In 2008 a record 4.9 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent
(CO2e) emission reductions were traded on global carbon markets.
Overall, carbon trading increased by 83 per cent in just one year. [1]
This trading, however, has not led to a reduction in emissions: since
the Kyoto Protocol came into force in 2005, global CO2 emissions have
continued to rise. [2]
The growing carbon markets have not even led to emission reductions in
the so-called Annex 1 countries, that is, the industrialised nations
that are committed to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions under the
Kyoto Protocol. Instead, the world is now on course for the worst
emissions scenario predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), or perhaps one that is even worse than that. [3]
Peter Atherton of Citigroup, which is strongly involved in carbon
trading, admitted in 2007 that, while the parties involved had found
the activity highly profitable, the world’s biggest carbon market had
failed in its basic objective: “The European Emissions Trading Scheme
has done nothing to curb emissions.” [4]

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is an arrangement under the Kyoto
Protocol that allows Annex 1 countries [5]
to invest in projects that reduce emissions in developing countries as
an alternative to more expensive reduction of emissions in their own
countries. The CDM plays a crucial role within the carbon markets
because CDM credits can be traded on other carbon markets, including
the European Emissions Trading Scheme, which accounts for two thirds of
all carbon trading. The only exception is CDM credits for
“afforestation and reforestation”, which cannot at present be traded
under the European scheme. The CDM has come under sustained criticism:
for funding projects that are not “additional” and would have gone
ahead anyway; for “being routinely abused by chemical, wind, gas and
hydro companies who are claiming emission-reduction credits for
projects that should not qualify”; [6] and for funding projects which
actually increase greenhouse gas emissions, such as hydro dams. [7]
Nonetheless, the great majority of proposals for a post-2012 climate
change agreement involve a major expansion of the CDM and a further
weakening of existing safeguards.

Before the Kyoto Protocol came into force, a decision was taken not
to include soil “carbon sinks” under the CDM, largely because of the
uncertainties involved in, for example, measuring carbon dioxide fluxes
and nitrous oxide emissions linked to no-till monoculture. Only around
6 per cent of CDM credits have gone to agriculture, with almost all of
the funded activities outside mainstream farming. Significant funding
has been channelled to biomass energy projects in the farming sector:
the big winners have been livestock manure management (including biogas
from swine manure), heat generation from palm-oil effluents and the use
of agricultural residues for biomass. In 2007, for example, 90 per cent
of all approved CDM projects in Malaysia benefited palm oil companies;
in Mexico half of all CDM projects are pig farms. This arrangement has
meant, however, that big agribusiness firms like Monsanto have so far
obtained very little funding through carbon markets and none through
the CDM, despite a long-standing lobbying campaign for no-till GM
monocultures to be classified as a way of sequestering carbon and
reducing emissions. At the moment, there is no CDM methodology for
calculating the possible reductions in greenhouse gases stemming from
no-till farming as such. So far, only one large carbon trading scheme,
the Chicago Climate Exchange, has included agriculture and specifically
no-till farming. In Saskatchewan, a pilot project was set up in 2005
which allowed trading in credits from no-till farming, but this was
later abandoned.

For similar reasons, CDM credits for soil carbon sequestration from cropland or forest management were ruled out in 2003. [8]
Only the Chicago Climate Exchange and a few carbon offsetting companies
and schemes, such as C-Lock Technology Canada, provide carbon credits
for soil carbon sequestration. Carbon Farmers of Australia have set up
the Australian Soil Carbon Grower Register and are lobbying for carbon
credits for soil, but as yet these are not being traded. Moreover, the
Australian government has reacted sceptically to calls by opposition
politicians to support carbon credits for biochar and other soil carbon
sequestration methods, saying that the technology is as yet unproven. [9]
Nor has the agrofuel industry profited from carbon trading as yet. So
far, no agrofuel CDM project, using biomass from crops and trees grown
for this purpose or from vegetable oil (other than waste vegetable oil)
has been approved. This could soon change, however: the Brazilian
company Plantar has just had a new methodology approved for using
charcoal made from eucalyptus plantations to produce pig iron. [10]
Local communities and human rights organisations have long opposed
Plantar’s plantations for the damage they have caused to people,
biodiversity and freshwater resources, but their concerns have been
ignored because of the allegedly more pressing need to combat global
warming. [11]

