One time so called “empty talk” has now been realized and well accepted by most of the scientific communities worldwide and consensus has significantly been grown to work against the climate change impacts. The Global Environment initiatives have overwhelmingly stressed that there is urgency for taking a mixture of noteworthy immediate actions to combat the human (industrial and luxury societies) induced Climate Change. The scientific community has already envisaged that the concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) including CO2 have reached levels well above any observed in the last millions years and now we should acknowledge the fact that even if we immediately stop our GHG emitting activities tomorrow, such as burning of fossil fuels, or deforestation, the earth’s surface temperature would continue to increase for another 50 or more years (actually can’t predict) because of the time lag between emissions and the earth’s responses to the emissions. In addition, the most vulnerable to the devastations of climate change are the people of less developed countries who are, in fact, not much contributing to atmospheric accumulation of GHGs, and have a low capacity and preparedness for climate change adaptation. In the Himalayan region, people depending on alpine range resources, such as nomadic races, are likely to be worst affected.

The 3rd Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2001a) had attributed only 66% probability that human activities are the main causes for the emissions of the GHGs and hence for the increase in temperature since the mid-20th century, and this probability has now been raised to more than 90%. The IPCC has predicted that anthropogenic emission of GHGs will raise the global mean surface temperature between 1.4 and 5.8oC over the next century (UNFCCC 2003). 4th Assessment Report of IPCC has mentioned that by 2100 earth average temperature will increase by 1 degree to 6.3 degree centigrade and also the sea level may increase by 1 meter depending upon the amount of green house gas we emit in the atmosphere. There is a large emission of CO2 from deforestation and change in existing land use (in the tropics, it accounts for 18-25% of all anthropogenic CO2 emissions), which is indifferent to country’s development status. The total amount of CO2 released from land-use change is estimated to be 1.6 GtC per year over the 1990s (IPCC 2007), although there is a wide range of uncertainty and inconsistency in the estimate. Estimates show a quarter of global CO2 emissions (IPCC) and 18% (Stern 2007) being emitted from deforested lands in tropical regions. (The Stern Review 2007 has kept emissions from deforestation in perspective by comparing it with other sectors.) Deforestation contributed more that 18% of the global CO2 emissions, which is more that the total emissions coming from the transport sector.

To address this problem Kyoto Protocol came into consideration in 1997, however became effective very lately, of which Nepal became a party in 2005. Kyoto has devised three flexible mechanisms to enable compliance with the commitments: Joint Implementation (JI), Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), and Emissions Trading (ET). These “flexible mechanisms” which allow developed economies to meet their greenhouse gas emission limitation by purchasing GHG emission reductions from elsewhere. These can be bought either from financial exchanges, from projects that reduce emissions in developing economies under the CDM. The Kyoto recognizes forest management activities in industrialized countries, where CO2 effects from the management of existing forests can be accounted for in the national green house gas inventories. Kyoto only recognizes forests as carbon sinks and thus fails to address avoiding further emissions from deforestation in non-industrialized countries. One reason for not crediting avoided deforestation under the Kyoto Protocol in uncertainty in quantifying and controlling leakage. Under the framework of this Protocol, developed countries are legally bounded to reduce their emissions, but in addition to taking action on this domestically, they may also purchase carbon credits form CDM projects and offset these against their own obligations, thus creating a market for carbon credits (UN 1997). Only CDM Executive Board-accredited Certified Emission Reductions (CER) can be bought and sold in this manner. Under the aegis of the UN, Kyoto established this Bonn-based Clean Development Mechanism Executive Board to assess and approve projects (“CDM Projects”) in developing economies prior to awarding CERs. Many environmental experts have now suggested that CDM is the only activity in which developing countries like Nepal can participate in collective action for emissions reduction. Nevertheless, one main lacking of CDM is that it does not recognize avoiding deforestation as a strategy for reducing CO2 emissions from non-industrialized countries. Even if completely implemented, the Kyoto is expected to reduce the average global temperature only between 0.02 and 0.28oC by year 2050. Market based CDM can be used to mount up economic incentives for conservation-related activities in non-industrialized countries. Given that public sector spending in conservation is experiencing global cutbacks, CDM could be viewed as a promotional means for conservation activities, especially in the resource-scarce developing world. In addition to deriving payments from CER credits, developing countries gain from the technology transferred, including knowledge and experience transferred from the industrialized to non-industrialized countries. The 2% proportional fund of the CER trading registered in the CDM registry is to be utilized to assist adaptation projects in non-industrialized countries vulnerable to adverse climate change effects and to cover CDM associated administrative expenses. The IPCC has identified carbon sequestration, carbon conservation and carbon substitution as three forest management strategies that can effectively reduce the concentration of CO2.

