soil Science Society of America Journal 72:613-625. FSC. 2007. Forest Management Certification Report for UWA-FACE Mt. Elgon National Park. 01 October 2007:54. Fundação Amazonas Sustentável (FAS). (2009). “The Bolsa Floresta Program.” Retrieved July 31, 2009, from http://www.fas-amazonas.org/en/ index.cfm?fuseaction=conteudo&id=19. Fundação Amazonas Sustentável (FAS) (2008). The Juma Sustainable Development Reserve Project: Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Deforestation in the State of Amazonas, Brazil. Project Design Document. Manaus, Secretariat of Environment and Sustainable Development of the Government of the State of Amazonas (SDS/AM), State Center for Protected Areas (CEUC), Institute for Conservation and Sustainable Development of Amazonas (IDESAM), Marriott International, Inc.: 211.

88


Fundecor (2009). Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Avoided Deforestation of Tropical Rainforests on Privately-owned Lands in High Conservation Value Areas of Costa Rica. Project Design Document. San José, Pax Natura, FONAFIFO, FUNDECOR, INBio: 112. Futuro-Forestal, C. O.-U. a. (2006). CO2OLUSA/ FUTURO FORESTAL NATIVE SPECIES REFORESTATION IN PANAMA. Project Design Document, Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF): 41. Gal, A., T. J. Vyn, E. Micheli, E. J. Kladivko, and W. W. McFee. 2007. Soil carbon and nitrogen accumulation with long-term no-till versus moldboard plowing overestimated with tilledzone sampling depths. Soil & Tillage Research 96:42-51. Galang, J. S., C. E. Zipper, S. P. Prisley, J. M. Galbraith, and P. F. Donovan. 2007. Evaluating terrestrial carbon sequestration options for Virginia. Environmental Management 39:139-150. Gallardo, J. F., and M. I. G. Hernandez. 2007. Capacity of C sequestration of chestnut forests located in Western Spain. Pages 119-126 in 2nd Iberian Congress on Chestnut, Vila Real, PORTUGAL. Ganjegunte, G. K., A. F. Wick, P. D. Stahl, and G. F. Vance. 2009. Accumulation and Composition of Total Organic Carbon in Reclaimed Coal Mine Lands. Land Degradation & Development 20:156-175. Garcia-Oliva, F., G. Hernandez, and J. F. G. Lancho. 2006. Comparison of ecosystem C pools in three forests in Spain and Latin America. Annals of Forest Science 63:519-523. GEF Brazil. Sustainable Land Management in the Semi-Arid Sertão Project. Project Document. Appendices: 179. GEF Concept for Pipline Entry: Drylands Ecological Conservation and Rehabilitation, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD): 13.

GEF GEF Proposed Project Concept Note: Ecosystem Restoration of Riparian Forests in São Paulo, The World Bank: 24. GEF Iran: Carbon Sequestration in the Desertified Rangelands of Hossien Abad, South Khorasan, through Community-based Management. Project Brief for CEO Approval, UNDP: 27. GEF The Potential of Managing Peatlands for Carbon Accumulation While Protecting Biodiversity. Project Brief, UNEP: 39. GEF Sudan. Community-based rangeland rehabilitation for carbon sequestration and biodiversity, UNDP: 64. GEF (1994). Project Brief for the Programme review committee meeting of 3 August 1994. Community based rangeland rehabilitation for carbon sequestration and biodiversty: 12. GEF (1994). Village-based management of woody savanna and the establishment of woodlots for carbon sequestration - project documents. GEF (2004). Project Executive Summary. Sustainable Land Management in the Semi-Arid Sertao, IFAD: 41. GEF (2004). Project Executive Summary: Ecosystem Restoration of Riparian Forests in São Paulo, World Bank: 39. GEF (2004). Request for GEF Funding: Renaturalization and sustainable management of peatlands in Belarus to combat land degradation, ensure conservation of globally valuable biodiversity and mitigate climate change: 112. GEF (2006). Project Executive Summary: Transboundary agro-ecosystem management programme for the Kagera River Basin (Kagera TAMP), UNEP, FAO, GEF: 49. GEF (2007). Rehabilitation of forest landscapes and degraded land with particular attention to saline soils and areas prone to wind erosion. Project Identification Form: 7.

89


Glenday, J. 2006. Carbon storage and emissions offset potential in an East African tropical rainforest. Forest Ecology and Management 235:72-83. Glenday, J. 2008. Carbon storage and emissions offset potential in an African dry forest, the Arabuko-Sokoke Forest, Kenya. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 142:85-95. Gnanavelrajah, N., R. P. Shrestha, D. Schmidt-Vogt, and L. Samarakoon. 2008. Carbon stock assessment and soil carbon management in agricultural land-uses in Thailand. Land Degradation & Development 19:242-256. Gomiero, T., M. G. Paoletti, and D. Pimentel. 2008. Energy and environmental issues in organic and conventional agriculture. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 27:239-254. Gonzalez-Estrada, E., L. C. Rodriguez, V. K. Walen, J. B. Naab, J. Koo, J. W. Jones, M. Herrero, and P. K. Thornton. 2008. Carbon sequestration and farm income in West Africa: Identifying best management practices for smallholder agricultural systems in northern Ghana. Ecological Economics 67:492-502. Grace, J., J. San Jose, P. Meir, H. S. Miranda, and R. A. Montes. 2006. Productivity and carbon fluxes of tropical savannas. Journal of Biogeography 33:387-400. Grace, J., M. Williams, L. Spaddevechia, C. Ryan, G. Wallentin, S. Flaherty, S. Carter, J. Write, K. Bauckham, J. Pennie, R. Tipper, A. Smith, W. McGhee, W. Garret, J. Orrego, P. Powell, P. van Zyl, A. Serra, R. Jindal, E. Sambane, J. Fernando, R. Zolho, A. Herd (2008). Miombo Community Land Use & Carbon Management. Nhambita Pilot Project. Final Report. Edinburgh, University of Edinburgh, School of GeoSciences. Grandy, A. S., and G. P. Robertson. 2007. Land-use intensity effects on soil organic carbon accumulation rates and mechanisms. Ecosystems 10:58-73.

Grant, R. F., T. J. Arkebauer, A. Dobermann, K. G. Hubbard, T. T. Schimelfenig, A. E. Suyker, S. B. Verma, and D. T. Walters. 2007. Net biome productivity of irrigated and rainfed maizesoybean rotations: Modeling vs. measurements. Agronomy Journal 99:1404-1423. Gray, E. F., and W. J. Bond. 2009. Carbon sequestration following a biome switch from mesic savanna to forest. South African Journal of Botany 75:403-403. Green Belt Movement (GBM) (2006). “Green Belt Movement/ World Bank Biocarbon Project.” Retrieved August 11, 2009, from http://www. greenbeltmovement.org/a.php?id=197. Gronlund, A., A. Hauge, A. Hovde, and D. P. Rasse. 2008. Carbon loss estimates from cultivated peat soils in Norway: a comparison of three methods. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 81:157-167. Grunzweig, J. M., I. Gelfand, Y. Fried, and D. Yakir. 2007. Biogeochemical factors contributing to enhanced carbon storage following afforestation of a semi-arid shrubland. Biogeosciences 4:891-904. Grunzweig, J. M., T. Lin, E. Rotenberg, A. Schwartz, and D. Yakir. 2003. Carbon sequestration in aridland forest. Global Change Biology 9:791-799. GTZ (German Technical Cooperation), BMZ (German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development). Unknown. Project Summary: Climate change impact assesssment and adaptation options in vulnerable agrolandscapes in East Africa: 9. Guo, L. B., and R. M. Gifford. 2002. Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta analysis. Global Change Biology 8:345-360. Guo, L. B. B., A. L. Cowie, K. D. Montagu, and R. M. Gifford. 2008. Carbon and nitrogen stocks in a native pasture and an adjacent 16-year-old Pinus radiata D. Don. plantation in Australia. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 124:205218.

90


Gupta, N., S. S. Kukal, S. S. Bawa, and G. S. Dhaliwal. 2009. Soil organic carbon and aggregation under poplar based agroforestry system in relation to tree age and soil type. Agroforestry Systems 76:27-35.

