|
Memorandum from Moor Tress
1. Background
Since 1998, our charity (Moor Trees) has been restoring native woodland in and around Dartmoor National Park. Moor Trees' charitable status and community-based approach requires a highly responsible, ethical and transparent approach to all our activities. As such, we are recognized around the region for our socio-environmental outputs. More recently, we are increasingly engaged in the issue of climate change, both as a source of information, knowledge and objective opinion, and a respected resource for organizations and individuals seeking to play an active role in climate change mitigation and adaptation.
As with the rhetoric of climate change, carbon offset has grown in both public awareness and media appeal. This has inevitably led to a surge in the value (and profitability) of associated markets, with new organisations (mostly for-profit, many internet-based) emerging to take advantage of the anticipated spend, arguably before regulation is introduced. Whilst the (Kyoto Protocol) model of carbon offset is sound in concept, the delivery framework is fundamentally flawed, with emerging issues of monoculture afforestation[1], programme complexity, high levels of bureaucracy and the much maligned 'business as usual' concept stimulating acrimonious discussion at many levels.
More recently, the surge of the 'voluntary carbon offset' (VCO) market has, whilst similarly based on a good concept, suffers from dubious science, failed investments, accusations of green-washing and, in some cases, a lack of financial and operational transparency. The 'for-profit' status of the major players is also very much open to discussion, as is the incredibly low per centage of offset funds that actually go to the project i.e. 40% to 60% top slicing is common.
What should be considered, however, are the potential benefits of VCO. Tackling Climate change requires a holistic approach as we have now moved from prevention to mitigation and adaptation. VCO offers a partial solution through the added value of a community-based (partnership) approach bringing educational as well as purely offset outcomes. In other words, we need to look at a paradigm shift from the "governing of the environment" to "environmental governance". This can only be done through broad stakeholder engagement and partnership working. VCO could play an important role in this.
2. Towards Accreditation?
The question now beckons - how can this emerging market be brought into line to remove its defects and by introducing a more robust and accountable operational framework?
As with many environmental partnerships, commentators suggest that issues of legitimacy, accountability and responsibility are the keys to success. These issues desperately need to be addressed for a partnership approach to environmental governance to succeed.
3. Some Inquiry Issues
Ought there to be a compulsory UK or European accreditation scheme for carbon offset projects or companies? If so, how should this operate?
The market desperately needs a robustly enforced Government-run accreditation scheme (not an NGO which might be highly subjective). Bearing in mind projects should be community-based, funding and expertise must also made available to gain accredited status.
Should offsetting become mandatory for some of the more carbon-intensive activities, such as flying?
Many airlines have recently commanded huge media exposure in defence of their aggressive plans for expansion. Their predictions for flight market growth are indicative of forecasted profitability and consumer demand. It is, however, difficult to argue this case due to the medium- to long-term return on offset investments compared with the short-term impact made by high- altitude carbon emissions. The perfect solution is to reduce consumer demand but as long as the airlines continue to offer cheap flights (particularly short-haul), the appeal of flying will continue to grow. Perhaps reductions can only be achieved through taxation leading to significantly increased air fares encouraging the business community to use webcast technology and the tourist staying at home to enjoy the warmer weather.
Is there enough clarity within the offset market to allow customers to make informed choices based upon robust information about different schemes at different prices?
Information offered by VCO providers is sparse (invariably due to the in-house media expert) but often flawed. It is difficult for an uninformed, non-scientific audience to accurately judge scheme value and credibility. The solution will come from improved regulation and a governing body.
Many offset projects involve afforestation or reforestation. Is the science sufficiently coherent in this area accurately to assess overall long-term carbon (or other GHG) gains and losses from such projects?
Tree-planting (when carried out and supported credibly) undoubtedly helps the natural environment adapt to and mitigate climate change through the improvement of air and water quality, protection of biodiversity, creation of migration corridors and carbon sequestration. However, the science of carbon sequestration is highly complex due to the huge number of carbon uptake variables per planting scheme. Additionally, climate change itself brings further uncertainty due to changing growing conditions, though it is argued by some that these will improve in the UK.
Is there sufficient data available to guarantee accurate amounts of carbon or other GHG mitigation in the sorts of schemes which offset projects finance?
No.
What impact will the voluntary carbon offset market have on the compliance market if the former continues to grow as steadily as it has done over the last few years?
Due to the lack of bureaucracy, quick return and accessibility, the impact could be significant.
What evidence is there to show that offsetting helps to change the carbon behaviour of the customer?
Whilst wide-ranging studies considering behavioural and attitudinal change are lacking, an empirical focus can be brought through the assessment of local projects. Taking into account the activities of our own charity, we have been working with businesses and individuals over the last 12 months in carbon awareness raising activities through tree-planting. By publishing an online calculator using well-researched source data[2], our Climate Action Plan works in partnership with Quangos to firstly reduce and then offset customer emissions. Through this direct engagement in conservation and environmentally focused activities, we have achieved measurable results in both emissions reduction and behavioural change. However, the use of carbon offset schemes by business should be part of a comprehensive environmental management system that involves employees, suppliers and customers in delivering environmental improvements.
To what extent are the schemes and projects funded by offset companies more broadly sustainable, in an environmental, social or economic sense?
Carbon offset is conceptually underpinned by the notions of sustainability, with the idea of grass-roots level investment for environmental, social and economic benefit being well-rooted in agendas at all levels. Indeed, much discussion of policy and governance at the beginning of the 21st Century indicates a significant shift in the model of governance away from 'top-down' government control to a 'bottom-up' partnership approach. This 'partnership-working' is increasingly being seen as an indispensable part of the transition towards more sustainable development and environmental stewardship. In part, the growing prominence of partnerships is recognition that sustainability cannot be achieved through top-down government but requires the active involvement of a broad range of stakeholder groups, spanning all sections of society, to ensure that sustainability strategies are context-oriented, so meeting the needs of local populations. As such, VCO offers a huge opportunity for increased (financial) investment in the sustainability agenda. Where many schemes currently fail is in successful community involvement, so VCO operational frameworks should reflect this need to both bridge the implementation gap and bring behavioural and attitudinal change.
January 2007 [1] Leading to adverse effects on biodiversity and socio-cultural implications and with often poor science. [2] Defra, NAEI, CEH. |