We all know that the livelihood of the majority of the people in Nepal depend heavily on climate-sensitive sectors like agriculture and forests, and on other natural resources such as water and biodiversity. Substantial portions of the population in this country are dry-land farmers, nomadic shepherds, and forest dwellers, or forest dependents with limited adaptive capacity to deal with the problems likely to arise as a consequence of global climate change. In addition to resources such as fuel-wood, fodder and timber extracted to meet their subsistence needs; forest cover contributed additional environmental services such as provision of water resources, and wildlife habitat. In a real sense, forests provide win-win situation, with local as well as global benefits by sequestering carbon. Over the last decade, community forestry has emerged as a new approach in natural resources management in Nepal. Community forests play a prominent role in the daily livelihoods of people in the hills of Nepal where agriculture, livestock rearing, and forests are strongly interlinked. The shift in the common property resource management paradigm, from one that excluded local stakeholders from forest management towards on that included them, has been successful in reducing deforestation and increasing biomass in common lands through formal institutions established by forest user communities/groups. According to a study done by ICIMOD, it has been found that the mean carbon sequestration rate for community forests in Nepal is close to 2.79 tCha-1yr-1 or, 10.23 tCO2ha-1yr-1, under normal management conditions and after local people have extracted forest products to meet their interim needs. In comparison to another important means of absorbing CO2, the oceans, many terrestrial systems have a much larger biomass and capacity to take up CO2 per unit area. Carbon in the deeper layer of the soil remains sequestered for years unless the aboveground forest is disturbed. Soils of forests located in cold climates, such as boreal forests, store unusually large amounts of carbon. But one thing that we should know is that Carbon dioxide can be stored longer in forests of native hardwood species than softwood ones. Carbon dioxide storage in public forestlands and protected areas forestlands are likely to be more permanent than in private and production forests.

Forests play a significant role in stabilizing the concentration of atmospheric CO2 as they switch between becoming a source and a sink. Conversion of shrub and pasture-lands, agricultural fields, or degraded forests into forests leads to sequestration of CO2 from the atmosphere to the terrestrial ecosystems, where CO2 is stored in biomass and soil. Forest acts as sinks by increasing aboveground biomass through increased forest cover and by increased levels of soil organic carbon content. Of the total global terrestrial carbon, about two-thirds, excluding those sequestered from the rocks and sediments are stored in forest areas in the form of standing biomass under-storey biomass, leaf and forest debris, and soil. According to Upadhyaya et al (2005), revitalizing degraded forestland and their soils in the global terrestrial ecosystem can sequester 50-70% of the historic losses. Degraded forests have emitted their carbon pool and now have the potential capacity to sequester greater volumes. Managed forests sequester more carbon than unmanaged forest nearing their climax stage as decay, burning, and die-back are balanced by the growth of plants. Community involvement in forest protection, management and utilization of resources became a government policy in the forestry sector in the Himalayan region as a result of earlier failures of the states to mitigate escalating deforestation and forest degradation taking place. Community forest management, as undertaken in the Himalayan region, is becoming an important strategy for increasing carbon pool levels in the region form a climatic perspective, as these forests are beginning to show signs of regeneration in previously deforested areas. However, of the 1000 CDM projects which have been approved or are in the process of being approved, almost all are in the energy sector.

It is known that the principle of fair trade is the exchange of goods and services produced and created based on comparative advantage to benefit involved parties with no social harm. However, some of the environmental experts blame that the forest carbon trade is not based on economic and ethical principles. The intention behind introducing forest carbon trade is to compensate the environment quality spoiled by polluting industries and luxury societies. Excessive pollution is produced not for meeting normal living but for luxurious activities and lifestyle. In a cost benefit analysis of the UK forest policy in 2006, it has been concluded that the policy of rural land use in forestry made the rural community worse off. Some of the other experts also feel that the inherent intention of the policy of environmental service payment (ESP) is to increase forest cover in developing countries and protect developed countries’ agriculture, which is threatened by the abolition of subsides for free international trade. Also the market for CERs from Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) forestry projects has neither been developed nor been approved. These projects do not receive regular CERs, only temporary credits (tCERs), and the market value of temporary credits is likely to be much lower than for regular CERs. The value of CERs from the forest management projects such as these is completely unknown, as CERs are not yet tradable.