Hiratsuka, M., T. Toma, N. Mindawati, I. Heriansyah, and Y. Morikawa. 2005. Biomass of a manmade forest of timber tree species in the humid tropics of West Java, Indonesia. Journal of Forest Research 10:487-49.

Gwenzi, W., J. Gotosa, S. Chakanetsa, and Z. Mutema. 2009. Effects of tillage systems on soil organic carbon dynamics, structural stability and crop yields in irrigated wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)-cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) rotation in semi-arid Zimbabwe. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 83:211-221.

Holmes, C., J.C. Ingram, D. Meyers, H. Crowley, and R. Victurine. 2008. TRANSLINKS - Forest Carbon Financing for Biodiversity Conservation, Climate Change Mitigation and Improved Livelihoods: The Makira Forest Protected Area, Madagascar. Madagascar, USAID, Wildlife Conservation Society, Madagascar Program.

Haile, S. G., P. K. R. Nair, and V. D. Nair. 2008. Carbon storage of different soil-size fractions in Florida silvopastoral systems. Journal of Environmental Quality 37:1789-1797.

Hooda, N. 2006. Role of bio-energy plantations for carbon-dioxide mitigation with special reference to India. Special Issue: Addressing the policy implications of potential abrupt climate change: a leading role for bio-energy 11:445467.

Harms, B. P., R. C. Dalal, and A. P. Cramp. 2005. Changes in soil carbon and soil nitrogen after tree clearing in the semi-arid rangelands of Queensland. Australian Journal of Botany 53:639-650. Henry, M., P. Tittonell, R. J. Manlay, M. Bernoux, A. Albrecht, and B. Vanlauwe. 2009. Biodiversity, carbon stocks and sequestration potential in aboveground biomass in smallholder farming systems of western Kenya. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 129:238-252. Hermle, S., T. Anken, J. Leifeld, and P. Weisskopf. 2008. The effect of the tillage system on soil organic carbon content under moist, cold-temperate conditions. Soil & Tillage Research 98:94-105. Hertel, D., M. A. Harteveld, and C. Leuschner. 2009. Conversion of a tropical forest into agroforest alters the fine root-related carbon flux to the soil. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 41:481-490. Hien, E., F. Ganry, and R. Oliver. 2006. Carbon sequestration in a savannah soil in southwestern Burkina as affected by cropping and cultural practices. Arid Land Research and Management 20:133-146.

Houghton, R. A., and J.L. Hackler 2001. Carbon Flux to the Atmosphere from Land-Use Changes: 1850 to 1990. Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory: 74. Houghton, R. A., and J.L. Hackler (2006). “Emissions of carbon from land use change in sub-Saharan Africa.” Journal of Geophysical Research 111: 12pgs. Hu, Y. L., D. H. Zeng, Z. P. Fan, G. S. Chen, Q. Zhao, and D. Pepper. 2008. Changes in ecosystem carbon stocks following grassland afforestation of semiarid sandy soil in the southeastern Keerqin Sandy Lands, China. Journal of Arid Environments 72:2193-2200. Hutyra, L. R., J. W. Munger, E. Hammond-Pyle, S. R. Saleska, N. Restrepo-Coupe, B. C. Daube, P. B. de Camargo, and S. C. Wofsy. 2008. Resolving systematic errors in estimates of net ecosystem exchange of CO2 and ecosystem respiration in a tropical forest biome. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 148:1266-1279.

91


ICRISAT. 2002. Identifying systems for carbon sequestration and increased productivity in semi-arid tropical environments - NATP (RNPS25). Yearly Report.

Jindal, R., B. Swallow, J. Kerr. 2008. Forestry-based carbon sequestration projects in Africa: Potential benefits and challenges. Natural Resources Forum 32: 116-130.

IPCC. 2001; “Climate Change 2001 Report”. Retrieved October 05, 2009, from http://www.grida. no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ ipcc_tar/wg1/099.htm.

Jose, S. 2009. Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: an overview. Agroforestry Systems 76:1-10.

IPCC . 2009. “Reports - Special Reports. Land Use, LandUse Change and Forestry”. Retrieved October 02, 2009 from http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ sres/land_use/index.php?idp=3. Isaac, M. E. 2005. Temporal changes in soil carbon and nitrogen in west African multistrata agroforestry systems: a chronosequence of pools and fluxes. Agroforestry Systems 65:2331. IUCN. 2008. “Experiences and lessons learned. .” Retrieved July 20, 2009, from http://www.iucn. org/about/work/programmes/forest/fp_our_ work/fp_our_work_thematic/fp_our_work_fcc/ fp_forests_climate_about/fp_forests_climate_ about_experiences/. Izaurralde, R. C., W. B. McGill, N. J. Rosenberg, W. H. Schlesinger. 2000. “Carbon Cost of Applying Nitrogen Fertilizer.” Science 288(5467): 811-812. Jacinthe, P. A., and R. Lal. 2009. Tillage Effects on Carbon Sequestration and Microbial Biomass in Reclaimed Farmland Soils of Southwestern Indiana. Soil Science Society of America Journal 73:605-613. Jantalia, C. P., D. V. S. Resck, B. J. R. Alves, L. Zotarelli, S. Urquiaga, and R. M. Boddey. 2007. Tillage effect on C stocks of a clayey Oxisol under a soybeanbased crop rotation in the Brazilian Cerrado region. Soil and Tillage Research 95:97-109. Jimenez, J. J., R. Lal, H. A. Leblanc, and R. O. Russo. 2007. Soil organic carbon pool under native tree plantations in the Caribbean lowlands of Costa Rica. Forest Ecology and Management 241:134-144.

Kairu, G. a. W. M. 2006. Trees for Global Benefit. A Plan Vivo Project. Bushenyi Field Trip Report, Uganda. 17th - 20th July 2006., BioClimate Research and Development, and The Environmental Conservation Trust of Uganda: 13. Kaonga, M. L., and T. P. Bayliss-Smith. 2009. Carbon pools in tree biomass and the soil in improved fallows in eastern Zambia. Agroforestry Systems 76:37-51. Kaonga, M. L., and K. Coleman. 2008. Modelling soil organic carbon turnover in improved fallows in eastern Zambia using the RothC-26.3 model. Forest Ecology and Management 256:1160-1166. Kirby, K. R., and C. Potvin. 2007. Variation in carbon storage among tree species: Implications for the management of a small-scale carbon sink project. Forest Ecology and Management 246:208-221. Komuhangi, R. 2006. Mass dissemination of Rocket Lorena stoves in Uganda. Boiling Point: 21-22. Kotto-Same, J., P. L. Woomer, M. Appolinaire, and Z. Louis. 1997. Carbon dynamics in slash-and-burn agriculture and land use alternatives of the humid forest zone in Cameroon. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 65:245-256. Koul, D. N., and P. Panwar. 2008. Prioritizing landmanagement options for carbon sequestration potential. Current Science 95:658-663. Kranabetter, J. M., and A. M. Macadam. 2007. Changes in carbon storage of broadcast burn plantations over 20 years. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 87:93-102.

92


Kukal, S. S., R. Rehana, and D. K. Benbi. 2009. Soil organic carbon sequestration in relation to organic and inorganic fertilization in ricewheat and maize-wheat systems. Soil & Tillage Research 102:87-92. Kundu, S., R. Bhattacharyya, V. Prakash, B. N. Ghosh, and H. S. Gupta. 2007. Carbon sequestration and relationship between carbon addition and storage under rainfed soybean-wheat rotation in a sandy loam soil of the Indian Himalayas. Soil & Tillage Research 92:87-95. Kurbanov, E., O. Vorobyov, A. Gubayev, L. Moshkina, and S. Lezhnin. 2006. Carbon sequestration after pine afforestation on marginal lands in the Povolgie region of Russia: A case study of the potential for a Joint Implementation activity. Pages 488-499 in 13th Scientific Conference of the International-Boreal-Forest-ResearchAssociation, Umea, SWEDEN.

