Berliner Boersenzeitung - Carbon credits: a contested tool to fight deforestation

EUR -
AED 4.324438
AFN 82.328185
ALL 97.949419
AMD 453.271707
ANG 2.107025
AOA 1079.636914
ARS 1449.927532
AUD 1.795358
AWG 2.122186
AZN 1.990127
BAM 1.954815
BBD 2.380071
BDT 144.607168
BGN 1.955302
BHD 0.443822
BIF 3511.586629
BMD 1.177357
BND 1.500925
BOB 8.145897
BRL 6.365024
BSD 1.178791
BTN 100.508378
BWP 15.572091
BYN 3.857757
BYR 23076.197533
BZD 2.367907
CAD 1.60034
CDF 3396.675125
CHF 0.934236
CLF 0.02847
CLP 1093.644109
CNY 8.436237
CNH 8.434891
COP 4697.183555
CRC 595.092696
CUC 1.177357
CUP 31.199961
CVE 110.209492
CZK 24.624403
DJF 209.911602
DKK 7.461312
DOP 70.463613
DZD 152.811006
EGP 58.09939
ERN 17.660355
ETB 162.604613
FJD 2.634572
FKP 0.862382
GBP 0.862196
GEL 3.202678
GGP 0.862382
GHS 12.200855
GIP 0.862382
GMD 84.181539
GNF 10220.808822
GTQ 9.063435
GYD 246.625785
HKD 9.242194
HNL 30.798357
HRK 7.534265
HTG 154.780072
HUF 398.487987
IDR 19055.287849
ILS 3.930624
IMP 0.862382
INR 100.608101
IQD 1544.202579
IRR 49596.16423
ISK 142.389078
JEP 0.862382
JMD 188.32435
JOD 0.834746
JPY 169.961488
KES 152.345617
KGS 102.959991
KHR 4731.556641
KMF 492.135408
KPW 1059.578096
KRW 1605.597618
KWD 0.359353
KYD 0.982393
KZT 612.503705
LAK 25399.88359
LBP 105621.403141
LKR 353.647378
LRD 236.35096
LSL 20.645002
LTL 3.476429
LVL 0.712172
LYD 6.347722
MAD 10.576473
MDL 19.851002
MGA 5177.370399
MKD 61.514133
MMK 2472.040219
MNT 4224.807876
MOP 9.5308
MRU 46.751453
MUR 52.922057
MVR 18.128529
MWK 2044.161764
MXN 21.964892
MYR 4.973745
MZN 75.303303
NAD 20.644739
NGN 1800.6381
NIO 43.377968
NOK 11.869454
NPR 160.810958
NZD 1.941497
OMR 0.452699
PAB 1.178806
PEN 4.198286
PGK 4.866528
PHP 66.42671
PKR 334.519655
PLN 4.249107
PYG 9398.14683
QAR 4.295936
RON 5.059923
RSD 117.183551
RUB 92.839359
RWF 1693.339948
SAR 4.415489
SBD 9.815536
SCR 17.271949
SDG 706.982177
SEK 11.24715
SGD 1.499715
SHP 0.925218
SLE 26.431679
SLL 24688.592283
SOS 673.657847
SRD 43.779986
STD 24368.913178
SVC 10.314674
SYP 15308.030561
SZL 20.654334
THB 38.075993
TJS 11.428398
TMT 4.132523
TND 3.429373
TOP 2.757486
TRY 46.920697
TTD 7.986876
TWD 34.069761
TZS 3114.646199
UAH 49.220701
UGX 4228.870104
USD 1.177357
UYU 47.226214
UZS 14843.523969
VES 128.889394
VND 30817.908599
VUV 140.260432
WST 3.06316
XAF 655.624007
XAG 0.031985
XAU 0.000352
XCD 3.181866
XDR 0.815386
XOF 655.618441
XPF 119.331742
YER 285.096832
ZAR 20.707824
ZMK 10597.623008
ZMW 28.438677
ZWL 379.108479
  • CMSC