It is evident that Global warming poses a serious threat to life on earth. Although scientists are unclear about the exact implications of global climate change, most experts agree that plant communities, tropical landscapes, wildlife habitat, sea levels, weather patterns, and human mortality would be negatively impacted. In fact, there might be some serious underestimations in the assumptions of the impacts of global warming which will cause significant damage to the earth and the human community. Our knowledge of its probable impact is far from perfect. According to the UNDP’s Human Development Report 2007/08 “Climate change is the defining human development challenge of the 21st Century. Failure to respond to that challenge will stall and then reverse international efforts to reduce poverty. The poorest countries and most vulnerable citizens will suffer the earliest and most damaging setbacks, even though they have contributed least to the problem.” In addition to this, the Stern report highlighting the fact that the Global Warming as one of the largest business failures has pointed out that a 50% reduction in these emissions could be achieved at an annual cost of $5-10 billion, interestingly this amount comes just around less than 3% of the total GDP. Developing countries, especially the small island countries and the LDCs, would require significant amounts of extra financing support as they will be the most affected by climate change and with fragile economic and technological capacity to cope. In Bali climate conference, December 2007, many countries, developing and least developed, civil society groups, international NGOs all were found busy advocating for more adaptation fund and its transparent management. Although adaptation fund is essentially required for the poor and climate-risk countries but adaptation without mitigation is pointless. On the other hand, the fund’s total capital is too low, to date only USD 230 million has been committed to the UNFCCC’s adaptation funds, of which only USD 48 millions has been delivered to support LDC’s adaptation. A 2007 study by Oxfam International estimates that at least approximately USD 50 billion will be needed annually to support adaptation in the developing countries if current GHG emission rates are stabilized. The discussions are already moving forward. World Bank President Robert Zoellick announced at the Conference of Parties (COP) 13 Bali, Indonesia that the Bank is developing a new funding mechanism that can be a tool to protect forests and support indigenous people. The World Bank will develop two funds, one to reduce deforestation and another allow nations to sell credits for successful programs battling carbon dioxide. Developed countries that pollute more than the allowed limits under the existing Kyoto accord would be able to buy the carbon credits to increase their emission levels and help finance projects to protect forests (APMN 2007).

It is now time to consolidate local actions and raise the concerns of communities about receiving payments for the global benefits they render by sequestering carbon and reducing atmospheric CO2 concentrations emitted from the industrialized world. The existing CDM does not bring benefits to marginal communities living in the Himalayan region, who are most vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change. However, as the scientific community has gained new insights into more effective ways to reduce global emissions, there is now a growing interest in finding ways to include reducing deforestation in non-industrialized countries in the post 2012 era. Therefore, it is important for authorities in the regions concerned with CFM to take early cognizance of the potentials and possibilities that CFM offers and be able to lobby for a mechanism that brings benefits to the locals that conserve forest locally, while extending the benefits globally. Along with the people, government from the developing nations, like Nepal, should strongly urge for the inclusion of avoided deforestation in carbon offset measures in the Framework on Climate Change. Including ‘avoided deforestation’ in climate change policy will not only help the global climate, it will provide a way for millions of poor people in developing countries to benefit directly, and will help stop the destruction of forests and encourage further conservation.

- Mr. Belbase is affiliated to ClimateHimalaya Initiative, an independent professional forum of climate change professionals in the Himalayan countries.

References:
1. APMN (2007) Asia Pacific Mountain Network (APMN) Bulletin-Vol. 8, No. 2, Winter 2007. International Center for Integrated Mountain Development, Khumaltar, Lalitpur, GPO Box 3226, Kathmandu, Nepal. 1027-0035.
2. Banskota, K.; Karky, B.S.; Skutsch, M. (2007) Reducing Carbon Emissions through Community-managed Forests in the Himalaya. International Center for Integrated Mountain Development, Khumaltar, Lalitpur, GPO Box 3226, Kathmandu, Nepal
3. HM Treasury (2006) Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change.
See www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm
4. IPCC (2001), Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, Contribution of Working of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge (UK): The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge
5. IPCC (2007) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report. Summary for Policymakers. See www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf.
6. Oxfam International (2007), Adapting to climate change: What’s needed in poor countries, and who should pay. See http://oxfam.intelli-direct.com/e/d.dll?m=235&url=http://www.oxfam.org/en/files/bp104_climate_change_0705.pdf/downloadReferences
7. UN (1997), Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. New York: United Nations
8. UNFCCC (2003), Caring for Climate: A Guide to the Climate Change Convention and the Kyoto Protocol. UNFCCC, Bonn
9. Upadhyay, T.P.; Sankhayan, P.L.; Solberg, B. (2005) ‘A Review of Carbon Sequestration Dynamics in the Himalayan Region as a Function of Land-use Change and Forest/Soil Degradation with Special Reference to Nepal’ In Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment, 105:449-465