How Coal and Oil companies
are trying to cheat the climate through
forest offsets - 15 October 2009 - International
— Coal and oil companies are using forest
offset projects to try and cheat the climate.
Our new report Carbon Scam investigates
how American Electric Power, BP and Pacificorp
- all investors in the Noel Kempff Climate
Action Project in Bolivia - are using the
forest protection project to try and avoid
reducing their own greenhouse gas emissions.
'Carbon Scam' shows
how projected carbon savings are close to
90 per cent lower than originally claimed;
how overall deforestation rates in Bolivia
have actually increased since the project
started; and how the promised benefits to
local communities have come to nothing.
What is Noel Kempff?
In 1997, the three energy giants made an
agreement with the Bolivian government to
invest millions of dollars to expand and
protect the forest in Noel Kempff national
park. In return they would receive carbon
credits, to buy and sell on voluntary carbon
markets to offset their own CO2 emissions.
Noel Kempff is being
used by the industry as the poster child
for future sub-national forest offset schemes
under REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation
and Degradation). REDD is the means by which
forest protection will be included in the
global climate deal to be negotiated at
the UN Copenhagen Climate Summit in December.
What is a Sub-National
REDD project?
Tropical forest destruction accounts for
around 20 per cent of global greenhouse
gas emissions. Protection of these forests
must be a crucial part of any deal to save
the climate. A debate is raging over what
form this protection will take. The Greenpeace
Forests for Climate solution shows the way
to achieve both forest and climate protection.
But, other forms of
REDD being proposed could actually threaten
climate protection. “Sub-national” offsets
(covering a specific area in a country)
are a particular problem - these allow companies,
including big coal and oil, to “buy” bits
of forest to protect, in exchange for rights
to future carbon credits from it.
There are real problems
with this approach. For starters, misreporting
is common as it is much harder to accurately
measure the carbon in forests than from
industrial sources like smokestacks, particularly
if you only measure a small area. Another
serious risk, increased through bad reporting,
is “leakage”, where deforestation stops
in the area being protected, only to start
up in new unprotected areas. What’s more,
without a more comprehensive plan for making
emissions cuts, it’s difficult to know how
long a project will last (permanence) or
whether it actually represents additional
carbon savings (additionality) – as in many
cases it’s possible the forests would have
stayed standing anyway.
Noel Kempff - widely
touted by industry as a success story for
sub-national forest offsets - fails on all
of the above counts.
What's the scam?
Since the project started in 1997 the estimated
CO2 emission reductions have plummeted by
more than 90 per cent, from about 55 million
tonnes to "up to" 5.8 million
tonnes. Had the original false estimates
been used on carbon markets there could
have been an INCREASE in greenhouse gas
emissions. Companies could have claimed
non-existent emission reductions while continuing
to emit the amount supposedly offset.
These serious errors
in counting emissions are reason enough
to avoid sub-national offsetting altogther
– but as if we didn't have proof enough,
here's more. The project has failed to protect
against:
1. “Leakage” — the companies
promised that they were effectively monitoring
leakagage but in percentage terms overall
deforestation rates have actually increased
in Bolivia. In fact, leakage from the project
could be as high as 42-60 per cent.
2. ““Additionality”
— Changes in Bolivian law mean that Noel
Kempff may have been protected anyway, without
company involvement, and therefore any C02
savings may not be additional.
3. "Permanence"
– The project is at risk from forest fires,
pests, disease and political changes, all
of which can undermine forest protection.
This could mean that the carbon stored,
and used to offset the company emissions,
could still be released.
4. "Community benefits"
– Industry claims the project has benefited
local communities in many ways, but testimonies
we captured tell a different story. "Well,
the reality is that the Noel Kempff project
has not delivered any benefits," says
local Pastor Solís Pérez.
World leaders must listen
to the science not companies
Sub-national offsetting is bad for forests
and bad for the climate. As world leaders
gear up for Copenhagen, they must learn
the lessons from Noel Kempff. Unsurprisingly,
given that it is far cheaper for heavy CO2
polluting companies to pay for forest protection
than reduce their own emissions, they are
lobbying hard for sub-national offsets.
These companies may be able to confuse politicians,
but the climate isn’t going to be fooled.
The world needs to see
a Copenhagen deal that will save the climate.
This must include serious measures to protect
our forests, but not under sub-national
schemes that benefit nobody other than the
companies trying to cheat the climate.