    0.0900

    22.314

    +0.4%

  • CMSD

    0.0250

    22.285

    +0.11%

  • RBGPF

    0.0000

    69.04

    0%

  • SCS

    0.0400

    10.74

    +0.37%

  • RELX

    0.0300

    53

    +0.06%

  • RIO

    -0.1400

    59.33

    -0.24%

  • GSK

    0.1300

    41.45

    +0.31%

  • NGG

    0.2700

    71.48

    +0.38%

  • BP

    0.1750

    30.4

    +0.58%

  • BTI

    0.7150

    48.215

    +1.48%

  • BCC

    0.7900

    91.02

    +0.87%

  • JRI

    0.0200

    13.13

    +0.15%

  • VOD

    0.0100

    9.85

    +0.1%

  • BCE

    -0.0600

    22.445

    -0.27%

  • RYCEF

    0.1000

    12

    +0.83%

  • AZN

    -0.1200

    73.71

    -0.16%

Carbon credits: a contested tool to fight deforestation
Carbon credits: a contested tool to fight deforestation / Photo: Jack TAYLOR - AFP/File

Carbon credits: a contested tool to fight deforestation

Planting trees or safeguarding tropical rainforests have become popular tools for companies seeking to offset their carbon emissions and proclaim their commitment to the environment.

Text size:

However, recent scandals have cast a shadow over the carbon credit industry, revealing a landscape rife with opportunities for greenwashing.

Walt Disney, JP Morgan Bank and other major corporations have been accused of purchasing carbon credits from forest protection projects in areas that were not actually at risk of deforestation.

Separately, a company responsible for managing 600,000 hectares of land in the United States has reportedly earned $53 million over the past two years from carbon credits that did not significantly alter its forest management practices.

None of these projects sequestered carbon beyond that which would have been absorbed by trees through photosynthesis in a business-as-usual scenario.

Still, companies counted the resulting carbon credits towards their own reduction targets, allowing them to offset emissions in the carbon accounting of their operations.

Leaders and experts from around the world will gather in the Gabonese capital Libreville on March 1 and 2 for the One Forest Summit.

Co-presided by France and Gabon, the meeting will focus on improving financial instruments aimed at protecting the world's forests.

Carbon credits are already widely used. According to various estimates, the number of tons of CO2 they represent (with one credit equivalent to one ton) could increase tenfold by 2030, to around two billion tons.

"The risky aspect of the carbon credit market is that it is not self-regulating," said Cesar Dugast from French environmental consultancy Carbone 4, in an interview with AFP.

"Everyone has an interest in maximising the quantity of carbon credits. It enables the project developers to spread the total cost over a maximum number of credits, offering a lower cost to buyers.

"Even the certifiers have an interest in the proliferation of projects," he added.

In mid-January, The Guardian, Die Zeit and an NGO revealed that more than 90 percent of projects certified by leading verifier Verra for forest conservation under the UN programme to reduce deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) were likely "ghost credits" that did not represent "real emissions reductions".

Verra's CEO, David Antonioli, rejected these findings, arguing that "REDD projects are not some abstract concept on a piece of paper; they represent real projects on the ground that deliver life-affirming benefits."

- Carbon credits under debate -

After the story came out, the price of nature-related carbon credits has dropped, according to Paula VanLaningham, global head of carbon at S&P Global.

The revelations about REDD+ projects have sparked a wider debate about the entire carbon credit system.

"Are the projects themselves a good vehicle for carbon finance in a way that actually leads to a just transition? Probably both yes and no," she told AFP.

Several independent rating agencies have since defended their methodologies, stressing the crucial need for financing projects protecting nature.

"The first issue we look at is additionality: would the project have happened in absence of the carbon markets?" Donna Lee, co-founder of Calyx Global, an independent rating agency for carbon projects, told AFP.

"We then look at how the baseline was set and what would have happened in the absence of the project."

The core issue with initiatives aimed at halting deforestation is the challenge of proving that deforestation would have occurred without the funding.

"We look at patterns of deforestation in the region... a lot of scientific studies show that there are certain things like roads, population, distance to the forest edge, that are often associated with deforestation," Lee said.

Above all, the companies that buy these credits should be "more transparent" by clearly indicating where credits are sourced and how they reduce their own emissions, she said.

"We need to move from a mentality of compensating to a mindset of contributing," said Dugast from Carbone 4.

In other words, companies financing forests to offset carbon emissions is acceptable, but not as a loophole to avoid reducing their own emissions.

(K.Lüdke--BBZ)