The two defining challenges of our century are climate change and poverty. And if we fail on one, we will fail on the other.

Lord Nicholas Stern (2009)

Five steps, including the setting up of three internet platforms, to take community forestry worldwide, a way to fight world poverty as well as climate change effectively.

We have been designing and field testing a concept with the dual aim to fight global warming as well as poverty through community tree planting; a system with a small carbon footprint, transparent and with little waste for implementing and monitoring.
Now we want to take it a step further and designed the plan for 3 internet based platforms:  one to work towards solutions for global warming and poverty;  the second to link grassroots groups worldwide with funds available to plant trees etc.;  the third platform a source of practical information about agroforestry, growing trees for an income and case studies from various countries and climate zones.

These internet platforms and the various sophisticated software and hardware needed for designing, to make information available, to administrate and to transfer funds securely, are the tools and technology needed to realize this plan. I am sure no technology specialist, but I have the impression we will need nearly all technology showcased here might be needed somewhere for this multi layered plan.
The proposed three websites should be interactive, well moderated and marketed and fully result oriented, not a discussion forum. A big partner, org or com, is needed, as long as full editorial independance is guaranteed.

A 5 step action plan towards a global solution. I like to split up the issue in several parts; separate systematic side from the financial side and from the agroforestry side.

I put an equal amount everywhere, just to indicate of what kind of money might be involved. Communication specialists have to make a strategic project proposal for each task force.

Task force 1
To develop methods to help the rural “poor” with growing trees and other poverty-climate measures, which could be applied globally or could be adapted locally.

We need a platform where experts from all fields and dimensions related to the subject and policy makers can consult with and inform the grassroots about climate problems and work together on solutions and methodologies to tackle climate change, nature loss and poverty, in one go. Such as the treecredits concept. What is needed, is solution-oriented science and the design of systems and software.

€50.000 as seed money is needed in 2011 to start a foundation, design the ‘supersite’, pay for specialist moderators and marketing specialists

Task force 2
To examine if the proposed solutions and modifications work.

Field test and evaluate these potential solutions. Examining existing similar projects and introduce improvements.

€50.000 is needed in 2012 to prepare, implement and evaluate 5 trials and to plant and monitor 50.000 trees

Task force 3
To give grassroots tree growers access to funding.

We need another platform to bring together the tree planting groups and potential donors/investors directly.
Once local NGOs and others are certified that they got the right systems in place to receive and  account  for micro funds, and label and located the trees planted, this web based platform could bring together small scale tree growers with potential donors/investors, worldwide. With modern and novel IT and AV solutions this must be feasible even for areas which are hard to access near protected, mountainous, remote, marginal or insecure areas.

About €50.000 as seed money is needed in 2012 to start a foundation design the necessary software and other applications, start the platform and publicize its potential.

Task force 4
To give grassroots tree growers access to relevant agroforestry information.

The collecting, developing and sharing of available knowledge and experience about which trees are best for specific habitats: which mix of species of trees will give a healthy forest that maximizes both (endemic) nature values as well as income for the locals and watershed benefits?

€50.000 is needed in 2012 to start a foundation, to design, set up and operate this platform and to pay to make all useful scientific data accessible.

Task force 5
To shape to conditions (legal, political, financial) to take the concepts global.

The pilots and first projects can be easily financed by private donors. Once the word is out and the viability demonstrated, demand for the scheme and loans can be expected to grow rapidly an we will need an international framework for finance and governance community tree planting. There is a potential demand to plant billions of trees each year and the funds call for an international framework.

€ billions, mainly in the form of soft loans, are needed each year from 2015 to 2035.
Funds could come from the world bank an other int. development banks, but also from private donations, wealthy donors, existing NGOs, carbon credits, governments and international organizations; possibly a mix of all this.
Trees can be a valuable collateral when grown up. A tiny investment (of say €1.- incl overheads) might have grown into a timber value of say € 200 for a 20 year old teak tree. Income from fruits, nuts, rubber and other tree products can be substantial. With such potentially huge revenue streams in the longer term, the regulatory trust fund could turn into a revolving fund, which possibly might make a profit by 2035.

(Task force 6)
To plan for scaling up to establish enough trees etc. to absorb all excess CO2 produced by mankind and to stabilize the climate by 2050.

To my best estimate over a trillion trees have to be planted and to prevent forest and land degradation, to store enough carbon, a doubling of the actual tree cover, to reach this point. If following the most positive UN CO2 emission scenario, enough other conservation measures will be taken and will be effective.
200 million growers, each planting 6000 trees in 30 years, will reach the target.

(Task force 7)
Even more Utopian: to design and grow a sustainable society in which trees play a central role.

Envision a park-like semi-urban living environment, where trees will be the main producers of food, fuel, construction materials, medicines and more. Because wood (incl. bamboo) is such a versatile raw material, we might soon drive cars with bodies made of wood composites, ride bikes out of bamboo, generate electricity from tree branches and distill fuel out of trees. etc. etc.