Lamade, E. 2005. Carbon storage and global change: the role of oil palm. OCL - OlÃ©agineux, Corps Gras, Lipides 12:154-160. Lancho, J. F. G., and M. I. Gonzalez. 2004. Carbon sequestration in a Spanish chestnut coppice. Pages 201-207 in 3rd International Chestnut Congress, Chaves, PORTUGAL. Lasco, R. D., I. Q. Guillermo, R. V. O. Cruz, N. C. Bantayan, and F. B. Pulhin. 2004. Carbon stocks assessment of a secondary forest in Mount Makiling Forest Reserve, Philippines. Journal of Tropical Forest Science 16:35-45. Lasco, R. D., K. G. MacDicken, F. B. Pulhin, I. Q. Guillermo, R. F. Sales, and R. V. O. Cruz. 2006. Carbon stocks assessment of a selectively logged dipterocarp forest and wood processing mill in the Philippines. Journal of Tropical Forest Science 18:212-221.

Kurganova, I. N., and V. O. L. de Gerenyu. 2008. Assessment and prediction of changes in the reserves of organic carbon in abandoned soils of European Russia in 1990-2020. Eurasian Soil Science 41:1371-1377.

Lee, D. K., V. N. Owens, and J. J. Doolittle. 2007. Switchgrass and soil carbon sequestration response to ammonium nitrate, manure, and harvest frequency on conservation reserve program land. Agronomy Journal 99:462-468.

Lal, R. 1998. Land use and soil management effects on soil organic matter dynamics on Alfisols in western Nigeria. Pages 109-126. CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton.

Lemma, B., D. B. Kleja, I. Nilsson, and M. Olsson. 2006. Soil carbon sequestration under different exotic tree species in the southwestern highlands of Ethiopia. Geoderma 136:886-898.

Lal, R. 2002. Soil carbon sequestration for sustaining agricultural production and improving the environment with particular reference to Brazil. Pages 23-42 in Workshop on Biological Management of Soil Ecosystems, Londrina, BRAZIL.

Lemma, B., D. B. Kleja, M. Olsson, and I. Nilsson. 2007. Factors controlling soil organic carbon sequestration under exotic tree plantations: A case study using the CO2 Fix model in Southwestern Ethiopia. Forest Ecology and Management 252:124-131.

Lal, R. 2008. Carbon sequestration. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 363:815-830.

Lemus, R., and R. Lal. 2005. Bioenergy crops and carbon sequestration. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 24:1-21.

Lal, R. 2009. Potential and Challenges of Soil Carbon Sequestration in Iceland. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 33:255-271.

Lewis, S. L. 2009. Increasing carbon storage in intact African tropical forests. Nature (London) 457:1003-1006.

93


Li, Y., M. Xu, X. M. Zou, P. J. Shi, and Y. Q. Zhang. 2005. Comparing soil organic carbon dynamics in plantation and secondary forest in wet tropics in Puerto Rico. Global Change Biology 11:239248. Lima, A. M. N., I. R. Silva, J. C. L. Neves, R. F. Novais, N. F. Barros, E. S. Mendonca, T. J. Smyth, M. S. Moreira, and F. P. Leite. 2006. Soil organic carbon dynamics following afforestation of degraded pastures with eucalyptus in southeastern Brazil. Forest Ecology and Management 235:219-231. Litton, C. M., D. R. Sandquist, and S. Cordell. 2006. Effects of non-native grass invasion on aboveground carbon pools and tree population structure in a tropical dry forest of Hawaii. Forest Ecology and Management 231:105-113. Lufafa, A., I. Diedhiou, S. A. N. Samba, M. Sene, M. Khouma, F. Kizito, R. P. Dick, E. Dossa, and J. S. Noller. 2008. Carbon stocks and patterns in native shrub communities of Senegal’s Peanut Basin. Geoderma 146:75-82. Lugo, A. E., and S. Brown. 1993. Management of Tropical Soils as Sinks or Sources of Atmospheric Carbon. Plant and Soil 149:27-41. Luis-Mejia, S., A. Gomez-Guerrero, J. D. Etchevers-Barra, G. Angeles-Perez, M. A. Lopez-Lopez, and W. R. Horwath. 2007. Accumulation of soil organic carbon in Pinus michoacana reforestations. Agrociencia 41:711-721. Lung, M. 2008. Forest Again Kenya - Project Design Document. Kenya, Kenya FOrest Service, Kakamega Environmental Education Programme, National Museum of Kenya, MoI University, Masinde Muliro University, BIOTA, Dr. A. Espira: 52. Machado, P., A. C. C. Bernardi, L. I. O. Valencia, M. S. P. Meirelles, C. A. Silva, L. M. Gimenez, J. P. Molin, and B. E. Madari. 2009. Carbon stocks of a Rhodic Ferralsol under no-tillage in Southern Brazil: spatial variability at a farm scale. Australian Journal of Soil Research 47:253-260.

Mafra, A. L., S. D. F. Guedes, O. K. Filho, J. C. P. Santos, J. A. de Almeida, and J. D. Rosa. 2008. Organic Carbon and Soil Chemical Attributes in Forest Areas. Revista Arvore 32:217-224. Maia, S. M. F., S. M. Ogle, C. E. P. Cerri, and C. C. Cerri. 2009. Effect of grassland management on soil carbon sequestration in Rondonia and Mato Grosso states, Brazil. Geoderma 149:84-91. Majumder, B., B. Mandal, P. K. Bandyopadhyay, A. Gangopadhyay, P. K. Man, A. L. Kundu, and D. Mazumdar. 2008. Organic amendments influence soil organic carbon pools and ricewheat productivity. Soil Science Society of America Journal 72:775-785. Makumba, W., F. K. Akinnifesi, B. Janssen, and O. Oenema. 2007. Long-term impact of a gliricidiamaize intercropping system on carbon sequestration in southern Malawi. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 118:237-243. Maltas, A., M. Corbeels, E. Scopel, R. Oliver, J. M. Douzet, F. A. M. da Silva, and J. Wery. 2007. Long-term effects of continuous direct seeding mulch-based cropping systems on soil nitrogen supply in the Cerrado region of Brazil. Plant and Soil 298:161-173. Mandal, B., B. Majumder, P. K. Bandyopadhyay, G. C. Hazra, A. Gangopadhyay, R. N. Samantaray, A. K. Mishra, J. Chaudhury, M. N. Saha, and S. Kundu. 2007. The potential of cropping systems and soil amendments for carbon sequestration in soils under long-term experiments in subtropical India. Global Change Biology 13:357-369. Manhas, R. K., J. D. S. Negi, R. Kumar, and P. S. Chauhan. 2006. Temporal assessment of growing stock, biomass and carbon stock of Indian forests. Climatic Change 74:191-221. Manlay, R. J., J. L. Chotte, D. Masse, J. Y. Laurent, and C. Feller. 2002a. Carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus allocation in agro-ecosystems of a West African savanna III. Plant and soil components under continuous cultivation. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 88:249-269.

94


Manlay, R. J., D. Masse, J. L. Chotte, C. Feller, M. Kaire, J. Fardoux, and R. Pontanier. 2002b. Carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus allocation in agroecosystems of a West African savanna II. The soil component under semi-permanent cultivation. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 88:233-248. Maquere, V., J. P. Laclau, M. Bernoux, L. Saint-Andre, J. L. M. Goncalves, C. C. Cerri, M. C. Piccolo, and J. Ranger. 2008. Influence of land use (savanna, pasture, Eucalyptus plantations) on soil carbon and nitrogen stocks in Brazil. European Journal of Soil Science 59:863-877. Maraseni, T. N., N. J. Mathers, B. Harms, G. Cockfield, A. Apan, and J. Maroulis. 2008. Comparing and predicting soil carbon quantities under different land-use systems on the Red Ferrosol soils of southeast Queensland. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 63:250-256. Marchao, R. L., T. Becquer, D. Brunet, L. C. Balbino, L. Vilela, and M. Brossard. 2006. Carbon and nitrogen stocks in a Brazilian clayey Oxisol: 13-year effects of integrated crop-livestock management systems. Pages 442-450 in HighLand 2006 International Symposium, Mekelle, ETHIOPIA. Marin-Spiotta, E., R. Ostertag, and W. L. Silver. 2007. Long-term patterns in tropical reforestation: Plant community composition and aboveground biomass accumulation. Ecological Applications 17:828-839. Markewitz, D. 2006. Fossil fuel carbon emissions from silviculture: Impacts on net carbon sequestration in forests. Forest Ecology and Management 236:153-161. Martens, D. A., W. Emmerich, J. E. T. McLain, and T. N. Johnsen. 2005. Atmospheric carbon mitigation potential of agricultural management in the southwestern USA. Soil & Tillage Research 83:95-119.