Much Bigger Role For Agriculture

In the negotiations under way for the 15th Conference of Parties to
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), to
be held in Copenhagen in December 2009, the idea that industrial
agriculture has an important role to play in both mitigation (that is,
measures to deal with the causes of climate change) and adaptation
(that is, measures to tackle its effects) is being strongly promoted. [12]
Leading bodies, including both the International Food Policy Research
Institute (IFPRI) and the United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organisation (FAO), believe that the exclusion of agriculture should be
lifted in the new Copenhagen treaty. Earlier this year FAO issued a
press release saying it “has urged policy makers to include agriculture
in negotiations for a new climate change treaty”. [13]
It observes that “soil carbon sequestration, through which nearly 90
per cent of agriculture’s climate change potential could be realised,
is outside the scope of the Clean Development Mechanism”, and claims
that, if this were changed, “millions of farmers around the globe could
also become agents of change helping to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.” [14]
Proposals for mitigation include the practice of no-till farming, a
move to a “bioeconomy” (where all types of fossil fuel use are
increasingly replaced with biomass, including second-generation
agrofuels, large-scale wood burning, bioplastics, and so on), [15]
and the further intensification of the livestock industry to reduce its
greenhouse gas emissions. Proposals for adaptation are largely focused
on the development and cultivation of a new generation of genetically
modified crops that are “climate ready”. At the same time, the United
Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), supported by a
number of African countries and Belize, is promoting biochar for carbon
sequestration and as a soil additive. [16]
Biochar, which is fine-grained charcoal applied to soils, is a
by-product of technology which processes biomass into bioenergy which
can be refined further into so-called second-generation agrofuels.
Making biochar eligible for funding under the CDM would thus be warmly
welcomed by the companies that have developed this technology.

As a result of this lobbying, it is now being proposed that:

– agriculture should be fully included in the negotiations for the new climate treaty;

– agriculture should be paid for its environmental services,
mainly through carbon markets and possibly through inclusion into
REDD-plus (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation-plus);

– special emphasis should be given to carbon sequestration in the soil, including CDM status for biochar.

FAO sees the inclusion of agriculture in the climate treaty as
hugely positive, freeing up resources for the “massive investments in
agriculture” needed “to change unsustainable production methods, to
train farmers in climate change mitigation practices and to improve
overall access to credit”. FAO goes on: “These investments will make
agriculture more resilient to climate change and at the same time will
improve agricultural productivity and sustainability, thus contributing
to better food security and poverty reduction.”

Carbon Market Bubble

The view espoused by FAO ignores a swathe of problems. To begin
with, the measuring and certification of the reduction in emissions
from agricultural practices and the regulation of such a market will be
a big challenge in itself. A large number of agricultural activities
could potentially benefit, and it is impossible to predict how much
money would be raised. More importantly, the very existence of such a
market will free the industrialised countries and their industries from
their obligation to reduce their own emissions. In other words, trading
schemes in agriculture will not address the fundamental problem of the
world continuing to promote a model of permanent economic growth on a
planet that has finite resources. Having just experienced the impact of
the sudden collapse of a subprime property market, we now run the risk
of building a carbon market bubble, the existence of which would have
the devastating impact of diverting resources away from the funding of
meaningful responses to the climate crisis. [17]

The most worrying impact of all of these proposals is that they will
further promote industrial farming. Very often companies argue that
they can isolate single elements of very specific traditional or
indigenous farming methods and then scale them up and integrate them
into industrial farming. Biochar is cited as an example. The companies
claim that, by doing this, they will increase yields and thus reduce
pressure on fragile ecosystems. But as the climate crisis gains
momentum and the world faces growing problems of drought, heat waves,
soil erosion and extreme weather, this assertion seems increasingly
far-fetched. It is much more likely that industrial farming will
continue along its present course, or perhaps move even faster,
destroying the very biodiversity and ecosystems that are crucial if we
are to have any hope of stabilising climate, producing enough food to
feed ourselves and leaving a habitable planet for future generations.
As is argued elsewhere in this Seedling (see “Earth matters”),
agriculture can certainly play a key role in combating climate change,
but it is biodiverse, agroecological, non-chemical farming that is
needed, a far cry from the kind of farming promoted by FAO.

In 2000 the US proposed that under the Kyoto Protocol an unlimited
percentage of the total emission reductions should be allowed to come
from tree plantations and agricultural practices, instead of reducing
emissions from other sources, such as industry and transport. This was
rejected by the EU and many other parties as undermining attempts to
address the causes of climate change. Now the US is once again arguing
that the CDM should be altered to cover new technologies, such as
carbon capture and nuclear power, and that the rules should be changed
to make it easier to gain funding for other allegedly
“environmentally-friendly” technologies. At present, a maximum of 1 per
cent of total credits can come from sequestration in forests (with the
term “forests” including tree and shrub plantations) and no CDM credits
for carbon sequestration in soils are permitted. Now UNCCD, in
particular, is calling for an increase in the 1 per cent limit and for
inclusion of carbon sequestration in soils, as well as for changes to
the rules by which carbon sequestration projects have to be shown to be
“additional” to what would have happened without CDM funding.