To underpin some of the claims mentioned above and to explain which kind of solutions we are thinking of, hereby a short brief on global warming and the tree credits concept:

Global warming is caused for a large part by the CO2 released while burning fossil fuels; other gasses and sooth also play an important role; these pollutants should be filtered out at the source (and methane collected and used); CO2, although poisonous to humans is not a pollutant, but a part of the most basic global life cycle and nurtures plants.

Growing trees is the most cost effective way to sequester CO2 (Stern 2009). Trees produce wood, fruits, rubber, O2 and much more out of CO2.

Biomass and especially trees play a crucial role in the carbon cycles. CO2 concentrations might have increased with about 40%.  Almost 20% of the CO2 netto emission is from cutting down forests. Changes in the organic matter and roots in cultivated soils are important too. Also the oceans, which could made to bloom with organic matter be stored at the bottom, could play a crucial role.
Most increase in biomass will reduce CO2 levels and most plants can be used for food or bio-fuels, these are the short term carbon cycles.  Only trees and species like bamboo take CO2 out of the atmosphere for the long term. They produce wood, lignite or similar materials, strong and durable, suitable for furniture or wooden houses, which can last for centuries if treated well.

Doubling the global tree cover by 2050 (1012 trees?) might bring the now lob-sided carbon cycle in balance again by stabilizing or even reducing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere; that is, if other ongoing and planned actions: stopping deforestation, reducing air pollution and taking energy saving measures, will result in at least the topping of the growth in CO2 emissions (estimate free to Petrus Hoff 2009).

Like in Microfinance, women can be agents of climate change too.

Ban Ki Moon, UN chief  (December 2, 2009)

This quote together with the Stern’s one on top: that climate change and poverty should be tackled as one, illustrates the facts that not only the consequences of global warming are worst for the poor in developing countries, but also that the solution for these problems could be found here. This article is about how to unlock this potential.

Droughts and floods *worsened by a changing climate hurt the poor in developing countries first, especially the women and children. Often they are also the ones who start tree nurseries, plant/protect trees, use firewood saving stoves and could adopt carbon storing composting and improved agricultural methods.

Agroforestry and other improved agricultural methods which store carbon in the ground, provide food and fuel above ground could according to the FAO, solve a large part of the excess CO2 problem.
Intercropping with Leguminous (nitrogen fixing) trees has well done well in suitable areas more than doubling agricultural output in a Kenyan experiement (Faidherbia albida and maize intercropped , ICRAF).  Most promissing and cost-effective methods are new improved low-input direct-seeded and management methods for nitrogen-fixing contour-hedges, fire-belts, nurse-trees, weed suppression and soil improvement or upper storey trees (Torsten Mandal 2010).  Tree legumes like Calliandra calothyrsus can provide all-season protein rich feed reducing the number of green-house gas (methan) releasing animals needed for a given production and a moderate tannin content can help too.  Contour hedges with both low and big trees can add many benefits to adaptation to climate change.

The rural poor often live on fragile, marginal lands; and on these lands we would like to help them to grow trees and where we might be willing to pay for their upkeep. That way the one billion or so rural poor could have a real impact on the climate, while an additional source of income is opening up to them. They do not have to migrate to the cities and be able to continue their low impact lifestyles. Growing trees might secure a small but regular income, which might mean the difference between real poverty and a more dignified lifestyle with the children going to school.

The system we worked out, we called it tree credits (tree-credits.org) and it has the following objectives:

• Reduce Poverty
• Reduce Climate change
• Improve Biodiversity
• Maximum of Transparency of the system
• Minimize Carbon footprint of implementation and monitoring

Hereby in short, some highlights of the tree credits concept:

• TREE CREDITS is a method how poor villagers could get rewarded for growing trees or for taking other CO2 reducing measures at home.
• It all starts with the community getting active and getting organized.
• Extension officers could help the community in drafting a village forestry plan.
• Payments should be channeled through existing and trusted community based groups like micro finance saving and loan group, women and farmers groups.
• Pay only if appropriate, in case of poverty and if there is no conflict with voluntary campaigns.
• The best guarantee for fair play is the social control and peer pressure of local saving and tree groups. The whole group is responsible for each other.
• As an incentive, low or no-interest loans, like one dollar a tree, could be given, if there is a need; a loan related to the number of suitable trees planted, given when the trees or nurseries are well established.
• For direct seeded closely spaced hedges and contour hedges, often needed for soil and water conservation, the amount will be lower.
• For maintenance of the trees 10 cent each month could be paid per tree, long term, as long they grow well, a kind of paid ecosystem service e.g. carbon credits. A tree-insurance against natural disasters should be included.
• Such small but regular amounts could be enough to lift, even the least bankable incl. women, children, tribals and refugees, out of poverty.
• This investment might result in a share in valuable timber sales in the future for the financers of the scheme.
• Each tree included in the scheme should be labeled and linked to on individual responsible for the tree. And so, empower the individual.
• To exclude big landowners and forestry companies, we propose a maximum of 500 trees per member each year.
• To further biodiversity we oppose to subsidies monoculture plantations. However a plantation with 50% single species trees might play a large role in making the forest profitable.
• Existing trees and vegetation should be respected; we mainly target degraded lands.
• Agroforestry and other combinations of activities like fruit forest, park-like housing estates and eco-tourism is highly encouraged.
• Trees don’t move and are easily labeled, geo-tacked and counted. Diameter size class near the ground can serve as a rapid, simple, rough indicator of total tree biomass for a given species and system.
• The media, especially radio and mobile phones, government institutions, agroforestry and other specialists and NGOs all have a role to play in the spread of knowledge and solutions; and also in reducing the costs of implementation and tree growing, in improving food security and the survival rates of trees at difficult infertile sites. Digital images and innovative IT solutions should play an important role.
• District and national level NGOs could coordinate the finances and all could play a role in monitoring the scheme. Or new systems based on mobile IT and digital images could be introduced.
• The village savings and tree committee is responsible for the administration, for payments, for labeling and checking of the trees and for settling disputes.
• All levels involved should be able to turn a profit. All overheads should be linked directly to the number (and size?) of surviving trees, to further increase transparency.
• Ultimately, monitoring could be done by satellites and statistics.

