Burgess COMMENTARY
A comment on LinkedIn:
Peter Burgess
Peter Burgess
Founder/CEO at TrueValueMetrics
The paper by Conservation International is very interesting reading. I really don't find any surprises in the paper, rather it confirms my underlying concerns about the role of 'market' in enabling important changes in the behavior of global socio-economic actors.
Without getting into the detail, a market will only work where the metrics are relevant, and in the present time it is the money profit and money wealth metric that is dominant. The way we do accounting means that GDP growth makes money profit and money wealth go up, and almost everything that is good for people and planet go down. Accordingly a measure that is not money needs to exist. Then there can be a market based on this measure that will enable investment in everything that matters.
For this to happen, accountants must learn how to account not only for money profit, but the impact on people and planet arising from the organization's economic activities. A prerequisite of accounting for these things is a system for quantifying value and impact in a systematic way. This is not impossible, though it is not easy.
I can go on ... but this is a start.
Peter Burgess TrueValueMetrics
Peter Burgess
|
Open PDF ... REDD-Market-SOS
Conservation International
OUR VISION
We imagine a healthy,
prosperous world in which
societies are forever
committed to caring for and
valuing nature, our global
biodiversity, for the long-term
benefit of people and all life on
Earth.
OUR MISSION
Building upon a strong
foundation of science,
partnership and field
demonstration, CI empowers
societies to responsibly and
sustainably care for nature,
our global biodiversity, for the
well-being of humanity.
conservation.org
2011 Crystal Drive
Suite 500
Arlington, VA 22202 USA
+1.703.341-2400
Contact:
Conservation International
Carbon Fund
+1703.341.2400
as@conservation.org
Warning Bells for the REDD+ Market
Posted on September 25, 2013 by Wil Burns
A new report by the NGO Conservation International assessing the state of REDD+ markets would be an excellent student reading. It provides a good overview of the exigencies driving REDD+, the promise and perils of voluntary markets for carbon credits, and the need for stronger price signals to ensure the viability of the mechanism for the longer term.
Among the conclusions of the report:
- Annual investments of $15-45 biIlion are required in order to halve levels of deforestation by 2020, which would ensure a meaningful role for forests in climate policymaking;
- Early action on REDD+, largely supported by international donors and NGOs, has enhanced management of 14 million ha of forests. Beyond reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 5MtCO2e, these projects have delivered social and environmental benefits, including ecosystem and species protection and providing livelihood opportunities for many communities;
- Serious storm clouds are on the horizon for REDD+, with potentially issued credits from REDD projects reaching 10-20 MtCO2e by 2020, while demand in voluntary markets may be less than 6.8 MtCO2e. As a consequence, prices may plummet to unsustainable levels or prevent projects from getting off the ground;
- Institutional efforts to date to increase demand have proven inadequate. For example, the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility isn’t likely to begin purchasing credits until 2015, and only one Verified Carbon Standard REDD project falls under the rubric of potential FCPF investments; very little of the financial resources of the World Bank’s FCPF Carbon Fund and Forest Investment Program have been disbursed to date;
- The collapse of REDD+ projects could result in serious immediate pressure on 14 million ha of forests and threaten a knowledge and experience base that would be difficult to re-establish. It would also undermine political support for such projects;
- Among the potential ways to bolster the prospects for the REDD+ system are Advanced Market commitments; expansion of risk insurance instruments; dedicated funding windows by pertinent institutions, including FCPF, UNREDD and the Forest Investment Program under the Strategic Climate Fund, and movement away from viewing REDD+ projects as “offsetting” to “paying for impact,” including contributions to delivering sustainable development outcomes. This could attract funds from major private sector groups, e.g. the Consumer Goods Forum.
Among the discussion questions that this article could generate are the following:
- Would resolution of the outstanding questions associated with REDD under the UNFCCC/Kyoto Protocol enhance the viability of the mechanism over the next decade?;
- How do we weigh the opportunity costs associated with funding REDD projects v. other potential programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?;
- How does one value the alleged ancillary benefits of REDD projects, e.g. species protection or contribution to sustainable livelihoods?
|