Matamala, R., J. D. Jastrow, R. M. Miller, and C. T. Garten. 2008. Temporal changes in C and N stocks of restored prairie: Implications for C sequestration strategies. Ecological Applications 18:1470-1488. Metay, A., J. A. A. Moreira, M. Bernoux, T. Boyer, J. M. Douzet, B. Feigl, C. Feller, F. Maraux, R. Oliver, and E. Scopel. 2007. Storage and forms of organic carbon in a no-tillage under cover crops system on clayey Oxisol in dryland rice production (Cerrados, Brazil). Soil & Tillage Research 94:122-132. Michelsen, A., M. Andersson, M. Jensen, A. Kjoller, and M. Gashew. 2004. Carbon stocks, soil respiration and microbial biomass in fireprone tropical grassland, woodland and forest ecosystems. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 36:1707-1717. Mills, A. J. 2005a. Ecosystem carbon storage under different land uses in three semi-arid shrublands and a mesic grassland in South Africa. South African Journal of Plant and Soil 22:183-190. Mills, A. J. 2005b. Effects of goat pastoralism on ecosystem carbon storage in semiarid thicket, Eastern Cape, South Africa. Austral Ecology 30:797-804. Mills, A. J., and R. M. Cowling. 2006. Rate of carbon sequestration at two thicket restoration sites in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Restoration Ecology 14:38-49. Montagnini, F., and C. Porras. 1998. Evaluating the role of plantations as carbon sinks: An example of an integrative approach from the humid tropics. Environmental Management 22:459470. Morari, F., E. Lugato, A. Berti, and L. Giardini. 2006. Long-term effects of recommended management practices on soil carbon changes and sequestration in north-eastern Italy. Soil Use and Management 22:71-81.


Morris, S. J., S. Bohm, S. Haile-Mariam, and E. A. Paul. 2007. Evaluation of carbon accrual in afforested agricultural soils. Global Change Biology 13:1145-1156.

95

Noel Kemp Mercado (NKM). “Project summary.” Retrieved July 24, 2009, from http://www. noelkempff.com/English/ProjectSummary.htm.

Mu, Z. J., S. D. Kimura, and R. Hatano. 2006. Estimation of global warming potential from upland cropping systems in central Hokkaido, Japan. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 52:371-377.

Nosetto, M. D., E. G. Jobbagy, and J. M. Paruelo. 2006. Carbon sequestration in semi-arid rangelands: Comparison of Pinus ponderosa plantations and grazing exclusion in NW Patagonia. Journal of Arid Environments 67:142-156.

Mueller, C. W., and I. Koegel-Knabner. 2009. Soil organic carbon stocks, distribution, and composition affected by historic land use changes on adjacent sites. Biology and Fertility of Soils 45:347-359.

Nyamadzawo, G. 2009. Soil microbial biomass and mineralization of aggregate protected carbon in fallow-maize systems under conventional and no-tillage in Central Zimbabwe. Soil & Tillage Research 102:151-157.

Mulugeta, L. 2005. Changes in soil carbon and total nitrogen following reforestation of previously cultivated land in the highlands of Ethiopia. Sinet, Ethiopian Journal of Science 28:99-108.

Nyamadzawo, G., R. Chikowo, P. Nyamugafata, J. Nyamangara, and K. E. Giller. 2008. Soil organic carbon dynamics of improved fallow-maize rotation systems under conventional and notillage in Central Zimbabwe. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 81:85-93.

Makundi, W. and A. Okiting’ati. 1995. Carbon flows and economic evaluation of mitigation options in Tanzania’s forest sector. Biomass and Bioenergy 8: 381-393. Munishi, P. K. T. 2004. Carbon storage in afromontane rain forests of the Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania: their net contribution to atmospheric carbon. Journal of Tropical Forest Science 16:7893. Murty, D., M. U. F. Kirschbaum, R. E. McMurtrie, and A. McGilvray. 2002. Does conversion of forest to agricultural land change soil carbon and nitrogen? a review of the literature. Global Change Biology 8:105-123.

Nyamadzawo, G., J. Nyamangara, P. Nyamugafata, and A. Muzulu. 2009. Soil microbial biomass and mineralization of aggregate protected carbon in fallow-maize systems under conventional and no-tillage in Central Zimbabwe. Soil & Tillage Research 102:151-157. Nyssen, J., H. Temesgen, M. Lemenih, A. Zenebe, N. Haregeweyn, and M. Haile. 2008. Spatial and temporal variation of soil organic carbon stocks in a lake retreat area of the Ethiopian Rift Valley. Geoderma 146:261-268.

Mutuo, P. K. 2005. Potential of agroforestry for carbon sequestration and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from soils in the tropics. 71:43-54.

O’Connor, T. G. 2008. Influence of land use on phytomass accumulation in Highland Sourveld grassland in the southern Drakensberg, South Africa. African Journal of Range & Forage Science 25:17-27.

Nelson, J. D. J., J. J. Schoenau, and S. S. Malhi. 2008. Soil organic carbon changes and distribution in cultivated and restored grassland soils in Saskatchewan. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 82:137-148.

Oba, G., R. B. Weladji, D. J. Msangameno, L. M. Kaitira, and J. Stave. 2008. Scaling effects of proximate desertification drivers on soil nutrients in northeastern Tanzania. Journal of Arid Environments 72:1820-1829.

96


Oelbermann, M., R. P. Voroney, and A. M. Gordon. 2004. Carbon sequestration in tropical and temperate agroforestry systems: a review with examples from Costa Rica and southern Canada. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 104:359-377.

Ouattara, B., K. Ouattara, G. Serpantie, A. Mando, M. P. Sedogo, and A. Bationo. 2006. Intensity cultivation induced effects on soil organic carbon dynamic in the western cotton area of Burkina Faso. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 76:331-339.

Oelbermann, M., R. P. Voroney, N. V. Thevathasan, A. M. Gordon, D. C. L. Kass, and A. M. Schlonvoigt. 2006. Soil carbon dynamics and residue stabilization in a Costa Rican and southern Canadian alley cropping system. Agroforestry Systems 68:27-36.

Paul, K. I., T. H. Booth, A. Elliott, M. U. F. Kirschbaum, T. Jovanovic, and P. J. Polglase. 2006. Net carbon dioxide emissions from alternative firewoodproduction systems in Australia. Biomass & Bioenergy 30:638-647.

Olchin, G. P., S. Ogle, S. D. Frey, T. R. Filley, K. Paustian, and J. Six. 2008. Residue carbon stabilization in soil aggregates of no-till and tillage management of dryland cropping systems. Soil Science Society of America Journal 72:507-513. Olsson, L., and J. Ardo. 2002. Soil carbon sequestration in degraded semiarid agro-ecosystems - Perils and Potentials. Ambio 31:471-477. Omonode, R. A., A. Gal, D. E. Stott, T. S. Abney, and T. J. Vyn. 2006. Short-term versus continuous chisel and no-till effects on soil carbon and nitrogen. Soil Science Society of America Journal 70:419425. Otterstrom, S., L. Gonalez, H. Hodgson, M. Lezama, L. Valerio, C. Fuentes, B. Hernandez, G. Bolanos, R. Marcenaro, T. Barquero, M. Rivera, Y. Gaitan and J. Martinez Return to Forest: Mitigating Climate Change through the Restoration and Conservation of Endangered Forest Ecosystems. Report, Paso Pacifico: 89. Ouattara, B., K. Ouattara, G. Serpantie, A. Mando, M. P. Sedogo, and A. Bationo. 2004. Intensity cultivation induced effects on soil organic carbon dynamic in the western cotton area of Burkina Faso. Pages 749-757 in Biannual Meeting on Advances in Intergrated Soil Fertility Management in Sub-Saharan Africa - Challenges and Opportunities, Yaounde, CAMEROON.