The tree credit scheme is now being tested on a small scale in Sri Lanka.
This december, together with OARM and local villagers, we are going to plant 10.000 trees, a mix of endemic rain forest trees and income generating trees like rubber, kingcoconut, jackfruit, mango, teak and mahogany. The aim is to recreate biodivers rain forest, which is at the same time income generating for the villagers.  This is on degraded land owned by the forest department, adjoining the Singaraja Rainforest world heritage site.

Micro finance (MFIs) with its expertise in rural banking and worldwide penetration is one logical partner to implement and monitor the system. They have shown that there is an alternative for the usual top down approaches, at least for poverty alleviation; a more profit oriented method, which might work for climate change as well.

A two centigrade warmer earth looks sure now and a 4C global warming by 2060 likely, with disastrous effects for many people. Besides the also highly necessary stop of deforestation and introduction of green technologies, massive (re-)forestation and other forms of tree establishment looks like the effective way to have a real impact on the climate. Coupling it to poverty alleviation might give the scheme acceptance and wide support. Decentralized introduction is good for biodiversity.

by Ferdinand Swart, EcoDesignCenter, Dehiwale, Sri Lanka
www.tree-credits.org

Lord Nicholas Stern: “The two defining challenges of our century are climate change and poverty. And if we fail on one, we will fail on the other”. 2009

Ban Ki Moon, UN chief: “Like in Microfinance, women can be agents of climate change too.”
December 2, 2009,

“When we plant trees, we plant the seeds of peace and seeds of hope.” Prof. Wangari Maathai, founder of the Green Belt Movement, Nobel peace price winner

The tree credits concept was developed in 2009  with the aim to tackle poverty and global warming in one go, and also to develop systems which minimize wastage and unnecessary travel. Based on an environmental outlook, it aims to restore habitats and biodiversity as well.

On mitigating climate change, the report says:
• woodland creation has the potential to provide highly cost-effective and achievable abatement of greenhouse gas emissions compared with potential options in other sectors;
• carbon storage in UK forests has been declining as a result of new-planting rates falling and younger forests, which sequester more carbon than older forests, maturing. Stepping up the new woodland planting rate would help to reverse this decline;
• creating new forests would help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in other ways, for example, by reducing the use of nitrogen fertilisers, which require a high fossil fuel input in their manufacture, and by reducing the emissions of the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide from the land;
• if the market for wood construction products continues to grow at its current rate over the next 10 years, there is the potential to store an estimated additional 10 million tonnes (Mt) of carbon (equivalent to 36.7 Mt CO2) in new and refurbished homes by 2019; and
• within the next five years, sustainably produced woodfuel has the potential to save the equivalent of approximately seven million tonnes of CO2 emissions per year by replacing fossil fuels. The report says the use of biomass for heating provides one of the most cost-effective and environmentally acceptable ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
On ensuring that forests are adapted to and can withstand the effects of climate change, the report says that forest planners will need to reconsider the current preference for using native tree species and local provenances under all circumstances. The panel said that if greenhouse gas emissions do not decline, foresters will need to consider introducing new species, including those from continental Europe, to ensure that forests are resilient to changes in the climate. It added that “further research is urgently needed to establish which species will be best suited to the changed environmental conditions”.
The report also states that trees, particularly in towns and cities, have an important role in helping society to adapt to climate change by providing shelter, cooling, shade and controlling rainwater runoff. It says tree and woodland planting should be targeted to places where people live, especially the most vulnerable people, and places where people gather, such as town and local centres which currently have low tree cover.
Further information on the Read report is available athttp://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-7y4gn9.
NOTES TO EDITOR:
1. Today’s event was held at the Zoological Society of London. Another meeting at the same venue tomorrow (26 November) will bring together forestry leaders from around the world to look at how more of the world’s forests could be restored. One billion hectares of lost or degraded forest is thought to be capable of restoration, with a potential impact on reducing carbon dioxide emissions equal to that of halting deforestation.
2. The UK has about three million hectares of forest and woodland, or 12 per cent of the land area. International comparisons include Europe (excluding Russia) 37 per cent; North and Central America 33 per cent; and Finland 74 per cent.
3. The UK has already achieved considerable success in restoring forest cover over the past century. A century ago the woodland cover was estimated to be little more than five per cent of the land area, compared with estimates for the maximum forest cover since the last Ice Age, which go as high as 80 per cent.
4. New woodland establishment in the UK has averaged about 9000 hectares a year over the past five years. The highest recorded annual new planting area in recent times was about 30,000 hectares in 1988. Similar levels were recorded in the mid-1970s.

