www.tree-credits.org

Scientists call for more tree planting

srifer@gmail.com — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 05:56:31 +0000

If an extra four per cent of the United Kingdom’s land were planted with new woodland over the next 40 years, it could be locking up ten per cent of the nation’s predicted greenhouse gas emissions by the 2050s.
That’s the view of an expert, independent panel of scientists who today published the first national assessment of the potential of the UK’s forests to mitigate climate change, and of requirements to ensure they can successfully adapt to our new conditions.
The panel, chaired by Professor Sir David Read, recently Vice-President of the Royal Society and currently Emeritus Professor of Plant Sciences at the University of Sheffield, was tasked by the Forestry Commission to make the assessment – believed to be the first national study of its type in the world.
Speaking at an event in London today to publish the report, Professor Read said:
“All our research points to the fact that forestry can make a significant and cost-effective contribution to meeting the UK’s challenging emissions reduction targets.
“By increasing our tree cover we can lock up carbon directly. By using more wood for fuel and construction materials we can make savings by using less gas, oil and coal, and by substituting sustainably produced timber for less climate-friendly materials.
“While so many emissions reduction measures have negative connotations, tree planting can be a win, win, win solution: people love trees, we benefit from them in so many different ways, and now we know they could play a significant part in reducing the UK’s carbon dioxide emissions.”
The report suggests that appropriate planting of 23,000 hectares a year – equivalent to about 30,000 football pitches – over 40 years would involve changing the use of only four per cent of the UK’s land. This would mean increasing tree planting by 200 per cent on current levels. It would bring woodland cover in the UK from its current 12 per cent of the land area to 16 per cent, still well below the European average of 37 per cent.

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.

Reply

srifer@gmail.com — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 05:14:28 +0000

important issue: land ownership and yes poverty is the first, short term goal and since budgets are always tight, the number a trees per (family) unit should be limited. For big land owners and governments there should be another scheme (REDD+?). My idea is that the farmer/planter owns the tree, even on other’s land, but that eventually the timber proceeds will be shared with the landowner. Agreements on all levels (local, regional and in case of the government national) are needed. I read of a similar agreement in Thad.
See my tree-credit.org proposal.

latest draft

srifer@gmail.com — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:02:07 +0000

3) Who can participate and will be able to make a living out of tree planting?

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.

draft text with letter to ACT Afghanistan/Texas

srifer@gmail.com — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:57:10 +0000

Dear ACT,

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.

draft plan, looking for green writer!

srifer@gmail.com — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:46:50 +0000

Dear ACT,

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.

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

Tree credits explained in 10 questions

Why combine tree planting with fighting poverty?

1) Why combine tree planting with poverty alleviation?

2) What is different, what is new?

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.

Nature’s Remedy: Restoring the Forests can fight Global Warming—but only if left to Free Markets not Regulators,TIME magazine, December

srifer@gmail.com — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:01:28 +0000

I found this quote which surprised me positively:

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???

Answers to FAQ

srifer@gmail.com — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:34:54 +0000

The Tree Credits initiative is all about sharing. Today I want to share my insights by answering the 10 most frequently asked questions. Please visit our FAQ section. Should you have any remaining questions, or want to participate: please drop us a line!