Local mitigation to climate change in the ASB: Potential for small-scale afforestation

Local mitigation to climate change in the ASB: Potential for small-scale

afforestation

J. Franz, A. Khamzina

Center for Development Studies (ZEFb)

Department of Economic and Technological Change

University of Bonn, Germany

Outline

• Motivation– Climate change predictions in the ASB– Activities that are affected by and contributing

to further climate change

• How local strategies are beneficial for sustainable development and reducing GHG emissions

• Possibility for Afforestation/Reforestation (AR) under the CDM

• Preliminary conclusions/future work

The Aral Sea Basin (ASB)

Climate Change in the ASB

• ASB naturally arid– Agriculture relies 100% on irrigation– More than 8 million ha irrigated– Poor water management/planning has led to

the Aral Sea Crisis

• Temperature increases will place further pressure on water resources(long-run)– Predicted increase in temp. above global

mean: 3.7 C (long-run)– Glaciers shrinking 1% annually– Reduces downstream water flow by 30-40%


• Countries in the ASB also contributing to further climate change– GHG emissions have increased since 1992 in

Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan above the global mean

– Per capita ghg emissions and water consumption are among the highest in the world

• Agricultural sector will be affected by climate change but also contributing– Degradation leading to desertification


• The countries in the ASB are non-Annex 1

• Not obliged to reduce emissions

• Significant opportunities for Annex 1 countries to offset in these countries– C consumption for oil/gas very high– Natural conditions good for solar/hydro/wind

• Large scale projects receive more interest– Low-hanging fruit principle

• Small-scale projects have greater potential for sustainable, direct benefits, while decreasing GHG emissions

Afforestation/Reforestation

• Small-scale (SSC) Afforestation/Reforestation (AR)– CDM for reducing GHG emissions– Co-benefits for sustainable development

• timber/non-timber products

– New M&Ps making SSCs more financially attractive

• Increased permits from 8000 tons to 16000t of CO2

• Transaction costs reduced for small-scale projects

– Special permit scheme under SSC A/R to account for permanence problem

Afforestation/Reforestation

• Currently 25 AR projects in the validation stage

• Of these 9 small-scale projects

• 200-400 ha each

• Satisfy additionality more easily than full-scale projects

• Remain financially unattractive under most circumstances

• Long-term benefits not adequately considered

Uzbekistan

Potential in Uzbekistan

• Uzbekistan highly dependent on agricultural sector– Climate change threatens

productivity/sustainability

• Current practices have led to significant land degradation– Over 50% of irrigated land considered salt-

affected– Salinization leads to degradation– Marginal lands widely available– Present low cost opportunity for A/R projects


• Preservation of forests part of national environmental action plan

• Recognition that timber/non-timber products in short supply

• No existing tools for dealing with marginal lands

• Developed an enabling environment for carbon financing

• 0ver 60 PINs at various stages of planning– oil/gas; municipal services– One on afforestation-rejected


• Afforestation demonstrated in the Khorezm region

• Under ZEF/UNESCO Project

• Source of ecological and economic benefits for rural farmers

• Multipurpose trees well adapted to the region

• Marginal lands with zero opportunity cost used– No longer sown to cotton/wheat


• Multipurpose trees planted on 2 ha experimental site

• Experiment ran over 5 years

• Irrigation 1/10 of what is required for cotton/wheat production

• Saline shallow ground water table appropriate

• Above ground/below ground biomass approx. 35 t/ha

• Approximately 21 t C captured by 5th year


Khorezm, Uzbekistan (March, 2004)


Khorezm, Uzbekistan (Spring, 2006)


• Profitability demonstrated– Net revenue approximately 2000 USD after 5

years– Sale of timber/non-timber products– Shortage of fodder and fuel in rural areas

• Initial investment in tree plantations still too high for farmers– 1000-2000 USD per ha– Small-scale loans unavailable

• SSC/AR projects may provide additional revenue to

make project go beyond profitability threshold

Conclusions/Future work

• Ex-ante assessment needed

• SSC AR has not been sufficiently explored in the Uzbekistan context

• Revenue from SSC AR permits still insufficient to cover initial outlay– Even under revised M&Ps

• If long-term benefits to farmers considered projects sustainable option for local mitigation and income

• Could the SSC/AR permits promote interest in afforestation in UZBs

Local mitigation to climate change in the ASB: Potential for small-scale afforestation

Documents

Transcript of Local mitigation to climate change in the ASB: Potential for small-scale afforestation