The scheme is open to all, young and old, poor or rich, female or male, but
In practice first in those countries for which funding can be found and the government is willing to cooperate. In (oil) rich countries governments can pay themselves.
This scheme is designed to go worldwide
poor countries first and foremost
sparsely populated regions will profit most, also in the richer countries where also there might be lack of opportunities for the rural youth.
started in SL
Afghanistan first target, most needed,
All people
Children, schools
Women, do most of the agriculture and tree planting
family, school class, hospital, church, mosque or company.
No identity card needed, registration fingerprint + unique code, on paper and on-line
Refugees

4) How to get to our target of 10 billions of trees planted by 2020?
One Euro per tree is attractive if you earn one Dollar a day
In general we will rely on market forces to plant this huge number: not only planting and tending for trees should be financially attractive, also starting tree clubs at local, regional and national levels should be rewarded. Payments will be related to the number of trees planted or to special campaign in irrigation and tree protection and for initiating other energy (saving) schemes.
But all starts with national campaigns preferable by radio and tv and demonstration projects, handing over starting kits with seeds and information (club rules, how to organize forestry) and word of mouth are other essential ways of disseminating the scheme.

The numbers might not be so huge after all, only…………how to get so much money? Now we com to the heart of the matter: tree planting is the most sustainable and long term method to stem the current unprecedented quick growth and to store CO2 in wood. Besides treeplanting by communities will be cheaper than commercial forestry (the pay per tree must be always well below the commercial rates) because own tree nurseries, own compost and own labour.
So we have have an ultra cheap way to filter the air and cool the earth, at the same time, with the same money we invest in the rural poor directly in a way who might prove to be highly cost effective and corruption proof an on top of that you invest in a valuable timber crop, THE super material, carbon-wise.
These amounts needed could be found in many a budget, not least in that of most of us, the consultants! But hopefully a lot of military, food aid, refugee aid, disaster aid, structural aid can be saved and clean up tax on airpolution (other than CO2), fossil fuels, deforestation, red meat, financial exuberance and what not. The challenge is to the money shifted from one place to another, call it the carbon revolution

So it is not meant for big forestry companies, big land owners, (for them there will be other schemes like REDD) who organize the planting from top down. In that case lots of money is needed for surveys, overheads and later for maintenance, leaving the villagers as poor and sometimes driven of their land. So to discourage big business high jacking the scheme the number of trees should be limited to 600-1000 trees per individual or per (family)unit

5) How to monitor the amount of trees planted and growing?
Monitoring(= tree count) is threefold: by sattelite, by regional tree clubs, and by peer pressure
Tree planting is relatively easy to monitor, since trees are fixed in place and can also be counted by satellite (at least forest cover and the health of the trees can be inspected, but even individual trees can often be spotted from the sky). Only growth of trees is calculated. To prevent fraud we have to learn from the micro credit schemes, which use groups and peer pressure to make individuals comply with repayment schemes. Tree Clubs have to be formed in the villages, if possible as branches of already existing societies. These in turn will be monitored by regional NGOs, GOs or other, existing or newly formed, with a good reputation and these again by a national agency an so on up to an international audit (by the carbon authorities?). In case of serious fraud at any level the clubs (or even countries) have to be suspended. Some steps could be skipped with our modern IT and money transfer that come with it and indiviuals might sponsor a number of trees plotted on a google tree map on line.

6) How to operate a community tree club and get to our target of 10 billions of trees planted?
Tree clubs are a kind of small banks, paying out credits an giving small loans and at a national level they should be registered as such; the organisation, social control and conflict resolution should be simular as micro finance schemes. If possible, tree clubs should be linked to micro finance schemes, especially in the initial stages. Treeclubs should be small: locally max. 20 people min. 3 people optimum 4-12, so that everybody knows everybody an since payments might stop altogether there is strong incentive not to cheat.
Microfinance units can be member owned, called credit unions or are owned by NGOs, often international. They work well in sub urban with a lot of enterprenural talent, but less in sparcely populated areas.
Tree credits could make microfinance viable an even profitable especially in rural areas.