Unless the lobbyists can be stopped, the big winners will be
agribusiness, particularly US-based corporations. In the US, the
proposed climate change legislation includes provisions for agriculture
and forestry to provide carbon offsets, [18]
and these sectors are expected to provide the vast majority of domestic
offsets. Yet, taking carbon trading to a new level of absurdity, the
emissions created by the activities providing the carbon offsets will
not be capped. In other words, the US is close to introducing
legislation by which emissions from “capped sectors” (that is, sectors
where limits have been placed on emissions) will be offset by methods
not yet shown to be effective in uncapped sectors. These proposals, as
well as others which would further boost agrofuel production and
industrial wood bioenergy, have been drawn up largely through the
efforts of a lobby group called the 25x’25 Coalition. This is made up
of leading figures in the US soya and maize lobby together with
representatives of the forestry companies. In all, the 25x’25 Coalition
predicts that, as a result of climate change legislation, “the [US]
agriculture and forestry sector could realise over US$100 billion in
additional annual gross revenue” – 50 per cent of the total value of US
agriculture. [19]

Conclusion

Our analysis, outlined above, calls into question the effectiveness
of the proposed measures relating to agriculture. Agrofuels [20]
and other forms of bioenergy from monoculture, probably combined with
biochar, no-till GM plantations and industrial livestock, are likely to
attract a large part of future carbon credits for agriculture. This
means that most of the funding will go into further agricultural
intensification and more plantations, which are seen as effective means
of reducing greenhouse gases by, for example, the IPCC and by the
UNFCCC Secretariat. [21]
The idea is that pressure on ecosystems will be reduced by increasing
yields. But this is very unlikely to happen. Greater demand for
agrofuels and other types of bioenergy, as well as a new, fast-growing
market for biochar, if its proponents have their way, will create an
unlimited new market for agricultural and forest products. Even if
yields can be raised, which is by no means guaranteed, as droughts and
floods are becoming more common and soil and freshwater are becoming
depleted, demand for bioenergy will grow faster, which means that
higher yields will translate into greater production and higher
profits, thus creating even more incentives for companies to expand
their agricultural activities. This dashes any hope that higher yields
will result in less pressure on ecosystems.

Non-industrial, biodiverse farming by small-scale farmers is
unlikely to benefit from the proposed climate deal. As Larry Lohmann
from Corner House states: “The CDM’s market structure biases it against
small community-based projects, which tend not to be able to afford the
high transaction costs necessary for each scheme.” [22]
As a result, no effective response to climate change is likely: on the
one hand, the large-scale inclusion of agriculture and soil carbon
sequestration into carbon trading as offsets will further weaken any
incentives to reduce fossil fuel emissions, and, on the other hand, the
main beneficiaries of the proposals are likely to be industries, such
as South America’s soya industry (because of its use of no-till
farming) and companies that own tree plantations. These industries are
likely to continue large-scale deforestation and other ecosystem
destruction, thus accelerating climate change, causing greater
pollution of the air, soil and water, and further displacing indigenous
communities, small farmers and other communities.

There are alternative models for the future of agriculture, but they
are currently neglected in the UNFCCC process. They include biodiverse
ecological agriculture and agroforestry, which can increase food
production and reduce the climate footprint of agriculture, as well as
play a major role in ecosystem restoration and maintenance. Agriculture
should be recognised as a multifunctional activity: it not only
produces food, medicine, materials, fibres, and so on, and effectively
recycles waste into soil restoration, but also does a lot else. This
includes not only protecting biodiversity, soils and water sources but
also satisfying people’s cultural, landscape, and well-being needs,
over and above their requirement for food. Finally, it is a repository
for knowledge built up over generations that we lose at our peril. As
long as the UNFCCC relies on carbon trading from agriculture and other
sectors to resolve the climate crisis, it will not reduce emissions.

Messages like these come, for example, from farmers themselves, as
in La Via Campesina’s report on how small-scale sustainable farmers are
cooling down the earth [23] and in Practical Action’s paper on biodiverse agriculture for a changing climate. [24]
The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and
Technology for Development (IAASTD) report, written by 400 scientists
in a cooperative process between a wide range of UN institutions and
approved by 57 governments prior to publication, also notes: “A
powerful tool for meeting development and sustainability goals resides
in empowering farmers to innovatively manage soils, water, biological
resources, pests, disease vectors, genetic diversity, and conserve
natural resources in a culturally appropriate way.”25 Great caution is
needed about adopting new agriculture practices and techniques for
climate change mitigation. Policy makers should not assume that
solutions to climate change are essentially technical; the most
important are social and cultural. We urgently need to shift our focus
away from the promise of future technological fixes to the readily
available knowledge, experience and resourcefulness of local
communities.

