Palm trees and bamboos not eligible for A/R CDM project activities (Newsletter #7)

In May 2008, the Board clarified whether the definition of forests within the context of the CDM would include palm trees and bamboos. It decided that the definition may treat palm trees and bamboos in the same way as trees, if DNAs would confirm that in their forest definition. It also decided that the definitions should be uploaded to the website[1]. However, the clarification did not turn out to be clear enough. As a result, the afforestation and reforestation working group recommended a new definition as a response to a clarification request[2] which will be discussed during this meeting.

CDM Watch urges that palm trees and bamboo no to be included in the CDM. This is extremely important as for example palm oil tree plantations result in a substantial decline in carbon stocks. In Indonesia alone, millions of hectares of peatlands have been drained for palm oil and pulp wood. The loss of these carbon rich soils causes ongoing emissions of up to 90 tons CO2 per ha/yr, / 200 mln mton CO2 per year. Ending these plantations and restoring the peatlands is very much needed. Plans to restore carbon-rich natural forest ecosystems would be hindered by including palm trees and bamboo as A/R CDM project activities[3].

Action to be taken by the Board: CDM Watch recommends the adoption recommended by the A/R working group stating that “Until a DNA provides clarification that the definition of forest as reported by them to the Board includes palm (trees) and/or bamboos it shall be deemed that the definition does not include palms (trees) and bamboos;

So far only the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana and India have uploaded their definition of forests to the website.  None of them explicitly states that neither palm trees nor bamboo shall be eligible for A/R CDM project activities. This means that until a DNA uploads a definition that specifically includes bamboos and palm trees, they are not eligible for A/R CDM project activities.


[1] http://cdm.unfccc.int/DNA/cdf/index.html

[2] http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/ARmethodologies/clarifications/85164

[3] Policy brief against CDM support for forest plantations, http://www.wetlands.org/WatchRead/tabid/56/mod/1570/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/2455/Default.aspx

Author

Related posts

EU’s 2040 credit line risks bankrupting the climate

The inclusion of flawed carbon credits in any compliance or voluntary market – particularly within the EU’s 2040 climate architecture – would pose a serious risk to environmental integrity. If the EU allows these credits to count towards its legally binding climate targets, it will effectively undermine real domestic mitigation by replacing it with credits that exist only on paper.

First wave of Article 6 carbon credits misfire spectacularly

A new Carbon Market Watch analysis, based on currently available project data, has uncovered that the first project transitioning from the CDM to the Article 6.4 market is poised to issue an astonishing 27.4 times more credits than it should as compared to the values from peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Join our mailing list

Stay in touch and receive our monthly newsletter, campaign updates, event invites and more.