7) Is it difficult or expensive to grow trees?
In principle we rely on the local knowledge of the rural folk, they have to decide where, when and how to plant the tree species most suited to the local environment. If village tree nurseries use locally collected seeds (job for forest people?) and the trees are planted with locally produced fertilizer by one themselves, trees can we very cheap indeed, and within reach of everybody also the poorest women and even children. Tree planting and wooded areas can turned into an educating experience.
Except orchards, we do not promote single species plantations, better plant like in a park with many different species and sizes of trees, more healthy an more trees pr acre can flourish that way.
In semi-arid areas watering young saplings is needed, while protection against goats an other animals is foremost. The first 10 years the sapling is still venerable, that is why the tree grower is paid during 10 years for caring for the trees. In very infertile areas, manure and water alone might not be enough to grow healthy trees, an intermediate crop might be needed and if local knowledge has been lost, outsiders might have to step in. The local efforts will be supported from all levels with input of knowledge, research and seeds; again regional tree clubs play a large role to collect and disseminate tree growing related news. In very infertile areas, manure and water alone might not be enough to grow healthy trees, an intermediate crop might be needed and if local knowledge has been lost, outsiders might have to step in.

Thanks, your mail is most welcome, it is the right time to start a pilot project in Afghanistan. Here in Sri lanka we are doing tree planting projct with young poeple of the YZA, but further we are still in a pioneering stage.

Already my mind is working overtime to work out a viable plans for implementation, monitoring and financing, much more about that later. First please go through my draft for the tree credits plan below; sorry it is not ready yet, I stuggle to finish it, in fact I am not a writer to do it……..

I hope to stay close to the original plan: this is not a work for cash scheme: the people own the trees they have planted and get paid for the number of trees they have growing (I propose $2 per tree planted an $1per tree per year for 10 years), they have to form groups to be able to apply (your schools and hospitals are very good to start with) for tree credits and the scheme should not be presented as aid (no, we ask their help, as a part of a global effort to fight global warming) and be open to all.

This tree clubs are also a kind of (profit making) micro-banks with a bank account and a member administration; is BRAC or others active with micro-finance in the area? We should link up.

Please consider the implications of we join forces. I am also busy as a designer and factory owner, but I will make time to lobby and to formulate a viable plan, what might be able to spread by it self and is very low on waste and corruption.

Tree Club / Trees for Afghanistan
Pay the poor to plant their own trees

For a substance that is the basic building block of life as we know it — without it, our planet might be little more than a dull rock — carbon has gotten a bad rap lately. Bryan Walsh
Carbon, bound to two atoms of oxygen, it creates carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas that has kept our planet warm for billions of years — and is now, thanks to human activity, making us too warm.

Rural poverty is not only one of the biggest intractable problems , it is often encompagned by other kind of poverty: lack of education, lack of human rights, lack of equality and lack of political freedom.

It are the women who often take the brunt of the effect of the changing climate and lack of water and trees.
Subsistant farmers often do already not grow enough to feed their own families and no cash can be generated for schooling or farm implements. For the youth there are few income sources, so they often move away.

10 to 100 $ depending on the amount of trees planted and growing will be enough to send the kids to school and invest some small business, an if paid out regularly it will give hope and security. In countries in conflict old customs and ancient property rights are often not respected (except if war is the custom!).

Tree credits explained in 10 questions

Why combine tree planting with fighting poverty?

1) Why combine tree planting with poverty alleviation?

The tree credit scheme should get lots (target is 10Bn) of trees and forests growing, who will absorb lots* of CO2 as well as get a lot of cash (up to $100Bn in 10 years) to poor villagers, in a way that is easily verifiable and low on waste and corruption and many other social benefits might be expected, if implemented in the right way:

Trees produce O2, wood, shade, fruits or nuts, fodder and some provide rubber, cork, nitrogen and many more useful products and it provides a habitat for many species of animals and plants.
Wood is a valuable building material and has many other uses and could generate valuable employment in the carpentry field.
Trees, orchards and sustainable managed forests give food, shelter and livelihood to the people around.
Also trees and forest have a positive effect on water tables and the micro-climate, possibly on the general climate as well.
Tree planting and forestry will create employment: keeping tree nurseries, planting trees, watering and irrigating the young trees, fencing and guarding the trees, making compost. trees bring future wealth to the village.

2) What is different, what is new?

For now, claiming carbon credits on village level is way too complicated therefore we propose a worldwide fund to pay for community based CO2 capturing (trees planting and saving) and energy saving measures (efficient cooking stoves, solar energy instead of kerosene lamps). If the implementation and monitoring will be organised like micro-credit unions, the poor could be reached with a minimum of waste and corruption, replacing the existing hand out with participating in the worldwide fight against climate change.

Many trees are planted or saved by farmers and volunteers, with no compensation given for the global benefits trees bring. So it is fair to pay up, but also paying for tree planting is an effective way to support the rural poor in a way which makes them proud and with little risk of corruption. Financial incentives will also be the method to get billions of trees planted all over the globe. The scheme will open up a new, simple venue for the rural poor to generate an income and to give them security for the future.
Enough capital inflow will revitalize the villages and empower farming families. See the recent Namibia experience with basic loan for the poor.