Paul, K. I., P. J. Polglase, J. G. Nyakuengama, and P. K. Khanna. 2002. Change in soil carbon following afforestation. Forest Ecology and Management 168:241-257. Paul, S., H. Flessa, E. Veldkamp, and M. Lopez-Ulloa. 2008. Stabilization of recent soil carbon in the humid tropics following land use changes: evidence from aggregate fractionation and stable isotope analyses. Biogeochemistry 87:247-263. Peichl, M., N. Thevathasan, A. M. Gordon, J. Huss, and R. A. Abohassan. 2006. Carbon sequestration potentials in temperate treebased intercropping systems, southern Ontario, Canada. Agroforestry Systems 66:243-257. Pereira, J. S., J. A. Mateus, L. M. Aires, G. Pita, C. Pio, J. S. David, V. Andrade, J. Banza, T. S. David, T. A. Paco, and A. Rodrigues. 2007. Net ecosystem carbon exchange in three contrasting Mediterranean ecosystems - the effect of drought. Biogeosciences 4:791-802. ProNatura. 2008. Agroforestry and sustainable agriculture: fighting poverty and climate change. Paris, ProNatura International: 5. Purakayastha, T. J., L. Rudrappa, D. Singh, A. Swarup, and S. Bhadraray. 2008. Long-term impact of fertilizers on soil organic carbon pools and sequestration rates in maize-wheat.-cowpea cropping system. Geoderma 144:370-378.

97


Putz, F. E., P. A. Zuidema, M. A. Pinard, R. G. A. Boot, J. A. Sayer, D. Sheil, P. Sist, Elias, J. K. Vanclay. 2008. Improved Tropical Forest Management for Carbon Retention. PLoS Biology 6(7): 13681369. Rafli, T. P., G. Usher, J.O. Niles. 2007. Reducing Carbon Emissions from Deforestation in the Ulu Masen Ecosystem, Aceh, Indonesia. Project Design Note for CCBA Audit, Pancacita, Fauna & Flora International, Carbon Conservation Pty. Ltd: 72. Raji, B. A. 2006. Potential of soil carbon sequestration under various landuse in the sub-humid and semi-arid savanna of Nigeria: lessons from long-term experiments. International Journal of Soil Science 1:33-43. Ramachandran, A., S. Jayakumar, R. M. Haroon, A. Bhaskaran, and D. I. Arockiasamy. 2007. Carbon sequestration: estimation of carbon stock in natural forests using geospatial technology in the Eastern Ghats of Tamil Nadu, India. Current Science 92:323-331. Redondo-Brenes, A. 2007. Growth, carbon sequestration, and management of native tree plantations in humid regions of Costa Rica. New Forests 34:253-268. Redondo-Brenes, A., and F. Montagnini. 2006. Growth, productivity, aboveground biomass, and carbon sequestration of pure and mixed native tree plantations in the Caribbean lowlands of Costa Rica. Forest Ecology and Management 232:168-178. Resh, S. C., D. Binkley, and J. A. Parrotta. 2002. Greater soil carbon sequestration under nitrogenfixing trees compared with Eucalyptus species. Ecosystems 5:217-231. Rice, A. H., E. H. Pyle, S. R. Saleska, L. Hutyra, M. Palace, M. Keller, P. B. de Camargo, K. Portilho, D. F. Marques, and S. C. Wofsy. 2004. Carbon balance and vegetation dynamics in an old-growth Amazonian forest. Ecological Applications 14:S55-S71.

Richards, A. E., R. C. Dalal, and S. Schmidt. 2007. Soil carbon turnover and sequestration in native subtropical tree plantations. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 39:2078-2090. Ringius, L. 2002. Soil carbon sequestration and the CDM: Opportunities and challenges for Africa. Climatic Change 54:471-495. Risch, A. C., M. F. Jurgensen, D. S. Page-Dumroese, O. Wildi, and M. Schutz. 2008. Long-term development of above- and below-ground carbon stocks following land-use change in subalpine ecosystems of the Swiss National Park. Canadian Journal of Forest ResearchRevue Canadienne De Recherche Forestiere 38:1590-1602. Roncal-Garcia, S., L. Soto-Pinto, J. Castellanos-Albores, N. Ramirez-Marcial, and B. de Jong. 2008. Agroforestry systems and carbon stocks in indigenous communities from Chiapas, Mexico. Interciencia 33:200-206. Roscoe, R., and P. Buurman. 2003. Tillage effects on soil organic matter in density fractions of a Cerrado Oxisol. Soil & Tillage Research 70:107-119. Rossi, J. 2009. Spatial structures of soil organic carbon in tropical forests - a case study of Southeastern Tanzania. Catena 77:19-27. Rossi, J., A. Govaerts, B. De Vos, B. Verbist, A. Vervoort, J. Poesen, B. Muys, and J. Deckers. 2009. Spatial structures of soil organic carbon in tropical forests-A case study of Southeastern Tanzania. Catena 77:19-27. Roxburgh, S. H., S. W. Wood, B. G. Mackey, G. Woldendorp, and P. Gibbons. 2006. Assessing the carbon sequestration potential of managed forests: a case study from temperate Australia. Journal of Applied Ecology 43:1149-1159. Rudrappa, L., T. J. Purakayastha, D. Singh, and S. Bhadraray. 2006. Long-term manuring and fertilization effects on soil organic carbon pools in a Typic Haplustept of semi-arid subtropical India. Soil & Tillage Research 88:180192.

98


Rumpel, C., J. Balesdent, P. Grootes, E. Weber, and I. Kögel-Knabner. 2003. Quantification of lignite- and vegetation-derived soil carbon using 14C activity measurements in a forested chronosequence. Geoderma 112:155-166. Rumpel, C., I. Kögel-Knabner, and R. F. Hüttl. 1999. Organic matter composition and degree of humification in lignite-rich mine soils under a chronosequence of pine. Plant and Soil 213:161168. Russell, A. E., J. W. Raich, O. J. Valverde-Barrantes, and R. F. Fisher. 2007. Tree species effects on soil properties in experimental plantations in tropical moist forest. Soil Science Society of America Journal 71:1389-1397. Ryan, J., S. Masri, and M. Singh. 2007. Seasonal Changes in Soil Organic Matter and Biomass and Labile Forms of Carbon as Influenced by Crop Rotations. Pages 188-199 in 10th International Symposium on Soil and Plant Analysis, Budapest, HUNGARY. Saha, S. K., P. K. R. Nair, V. D. Nair, and B. M. Kumar. 2009. Soil carbon stock in relation to plant diversity of homegardens in Kerala, India. Agroforestry Systems 76:53-65. Sainju, U. M., H. H. Schomberg, B. P. Singh, W. F. Whitehead, P. G. Tillman, and S. L. LachnichtWeyers. 2007. Cover crop effect on soil carbon fractions under conservation tillage cotton. Soil & Tillage Research 96:205-218. Sainju, U. M., Z. N. Senwo, E. Z. Nyakatawa, I. A. Tazisong, and K. C. Reddy. 2008a. Soil carbon and nitrogen sequestration as affected by longterm tillage, cropping systems, and nitrogen fertilizer sources. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 127:234-240. Sainju, U. M., Z. N. Senwo, E. Z. Nyakatawa, I. A. Tazisong, and K. C. Reddy. 2008b. Tillage, cropping systems, and nitrogen fertilizer source effects on soil carbon sequestration and fractions. Journal of Environmental Quality 37:880-888.