References:

[1] “Carbon Market Up 83% In 2008, Value Hits $125
Billion”, Environmental Leader, 14 January 2009,
http://tinyurl.com/lodm9m

[2] According to the Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, global
CO2 emissions increased from 22.5bn tonnes in 1990 to 31.5bn tonnes in
2008. http://tinyurl.com/kmsh4r

[3] “Key Messages from the Congress”, International Scientific
Congress – Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions,
University of Copenhagen, 12 March 2009, http://tinyurl.com/acne8f

[4] Citigroup Global Markets (2007), quoted in L. Lohmann, “Governance as Corruption”, presentation, Athens, November 2008,
http://tinyurl.com/lvlzso

[5] Most Annex 1 countries (but not the USA) ratified the Protocol,
thus committing themselves to reducing their emissions of six GHGs by
at least 5% below 1990 levels over the period 2008–12.

[6] J. Vidal, “Billions wasted on UN climate programme”, Guardian, 26 May 2008.

[7] J. Langman, “Generating Conflict”, Newsweek International, 13 September 2008.

[8] See James Jacob, “The Kyoto Protocol and the Indian natural rubber sector”, paper available at
http://tinyurl.com/nxbqtm

[9] Bronwyn Herbert, “Opposition supports biochar research”, The 7.30
Report, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 26 January 2009, http://tinyurl.com/mu5yf6

[10] UNFCCC, “Use of charcoal from planted renewable biomass in the
iron ore reduction process through the establishment of a new iron ore
reduction system”, http://tinyurl.com/lpbmbl

[11] See “The Carbon Connection”, Carbon trade watch,
http://tinyurl.com/bzgyjn

[12] See IPCC (2001): Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. Annex II Glossary.
http://tinyurl.com/nl54rv

[13] “Climate change talks should include farmers”, FAO media centre press release, 2 April 2009,
http://tinyurl.com/kn29eb

[14] Ibid.

[15] Crop plants used as fuels are often described as “biofuels”. In
this article we use the term “agrofuel” to make it clear that we are
referring to agricultural crops grown as fuel and produced for the
market. For details on the relationship between agrofuels and climate
change, see also Chapter 1 of Agrofuels: towards a reality check in
nine key areas, a report published by Biofuelwatch and other
organistions in June 2007, http://tinyurl.com/mjkl5o

[16] Submission by the United Nations Convention to Combat
Desertification, 5th Session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term
Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA 5), Bonn, Germany, 29
March–8 April 2009, http://tinyurl.com/mlvvrb Submission of African
Governments (The Gambia, Ghana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Niger, Senegal,
Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe) to the 5th Session of
the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the
Convention (AWG-LCA 5), Bonn, Germany, 29 March -April 2009, http://tinyurl.com/ktu7px

[17] Friends of the Earth (2008), Subprime Carbon? Rethinking the world’s largest new derivatives market,
http://tinyurl.com/mhpt57

[18] A carbon offset is a financial instrument aimed at a reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions. Offsets are typically achieved through
financial support through the carbon-trading markets of projects that
are said to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases in the short or
long term.

[19] 25x’25, Agriculture and Forestry in a Reduced Carbon Economy: Solutions from the Land, A Discussion Guide, 1 April 2009,
http://tinyurl.com/n79mg2

[20] Many authors now believe that the production of agrofuels is
intensifiying the climate crisis. See, for example, J. Fargione et al.,
“Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt”, Science, Vol. 319, No.
5867: 1235–8; T. Searchinger et al., “Use of US Croplands for Biofuels
Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change”,
Science, Vol. 319, No. 5867: 1238–40.

[21] See UNFCCC, Workshop on opportunities and challenges for mitigation in the agricultural sector, 4 April 2009,
http://tinyurl.com/m3r2n2

[22] L. Lohmann (ed.), Carbon Trading: A critical conversation on
climate change, privatisation and power, Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation,
Durban Group for Climate Justice and The Corner House, 2006. http://tinyurl.com/2e7fgq also available as Development Dialogue, No. 48, Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation,
http://tinyurl.com/2g97dt

[23] Via Campesina, “Small scale sustainable farmers are cooling down
the earth”, background paper, 9 November 2007 (accessed 20 May 2009), http://tinyurl.com/ncp7a2

[24] Practical Action, Biodiverse agriculture for a changing climate, 2009,
http://tinyurl.com/lqg2yd

[25] IAASTD, Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report, Island Press,
Washington DC, 2009, http://tinyurl.com/nrv8ou See also Practical
Action, GM Freeze and Friends of the Earth, New Labour and the
International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and
Technology (IAASTD) – Meeting the Challenge, Special Briefing, 2009, http://tinyurl.com/n7zqcp

---

This article is an edited section of Agriculture and Climate Change: Real Problems, False Solutions – a preliminary report by the Grupo de Reflexión Rural,
Biofuelwatch, EcoNexus and Friends of the Earth Denmark.

Link to original source