3) Who can participate and make a living out of tree planting; in practice in those countries for which funding can be found and the government is willing to cooperate. In (oil) rich countries governments can pay themselves.
This schem is designed to go worldwide
poor countries first and foremost
sparecely populated regions will profit most, also in the richer countries where also thre might be lack of oppertunities for the rural youth.
started in SL
Afghanistan first target, most needed,
All people
Children, schools
Women
No identity card needed
Refugees

4) Why limit the number of trees planted per family or other unit?
Besides subsidising forestry at village level to fight CO2, this scheme is meant to bring a steady income to the poor. So it is not meant for big forestry companies, who might be cheaper (not sure!), but if they organize the planting from top down lots of money is needed for surveys, overheads and later for maintenance, leaving the villagers as poor and sometimes driven of their land. So to discourage big companies (for them there should be another scheme) and big landowners, the number of trees should be limited to 600-1000 trees per year and the potential annual income to about $2000, – per family, school, hospital, church, mosque or company.

5) How to monitor the amount of trees planted and growing?
Tree planting is relatively easy to monitor, since trees are fixed in place and can also be counted by satellite (at least forest cover and the health of the trees can be inspected, but even individual trees can often be spotted from the sky). Only growth of trees is calculate, so To prevent fraud we have to learn from the micro credit schemes, which use groups and peer pressure to make individuals comply with repayment schemes. So Tree Clubs have to be formed in the villages, if possible as branches of already existing societies. These in turn will be monitored by local NGOs with a good reputation and so on up to an international audit. In case of serious fraud at any level the clubs (or even countries) have to be suspended.

6) How to organize village tree clubs and get to our target of 10 billions of trees planted?
Tree clubs are simular to banks, and at a national level they should be registered as such; the organisation, social control and conflict resolution should be simular as micro finance schemes. If possible tree clubs should be linked to micro finance schemes.
In general we will rely on market forces to plant the huge numbers: not only planting and tending for trees should be financially attractive, also starting tree clubs at local, regional and national levels should be rewarded. Payments will be related to the number of trees planted or to special campaign in irrigation and tree protection and for initiating other energy (saving) schemes.
But all starts with national campaigns preferable by radio and tv and demonstration projects, handing over starting kits with seeds and information (club rules, how to organize forestry) and word of mouth are other essential ways of disseminating the scheme.

7) Is it difficult or expensive to grow trees?
In principle we rely on the local knowledge of the rural folk, they have to decide where, when and how to plant the tree species most suited to the local environment. If village tree nurseries use locally collected seeds (job for forest people?) and the trees are planted with locally produced fertilizer by one themselves, trees can we very cheap ineed, and within reach of everybody also the poorest women and even children. Tree planting and wooded areas can turned into an educating experience.
Except orchards, we do not promote single species plantations, better plant like in a park with many different species and sizes of trees, more healthy an more trees pr acre can florish that way.
In semi-arid areas watering young saplings is needed, while protection against goats an other animals is foremost. The first 10 years the sapling is still venerable, that is why the tree grower is paid during 10 years for caring for the trees. In very unfertile areas, menure and water alone might not be enough to grow healthy trees, an intermediate crop might be needed and if local knowledge has been lost, outsiders might have to step in. The local efforts will be supported from all levels with input of knowledge, research and seeds; again regional tree clubs play a large role to collect and disseminate tree growing related news. In very unfertile areas, menure and water alone might not be enough to grow healthy trees, an intermediate crop might be needed and if local knowledge has been lost, outsiders might have to step in.
Who owns the trees planted with tree credits?
For forestry you need land, even if you plant trees along roads and canals ther will be an owner, although in those cases it will often belong to the communety or the government.
If the trees are planted on own land the ownership is clear, the grower owns the tree and all it products. If the trees are planted on others private land or on communal or state land the grower should make an arrangement with the landowner, for instance use of the land against a part of the potential timber value. The tree club will conduct collective negotiations if needed, also on regional level and in case of government land on a national level. But the tree club has also a claim; by accepting payments the grower promises to replant any dead tree an pay part of any timber proceeds to the club to plant more trees.

9) Who will pay for the scheme?
The billions needed to finance this scheme over 20 years ($10+ each tree) should come from various sources:
- carbon credits (Kyoto protocol or proposed Copenhagen protocol)
- government funds to help poorer nations to combat global warming,
- from rural development budgets
- corporate sponsoring and merchandising
- donations generated by campaigns, carbon compensation
All money and reservations could go into one big fund, the Tree Credit Authorities, possible a UN body. Payments will made directly into the bank accounts of the tree growers itself or at least the local tree club account. That is why the tree club are preferred to be linked to credit unions. If there are really no rural banks, money have to be hand delivered in cash or kind. Payments can be made yearly or monthly.

10) Will it work and will it happen?
I am not a prophet… the scheme looks good, just what is needed right now and it looks feasible, in the mould of the latest development models (like micro credits and other profit driven scheme) and the money needed stays within the targets for Copenhagen. I am just starting with its promotion but with the Internet this tree credit concept could spread quickly and might be supported by many helpful individuals or organisations quickly and it is likely to reach the press and the politicians, if we target them. But I foresee some powerful opposition because a lot of money have to be shifted away from consultants, fieldworkers, government departments, multinationals, meetings, conferences, travel and all other headings use to cover up waste and corruption; all these people and lobbyist will not give up without a long fight. They will demand more research and meetings and conferences and trials to prove scientifically that all is working well, till we are 10 years further and many more pockets are lined.
Only massive public support and mobilisation of the press might sway politics away from business as usual, from aid an charity an patronizing attitudes and invest directly in the rural poor.