Salim, S. M. “Salim Mayeki Shaban.” Retrieved August 12, 2009, from http://org2.democracyinaction.org/ o/5866/t/6672/directory/view.jsp?supporter_ KEY=6455683&directory_KEY=186&t=. Sarah, P. 2006. Soil organic matter and land degradation in semi-arid area, Israel. Catena 67:50-55. Sartori, F., R. Lal, M. H. Ebinger, and D. J. Parrish. 2006. Potential soil carbon sequestration and CO2 offset by dedicated energy crops in the USA. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 25:441-472. Sauer, T. J., C. A. Cambardella, and J. R. Brandle. 2007. Soil carbon and tree litter dynamics in a red cedar-scotch pine shelterbelt. Agroforestry Systems 71:163-174. Schlesinger, W. H. 2000. Carbon sequestration in soils: some cautions amidst optimism. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 82: 121-127. Schlesinger, W. H., J. Belnap, and G. Marion. 2009. On carbon sequestration in desert ecosystems. Global Change Biology 15:1488-1490. Seidl, R., W. Rammer, P. Lasch, F. W. Badeck, and M. J. Lexer. 2008. Does conversion of even-aged, secondary coniferous forests affect carbon sequestration? A simulation study under changing environmental conditions. Silva Fennica 42:369-386. Sharma, P., and S. C. Rai. 2007. Carbon sequestration with land-use cover change in a Himalayan watershed. Geoderma 139:371-378. Shimizu, M., S. Marutani, A. R. Desyatkin, T. Jin, H. Hata, and R. Hatano. 2009. The effect of manure application on carbon dynamics and budgets in a managed grassland of Southern Hokkaido, Japan. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 130:31-40. Shin, M. Y., M. D. Miah, and K. H. Lee. 2007. Potential contribution of the forestry sector in Bangladesh to carbon sequestration. Journal of Environmental Management 82:260-276.

99


Shrestha, B. M., and B. R. Singh. 2008. Soil and vegetation carbon pools in a mountainous watershed of Nepal. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 81:179-191.

Singh, A. N., A. S. Raghubanshi, and J. S. Singh. 2004b. Impact of native tree plantations on mine spoil in a dry tropical environment. Forest Ecology and Management 187:49-60.

Shrestha, G., and P. D. Stahl. 2008. Carbon accumulation and storage in semi-arid sagebrush steppe: Effects of long-term grazing exclusion. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 125:173-181.

Singh, B. R. 2008. Carbon sequestration in soils of cool temperate regions (introductory and editorial). Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 81:107-112.

Shrestha, R. K., and R. Lal. 2006. Ecosystem carbon budgeting and soil carbon sequestration in reclaimed mine soil. Environment International 32:781-796. Shrestha, R. K., R. Lal, and P. A. Jacinthe. 2009. Enhancing Carbon and Nitrogen Sequestration in Reclaimed Soils through Organic Amendments and Chiseling. Soil Science Society of America Journal 73:1004-1011. Shroeder, A. 2009. Madre de Dios Amazon REDD Project. Montevideo, Greenoxx: 195. Shukla, M. K., and R. Lal. 2005. Temporal changes in soil organic carbon concentration and stocks in reclaimed minesoils of southeastern Ohio. Soil Science 170:1013-1021. Silfver, P. 2003. Soil carbon storage at different land-use in Ethiopia.18 pp. Silver, W. L., L. M. Kueppers, A. E. Lugo, R. Ostertag, and V. Matzek. 2004. Carbon sequestration and plant community dynamics following reforestation of tropical pasture. Ecological Applications 14:1115-1127. Silver, W. L., R. Ostertag, and A. E. Lugo. 2000. The potential for carbon sequestration through reforestation of abandoned tropical agricultural and pasture lands. Restoration Ecology 8:394407. Singh, A. N., A. S. Raghubanshi, and J. S. Singh. 2004a. Comparative performance and restoration potential of two Albizia species planted on mine spoil in a dry tropical region, India. Ecological Engineering 22:123-140.

Singh, S. K., M. Kumar, B. K. Sharma, and J. C. Tarafdar. 2007. Depletion of organic carbon, phosphorus, and potassium stock under a pearl millet based cropping system in the arid region of India. Arid Land Research and Management 21:119131. Skinner, R. H. 2007. High biomass removal limits carbon sequestration potential of mature temperate pastures. Pages 1319-1326 in 4th USDA Greenhouse Gas Symposium on Positioning Agriculture and Forestry to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change, Baltimore, MD. Skukla, M. K., and R. Lal. 2005. Temporal changes in soil organic carbon concentration and stocks in reclaimed minesoils of southeastern Ohio. Soil Science 170:1013-1021. Smiley, G. L., and J. Kroschel. 2008. Temporal change in carbon stocks of cocoa-gliricidia agroforests in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Agroforestry Systems 73:219-231. Smith, J. And G. Applegate. 2004. Could payments for forest carbon contribute to improved tropical forest management?. Forest Policy and Economics 6: 153-167. Solomon, D., J. Lehmann, J. Kinyangi, W. Amelung, I. Lobe, A. Pell, S. Riha, S. Ngoze, L. Verchot, D. Mbugua, J. Skjemstad, and T. Schafer. 2007. Long-term impacts of anthropogenic perturbations on dynamics and speciation of organic carbon in tropical forest and subtropical grassland ecosystems. Global Change Biology 13:511-530.

100 FPAN African Tropical Forests Review of the scientific literature and existing carbon projects: July 2010

Sotomayor-Ramirez, D., Y. Espinoza, and V. AcostaMartinez. 2009. Land use effects on microbial biomass C, beta-glucosidase and betaglucosaminidase activities, and availability, storage, and age of organic C in soil. Biology and Fertility of Soils 45:487-497. Spargo, J. T., M. M. Alley, R. F. Follett, and J. V. Wallace. 2008. Soil carbon sequestration with continuous no-till management of grain cropping systems in the Virginia coastal plain. Soil & Tillage Research 100:133-140.

The New Forests Company (TNFC). (2006). Environmental plan for the Namwasa Forestry Project in the Republic of Uganda. Kampala: 21. The N’hambita Community Carbon Project. 2009. Retrieved July 23, 2009, from http://www. miombo.org.uk/. The WorldBank (WB). “Albania: Assisted Natural Regeneration.” Retrieved July 22, 2009, from http://wbcarbonfinance.org/Router.cfm?Page= BioCF&FID=9708&ItemID=9708&ft=Projects&Pr ojID=9627.

Steinbeiss, S., H. Bessler, C. Engels, V. M. Temperton, N. Buchmann, C. Roscher, Y. Kreutziger, J. Baade, M. Habekost, and G. Gleixner. 2008. Plant diversity positively affects short-term soil carbon storage in experimental grasslands. Global Change Biology 14:2937-2949.

The WorldBank (WB). “Columbia: San Nicolás Agroforestry.” Retrieved July 24, 2009, from http://wbcarbonfinance.org/Router.cfm?Page= BioCF&FID=9708&ItemID=9708&ft=Projects&Pr ojID=9630.

Steinfeld, H. and T. Wassenaar. 2007. The role of livestock production in carbon and nitrogen cycles. Annual Review of Environment and Resources: 271-294.

The WorldBank (WB). “DR Congo: Ibi Bateke Carbon Sink Plantation.” Retrieved August 10, 2009, from http://wbcarbonfinance.org/Router. cfm?Page=Projport&ProjID=43647.

Swamy, S. L., S. Puri, and A. K. Singh. 2003. Growth, biomass, carbon storage and nutrient distribution in Gmelina arborea Roxb. stands on red lateritic soils in central India. Bioresource Technology 90:109-126.

The WorldBank (WB). “Ethiopia: Humbo Assisted Regeneration.” Retrieved September 08, 2009, from http://wbcarbonfinance.org/Router.cfm?P age=BioCF&FID=9708&ItemID=9708&ft=Project s&ProjID=9625.

Takimoto, A., P. K. R. Nair, and V. D. Nair. 2008. Carbon stock and sequestration potential of traditional and improved agroforestry systems in the West African Sahel. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 125:159-166.

The WorldBank (WB). “Honduras: Pico Bonito Forest Restoration.” Retrieved July 31, 2009, from http://wbcarbonfinance.org/Router.cfm?Page= BioCF&FID=9708&ItemID=9708&ft=Projects&Pr ojID=9637.

Tamooh, F. 2008. Below-ground root yield and distribution in natural and replanted mangrove forests at Gazi bay, Kenya. Forest Ecology and Management 256:1290-1297.