Thanks, your mail is most welcome, it is the right time to start a pilot project in Afghanistan. Here in Sri lanka we are doing tree planting projct with young poeple of the YZA, but further we are still in a pioneering stage.

Already my mind is working overtime to work out a viable plans for implementation, monitoring and financing, much more about that later. First please go through my draft for the tree credits plan below; sorry it is not ready yet, I stuggle to finish it, in fact I not a writer to do it……..

I hope to stay close to the original plan: this is not a work for cash scheme: the people own the trees they have planted and get paid for the number of trees they have growing (I propose $2 per tree planted an $1per tree per year for 10 years), they have to form groups to be able to apply (your schools and hospitals are very good to start with) for tree credits and the scheme should not be presented as aid (no, we ask their help, as a part of a global effort to fight global warming) and be open to all.

This tree clubs are also a kind of (profit making) micro-banks with a bank account and a member administration; is BRAC or others active with micro-finance in the area? We should link up.

Please consider the implications of we join forces. I am also busy as a designer and factory owner, but I will make time to lobby and to formulate a viable plan, what might be able to spread by it self and is very low on waste and corruption.

Tree Club / Trees for Afghanistan
Pay the poor to plant their own trees

For a substance that is the basic building block of life as we know it — without it, our planet might be little more than a dull rock — carbon has gotten a bad rap lately. Bryan Walsh
Carbon, bound to two atoms of oxygen, it creates carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas that has kept our planet warm for billions of years — and is now, thanks to human activity, making us too warm.

Rural poverty is not only one of the biggest intractable problems , it is often encompagned by other kind of poverty: lack of education, lack of human rights, lack of equality and lack of political freedom.

It are the women who often take the brunt of the effect of the changing climate and lack of water and trees.
Subsistant farmers often do already not grow enough to feed their own families and no cash can be generated for schooling or farm implements. For the youth there are few income sources, so they often move away.

10 to 100 $ depending on the amount of trees planted and growing will be enough to send the kids to school and invest some small business, an if paid out regularly it will give hope and security. In countries in conflict old customs and ancient property rights are often not respected (except if war is the custom!).

Tree credits explained in 10 questions

Why combine tree planting with fighting poverty?

1) Why combine tree planting with poverty alleviation?

The tree credit scheme should get lots (target is 10Bn) of trees and forests growing, who will absorb lots* of CO2 as well as get a lot of cash (up to $100Bn in 10 years) to poor villagers, in a way that is easily verifiable and low on waste and corruption and many other social benefits might be expected, if implemented in the right way:

Trees produce O2, wood, shade, fruits or nuts, fodder and some provide rubber, cork, nitrogen and many more useful products and it provides a habitat for many species of animals and plants.
Wood is a valuable building material and has many other uses and could generate valuable employment in the carpentry field.
Trees, orchards and sustainable managed forests give food, shelter and livelihood to the people around.
Also trees and forest have a positive effect on water tables and the micro-climate, possibly on the general climate as well.
Tree planting and forestry will create employment: keeping tree nurseries, planting trees, watering and irrigating the young trees, fencing and guarding the trees, making compost. trees bring future wealth to the village.

2) What is different, what is new?

For now, claiming carbon credits on village level is way too complicated therefore we propose a worldwide fund to pay for community based CO2 capturing (trees planting and saving) and energy saving measures (efficient cooking stoves, solar energy instead of kerosene lamps). If the implementation and monitoring will be organised like micro-credit unions, the poor could be reached with a minimum of waste and corruption, replacing the existing hand out with participating in the worldwide fight against climate change.

Many trees are planted or saved by farmers and volunteers, with no compensation given for the global benefits trees bring. So it is fair to pay up, but also paying for tree planting is an effective way to support the rural poor in a way which makes them proud and with little risk of corruption. Financial incentives will also be the method to get billions of trees planted all over the globe. The scheme will open up a new, simple venue for the rural poor to generate an income and to give them security for the future.
Enough capital inflow will revitalize the villages and empower farming families. See the recent Namibia experience with basic loan for the poor.

3) Who can participate and make a living out of tree planting; in practice in those countries for which funding can be found and the government is willing to cooperate. In (oil) rich countries governments can pay themselves.
This schem is designed to go worldwide
poor countries first and foremost
sparecely populated regions will profit most, also in the richer countries where also thre might be lack of oppertunities for the rural youth.
started in SL
Afghanistan first target, most needed,
All people
Children, schools
Women
No identity card needed
Refugees

4) Why limit the number of trees planted per family or other unit?
Besides subsidising forestry at village level to fight CO2, this scheme is meant to bring a steady income to the poor. So it is not meant for big forestry companies, who might be cheaper (not sure!), but if they organize the planting from top down lots of money is needed for surveys, overheads and later for maintenance, leaving the villagers as poor and sometimes driven of their land. So to discourage big companies (for them there should be another scheme) and big landowners, the number of trees should be limited to 600-1000 trees per year and the potential annual income to about $2000, – per family, school, hospital, church, mosque or company.

5) How to monitor the amount of trees planted and growing?
Tree planting is relatively easy to monitor, since trees are fixed in place and can also be counted by satellite (at least forest cover and the health of the trees can be inspected, but even individual trees can often be spotted from the sky). Only growth of trees is calculate, so To prevent fraud we have to learn from the micro credit schemes, which use groups and peer pressure to make individuals comply with repayment schemes. So Tree Clubs have to be formed in the villages, if possible as branches of already existing societies. These in turn will be monitored by local NGOs with a good reputation and so on up to an international audit. In case of serious fraud at any level the clubs (or even countries) have to be suspended.

6) How to organize village tree clubs and get to our target of 10 billions of trees planted?
Tree clubs are simular to banks, and at a national level they should be registered as such; the organisation, social control and conflict resolution should be simular as micro finance schemes. If possible tree clubs should be linked to micro finance schemes.
In general we will rely on market forces to plant the huge numbers: not only planting and tending for trees should be financially attractive, also starting tree clubs at local, regional and national levels should be rewarded. Payments will be related to the number of trees planted or to special campaign in irrigation and tree protection and for initiating other energy (saving) schemes.
But all starts with national campaigns preferable by radio and tv and demonstration projects, handing over starting kits with seeds and information (club rules, how to organize forestry) and word of mouth are other essential ways of disseminating the scheme.

7) Is it difficult or expensive to grow trees?
In principle we rely on the local knowledge of the rural folk, they have to decide where, when and how to plant the tree species most suited to the local environment. If village tree nurseries use locally collected seeds (job for forest people?) and the trees are planted with locally produced fertilizer by one themselves, trees can we very cheap ineed, and within reach of everybody also the poorest women and even children.
In semi-arid areas watering young saplings is needed, while protection against goats an other animals is foremost. The first 10 years the sapling is still venerable, that is why the tree grower is paid during 10 years for caring for the trees.
The local efforts will be supported from all levels with input of knowledge, research and seeds; again regional tree clubs play a large role to collect and disseminate tree growing related news.
Use local seeds! Cheap and reliable.
Who owns the trees planted with tree credits?
For forestry you need land, even if you plant trees along roads and canals ther will be an owner, although in those cases it will often belong to the communety or the government.
If the trees are planted on own land the ownership is clear, the grower owns the tree and all it products. If the trees are planted on others private land or on communal or state land the grower should make an arrangement with the landowner, for instance use of the land against a part of the potential timber value. The tree club will conduct collective negotiations if needed, also on regional level and in case of government land on a national level. But the tree club has also a claim; by accepting payments the grower promises to replant any dead tree an pay part of any timber proceeds to the club to plant more trees.

9) Who will pay for the scheme?
The billions needed to finance this scheme over 20 years ($10+ each tree) should come from various sources:
- carbon credits (Kyoto protocol or proposed Copenhagen protocol)
- government funds to help poorer nations to combat global warming,
- from rural development budgets
- corporate sponsoring and merchandising
- donations generated by campaigns, carbon compensation
All money and reservations could go into one big fund, the Tree Credit Authorities, possible a UN body. Payments will made directly into the bank accounts of the tree growers itself or at least the local tree club account. That is why the tree club are preferred to be linked to credit unions. If there are really no rural banks, money have to be hand delivered in cash or kind. Payments can be made yearly or monthly.

10) Will it work and will it happen?
I am not a prophet… the scheme looks good, just what is needed right now and it looks feasible, in the mould of the latest development models (like micro credits and other profit driven scheme) and the money needed stays within the targets for Copenhagen. I am just starting with its promotion but with the Internet this tree credit concept could spread quickly and might be supported by many helpful individuals or organisations quickly and it is likely to reach the press and the politicians, if we target them. But I foresee some powerful opposition because a lot of money have to be shifted away from consultants, fieldworkers, government departments, multinationals, meetings, conferences, travel and all other headings use to cover up waste and corruption; all these people and lobbyist will not give up without a long fight. They will demand more research and meetings and conferences and trials to prove scientifically that all is working well, till we are 10 years further and many more pockets are lined.
Only massive public support and mobilisation of the press might sway politics away from business as usual, from aid an charity an patronizing attitudes and invest directly in the rural poor.

In addition, we can reduce and offset up to 20% of our emmissions by conserving and restoring the world’s forests. Forests not only store twice as much carbon as there is in the atmosphere, but constantly reabsorb it through photosynthesis. Nature’s carbon-storage technology is extraordinarily efficient and can mitigate climate change better over the next 50 years than, say, the enlightened efforts of the energy or transportation sectors.

http://www.ericbettelheim.com/

Forests not only store twice as much carbon as there is in the atmosphere,

That means that ith 50% more forest all CO2 will be absorbed???????? or that it is a big living thing, breezing in and out daily???