The WorldBank (WB). “Mali: Acacia Senegal Plantation Project.” Retrieved August 08, 2009, from http://wbcarbonfinance.org/Router.cfm?Page= BioCF&FID=9708&ItemID=9708&ft=Projects&Pr ojID=24878

TaTEDO. (2004). “Integrated renewable energy development and environment conservation, Tanzania.” Retrieved September 09, 2009, from http://www.hedon.info/ The Nature Conservancy (TNC) (2007). Combating climate change in Boliva: 2.

The WorldBank (WB). “Niger: Acacia Senegal Plantation Project.” Retrieved August 06, 2009, from http://wbcarbonfinance.org/Router.cfm?Page= BioCF&FID=9708&ItemID=9708&ft=Projects&Pr ojID=9634.

101


The WorldBank (WB). “Uganda: Nile Basin Reforestation.” Retrieved August 07, 2009, from http:// wbcarbonfinance.org/Router.cfm?Page=BioC F&FID=9708&ItemID=9708&ft=Projects&Proj ID=9644.

Tian, G. L., R. Justicia, D. C. Coleman, and C. R. Carroll. 2007. Assessment of soil and plant carbon levels in two ecosystems (woody bamboo and pasture) in montane Ecuador. Soil Science 172:459-468.

The WorldBank (WB) (2004). Western Kenya Integratred Ecosystem Management - Project Brief, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute: 109.

Tiessen, H., C. Feller, E. Sampaio, and P. Garin. 1998. Carbon sequestration and turnover in semiarid savannas and dry forest. Climatic Change 40:105-117.

The WorldBank (WB). (2005). Costa Rica: Carbon sequestration in small farms in the Brunca Region (COOPEAGRI Project), BioCarbon Project, FONAFIFO: 20.

Tilman, D., J. Hill, and C. Lehman. 2006. Carbonnegative biofuels from low-input high-diversity grassland biomass. Science 314:1598-1600.

The WorldBank (WB). (2006). Honduras Pico Bonito Sustainable Forests Project. Project Appraisal Document: 108.

TIST. (2009). “The International small group and tree planting program.” Retrieved July 03, 2009, from http://www.tist.org/index.php.

The WorldBank (WB). (2007). COLOMBIA: San Nicolas Carbon Sink and Arboreal Species Recovery Project. Project Appraisal Document, Columbia and Mexico Country Management Unit, Masbosques: 120.

Tornquist, C. G., E. Giasson, J. Mielniczuk, C. E. P. Cerri, and M. Bernoux. 2009. Soil Organic Carbon Stocks of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Soil Science Society of America Journal 73:975-982.

The WorldBank (WB). (2007). Columbia: Caribbean Savannah Carbon Sink Project. Project Appraisal Document Columbia and Mexico Country Management Unit, The World Bank: 97. The WorldBank (WB). (2009). “Kenya: Green Belt Movement.” Retrieved August 11, 2009, from http://wbcarbonfinance.org/Router.cfm?Page= BioCF&FID=9708&ItemID=9708&ft=Projects&Pr ojID=9635.

Toure, A., K. Rasmussen, O. Diallo, and A. Diouf. 2003. Actual and potential carbon stocks in the north-sudanian zone. A case study: The forests of Delbi and Paniates in Senegal. Geografisk Tidsskrift 103:63-70. Traore, S., L. Thiombiano, J. R. Millogo, and S. Guinko. 2007. Carbon and nitrogen enhancement in Cambisols and Vertisols by Acacia spp. in eastern Burkina Faso: Relation to soil respiration and microbial biomass. Applied Soil Ecology 35:660-669.

The WorldBank (WB). (2009). “Madgascar: Ankeniheny Zahamena - Mantadia Biodiversity Conservation Corridor and Restoration Project.” Retrieved July 28, 2009, from http://wbcarbonfinance. org/Router.cfm?Page=BioCF&FID=9708&ItemID =9708&ft=Projects&ProjID=9638.

Trees For Global Benefits (TFGB). (2007). Plan Vivo Field Visit Report. Trees for Global Benefit. 24 November - 3 December 2007, BioClimate Research and Development, Environmental Conservation Trust for Uganda: 28.

Tian, G., T. C. Granato, A. E. Cox, R. I. Pietz, C. R. Carlson, and Z. Abedin. 2009. Soil Carbon Sequestration Resulting from Long-Term Application of Biosolids for Land Reclamation. Journal of Environmental Quality 38:61-74.

Triberti, L., A. Nastri, G. Giordani, F. Comellini, G. Baldoni, and G. Toderi. 2008. Can mineral and organic fertilization help sequestrate carbon dioxide in cropland? European Journal of Agronomy 29:13-20.

102


Tripathi, N., and R. S. Singh. 2008. Ecological restoration of mined-out areas of dry tropical environment, India. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 146:325-337.

UNFCC (1997). Uniform Reporting Format: Activities implemented jointly under the pilot phase. Burkina Faso sustainable energy management Project Document Design: 17.

Trouve, C., A. Mariotti, D. Schwartz, and B. Guillet. 1994. Soil Organic-Carbon Dynamics under Eucalyptus and Pinus Planted on Savannas in the Congo. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 26:287295.

UNFCC (1999). Activities implemented jointly. Burkina Faso sustainable energy management. 2009.

Tschakert, P. 2002. Carbon for farmers: Assessing the potential for soil carbon sequestration in the Old Peanut Basin of Senegal. Pages 273-290 in Workshop on Quantifying Terrestrial Carbon Sinks, Wengen, SWITZERLAND. Tschakert, P., O. T. Coomes, and C. Potvin. 2007. Indigenous livelihoods, slash-and-burn agriculture, and carbon stocks in Eastern Panama. Ecological Economics 60:807-820. Tschakert, P., M. Khouma, and M. Sene. 2004. Biophysical potential for soil carbon sequestration in agricultural systems of the Old Peanut Basin of Senegal. Journal of Arid Environments 59:511-533. Turkelboom, F., J. Poesen and G. Trebuil. 2008. “The multiple land degradation effects caused by land-use intensification in tropical steeplands: A catchment study from nothern Thailand.” Catena 75(102-116). UNDP (1998). Project Document - Biological Diversity Conservation through Participatory Rehabilitation of the Degraded Lands of the Arid and Semi-Arid Transboundary Areas of Mauritania and Senegal, GEF, UNOPS. UNFCC (2005). Emissions data for tropical African countries. UNFCC The Namwasa Forestation Project - Project Design Document (Draft): 90. UNFCC Small-scale reforestation project in East Lombok, Indonesia. Project Design Document, Japan International FOrestry Promotion and Cooperation Center: 55.

UNFCC (2006). Facilitating Reforestation for Guangxi Watershed Management in Pearl River Basin. Project Design Document: 105. UNFCC (2007). Afforestation in grassland areas of Uchindile, Kilombero, Tanzania & Mapanda, Mufindi, Tanzania - Project Document Design. UNFCC (2007). Small-scale reforestation for landscape restoration. Project design document: 69. UNFCC (2008). The International Small Group and Tree Planting Program (TIST), Tamil Nadu, India, TIST: 119. UNFCC (2008). Reforestation on the Idete Forest Project in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania, Green Resources AS: 93. UNFCC (2008). Small Scale Cooperative Afforestation CDM Pilot Project Activity on Private Lands Affected by Shifting Sand Dunes in Sirsa, Haryana. Project Design Document: 75. UNFCC (2009). Cao Phong Reforestation Project. Project Design Document. Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), Vietnam Forestry University (VFU), Reserach Center for Forest Ecology and Environment (RCFEE), Department of Forestry under the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD): 50. UNFCC (2009). Forest Carbon Project in Quirino Province, Sierra Madre Biodiversity Corridor, Luzon, Philippines. Project Design Document. UNFCC (2009). Reforestation in grassland areas of Uchindile, Kilombero, Tanzania & Mapanda, Mufindi, Tanzania - Project Design Document: 163.


UNFCC (2009). Uganda Nile Basin Reforestation Project No 3 - Project Design Document, BioCarbon Fund: 42. Ussiri, D. A. N., and R. Lal. 2005. Carbon sequestration in reclaimed minesoils. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 24:151-165. Ussiri, D. A. N., R. Lal, and P. A. Jacinthe. 2006. Postreclamation land use effects on properties and carbon sequestration in minesoils of southeastern Ohio. Soil Science 171:261-271. UWA-Face. 2008. Social Impact Assessment Study Around Mt. Elgon National Park. Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA), Kampala , Uganda: 100. Vaccaro, S., M. F. Arturi, J. F. Goya, J. L. Frangi, and G. Piccolo. 2003. Carbon storage in secondary successional stages in the province of Misiones, Argentina. Interciencia 28:521-+. Vagen, T. G., R. Lal, and B. R. Singh. 2005. Soil carbon sequestration in sub-Saharan Africa: A review. Land Degradation & Development 16:53-71. Vancutsem, C., J.-F. Pekel, C. Evrard, F. Malaisse, and P. Defourny. 2008. Mapping and characterizing the vegetation types of the Democratic Republic of Congo using SPOT VEGETATION time series. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 11: 6276. Vargas, R., E. B. Allen, and M. F. Allen. 2009. Effects of Vegetation Thinning on Above- and Belowground Carbon in a Seasonally Dry Tropical Forest in Mexico. Biotropica 41:302-311. Velez, D. A. T., and J. I. Del Valle. 2007. Growth and yield modelling of Acacia mangium in Colombia. New Forests 34:293-305. Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS) (2009). Reforestation of pastures in Campo Verde with native species, Pucallpa, Peru. Project Description: 106.

103

Walsh, P. G., C. V. M. Barton, and A. Haywood. 2008. Growth and carbon sequestration rates at age ten years of some eucalypt species in the lowto medium-rainfall areas of New South Wales, Australia. Australian Forestry 71:70-77. Wang, L. X., G. S. Okin, K. K. Caylor, and S. A. Macko. 2009. Spatial heterogeneity and sources of soil carbon in southern African savannas. Geoderma 149:402-408. Wang, W. J., and R. C. Dalal. 2006. Carbon inventory for a cereal cropping system under contrasting tillage, nitrogen fertilisation and stubble management practices. Soil & Tillage Research 91:68-74. Wauters, J. B., S. Coudert, E. Grallien, A. Jonard, and Q. Ponette. 2008. Carbon stock in rubber tree plantations in Western Ghana and Mato Grosso (Brazil). Forest Ecology and Management 255:2347-2361. West, T. O., and W. M. Post. 2002. Soil organic carbon sequestration rates by tillage and crop rotation: A global data analysis. Soil Science Society of America Journal 66:1930-1946. West, T. O., and J. Six. 2007. Considering the influence of sequestration duration and carbon saturation on estimates of soil carbon capacity. Climatic Change 80:25-41. Whalen, J. K., H. Benslim, Y. Jiao, and B. K. Sey. 2008. Soil organic carbon and nitrogen pools as affected by compost applications to a sandyloam soil in Quebec. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 88:443-450. Williams, M., C. M. Ryan, R. M. Rees, E. Sarnbane, J. Femando, and J. Grace. 2008. Carbon sequestration and biodiversity of re-growing miombo woodlands in Mozambique. Forest Ecology and Management 254:145-155. Williams, C. A., N.P. Hanan, J.C. Neff, R.J. Scholes, J.A. Berry, A.S. Denning, and D.F. Baker. 2007. African and the Global Carbon cycle. Carbon balance and management 2: 3.

104 FPAN African Tropical Forests Review of the scientific literature and existing carbon projects: July 2010

Williams, R. J., L. B. Hutley, G. D. Cook, J. Russell-Smith, A. Edwards, and X. Y. Chen. 2004. Assessing the carbon sequestration potential of mesic savannas in the Northern Territory, Australia: approaches, uncertainties and potential impacts of fire. Pages 415-422 in 1st Meeting of Plant Ecophysiologists (ECOFIZZ), Melbourne, AUSTRALIA. Wong, V. N. L., B. W. Murphy, T. B. Koen, R. S. B. Greene, and R. C. Dalal. 2008. Soil organic carbon stocks in saline and sodic landscapes. Australian Journal of Soil Research 46:378-389. Woods Hole Research Centre (WHRC) (2007). “Carbon and changes in land use.” Retrieved September 11, 2009, from http://www.whrc.org/carbon/ landuse.htm. Woomer, P. L., L. L. Tieszen, G. Tappan, A. Toure, and M. Sall. 2004a. Land use change and terrestrial carbon stocks in Senegal. Journal of Arid Environments 59:625-642. Woomer, P. L., A. Toure, and M. Sall. 2004b. Carbon stocks in Senegal’s Sahel Transition Zone. Journal of Arid Environments 59:499-510. World Wildlife Fund (WWF). (2008). “Eco-Makala: Plantation of fuel wood around Virunga Nationl Park for the population of Goma.” Retrieved August 03, 2009, from http://www.panda.org/ who_we_are/wwf_offices/belgium/projects/ index.cfm?uProjectID=CD0015. Yang, X. M., C. F. Drury, M. M. Wander, and B. D. Kay. 2008. Evaluating the effect of tillage on carbon sequestration using the minimum detectable difference concept. Pedosphere 18:421-430. Yang, Y. S., J. S. Xie, H. Sheng, G. S. Chen, X. Li, and Z. J. Yang. 2009. The impact of land use/cover change on storage and quality of soil organic carbon in midsubtropical mountainous area of southern China. Journal of Geographical Sciences 19:49-57. Yu, G. R., H. J. Fang, L. P. Gao, and W. J. Zhang. 2006. Soil organic carbon budget and fertility variation of black soils in Northeast China. Ecological Research 21:855-867.

Yusuf, A. A., A. F. Eben-Johnson, V. O. Chude, and I. Y. Amapu. 2007. Soil characteristics and the performance of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L) Moench) on tin mine spoils of the Jos Plateau, Nigeria. Advances in Integrated Soil Fertility Management in Sub-Saharan Africa: Challenges and Opportunities: 619-628. Zanatta, J. A., C. Bayer, J. Dieckow, F. C. B. Vieira, and J. Mielniczuk. 2007. Soil organic carbon accumulation and carbon costs related to tillage, cropping systems and nitrogen fertilization in a subtropical Acrisol. Soil & Tillage Research 94:510-519. Zha, T., A. G. Barr, T. A. Black, J. H. McCaughey, J. Bhatti, I. Hawthorne, P. Krishnan, J. Kidston, N. Saigusa, A. Shashkov, and Z. Nesic. 2009. Carbon sequestration in boreal jack pine stands following harvesting. Global Change Biology 15:1475-1487. Zhang, J., Y. Ge, J. Chang, B. Jiang, H. Jiang, C. H. Peng, J. R. Zhu, W. G. Yuan, L. Z. Qi, and S. Q. Yu. 2007a. Carbon storage by ecological service forests in Zhejiang Province, subtropical China. Forest Ecology and Management 245:64-75. Zhang, J. B., C. C. Song, and S. M. Wang. 2007b. Dynamics of soil organic carbon and its fractions after abandonment of cultivated wetlands in northeast China. Soil & Tillage Research 96:350-360. Zhang, Q., and C. O. Justice. 2001. Carbon emissions and sequestration potential of central African ecosystems. Ambio 30:351-355. Zhang, X. P., M. B. Wang, and X. M. Liang. 2009. Quantitative classification and carbon density of the forest vegetation in Luliang Mountains of China. Plant Ecology 201:1-9. Zheng, H., Z. Y. Ouyang, W. H. Xu, X. K. Wang, H. Miao, X. Q. Li, and Y. X. Tian. 2008. Variation of carbon storage by different reforestation types in the hilly red soil region of southern China. Forest Ecology and Management 255:1113-1121.


105

Proforest South Suite, Frewin Chambers Frewin Court, Oxford OX1 3HZ United Kingdom T: +44 (0) 1865 243439 F: +44 (0) 1865 244820 E: [email protected] W: www.proforest.net Proforest is registered in England and Wales, company number 3893149

© Proforest July, 2010