The G8 summit earlier this year focused on Africa and climate change because the two issues are linked: Africa is particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change and therefore must be supported to adapt to it.
Adaptation to climate change is critical worldwide, but nowhere as much as in Africa, where exposure to natural disasters is higher than in most other regions. Aside from adaptation, Africa can also play a role in mitigating climate change through more sustainable forest and land management. Rural populations from Africa have the capacity to compete and export greenhouse-gas emission-reduction credits generated by forestry and agriculture activities that improve their livelihoods, ameliorate local environmental problems, and increase communities’ ability to cope with climate change.
However, in order to fulfill that promise, the industrialized world must give Africa a chance through the emerging international carbon market. The best approach would be for Europe, Japan, and Canada to buy certificates of biological carbon sequestration from Africa as part of their efforts to meet their obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.
Under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol, industrialized countries (so-called “Annex I countries”) have the right to purchase certificates of carbon sequestration from reforestation projects undertaken in developing countries and use them to offset up to 1% of their 1990 greenhouse-gas emissions from industry, transport and housing. Although this represents a small fraction of the effort needed from industrialized countries to fulfill the Kyoto Protocol’s goals by 2012, it would help significantly in improving forest and land use in Africa.
Europe, in particular, can demonstrate its commitment to mitigating climate change and promoting economic development in Africa by filling its 1% quota of credits from reforestation projects. This requires modifying some of the rules governing its own internal carbon market, the EU Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS).
Under current EU ETS rules, carbon credits generated by forestry projects undertaken in the CDM currently have no value, despite their obvious climate, environmental, and social benefits. This is because the so-called “linking directive” – the regulation authorizing EU firms to import Certified Emission Reductions from CDM projects – bans credits from any forestry project. Unsurprisingly, no European firm is currently interested in purchasing such credits. Even European governments, which are not tied by the EU ETS ban, purchase very few.
It is not too late to watch our AI Action Summit event.
Click the link to watch world leaders, tech experts, and other distinguished speakers – including Justin Trudeau, Petr Pavel, Daron Acemoglu, Reid Hoffman, Marianna Mazzucato, James Manyiga, Audrey Tang, Sylvain Duranton, Celina Lee, Patrick Pouyanné, and others – discuss some of the most important questions raised by the rise of artificial intelligence.
Watch Now
The EU ETS’s exclusion of carbon credits from forestry projects will remain in force at least until 2008, with the question of whether to include them subsequently set to be revisited next year. The European Commission will submit a report for consideration by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers by June 30, 2006.
Preserving the European bias against credits from forest projects is not justified, as positive experience emerging from the first land-use projects will show. In the Doha trade negotiations, industrialized nations accepted the need to liberalize their agricultural markets by reducing subsidies to domestic producers and tariff barriers on agricultural imports. So why not liberalize the carbon market as well – a move that would help, not hurt, domestic producers?
It would also help if all the parties to the Kyoto Protocol amended the post-2012 CDM rules. In particular, three changes are necessary: the relaxation of the 1% rule, the expansion of eligibility criteria to include more than just reforestation, and the removal of the 60-year replacement rule (which mandates the replacement of temporary with permanent credits after 60 years, regardless of the state of the underlying forests).
The first change would enable Annex I countries to satisfy a greater share of their increasing climate responsibilities using credits from land-use projects implemented in non-Annex I countries. The second change would allow forestry and land-use projects that are eligible to issue carbon credits to include such activities as re-vegetation, forest restoration, and improved agricultural management. The third change would eliminate a perverse rule, by which parties to CDM contracts can liquidate forests to buy replacement credits.
The responsibility for reforming the emerging carbon market does not lie solely with the North. All parties to the Kyoto Protocol, including African nations, have a unique opportunity to influence the post-2012 debate and defend the inclusion of land-use projects in the emerging carbon market.
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
By insisting on its own supremacy, the executive branch of the US government under President Donald Trump is effectively seeking to alter America’s constitutional framework of checks and balances among co-equal branches of government. Trump has no authority to execute this change, but that will not be enough to stop him.
observes that the president's claim of supremacy over the courts amounts to tossing out the US Constitution.
While AI could deliver profound benefits for all of society, it is likely to do the opposite if governments remain passive bystanders. Policymakers must step in now to foster a decentralized innovation ecosystem that serves the public good, and they must wake up to all the ways that things can go wrong.
explain why the UK government’s recently released AI “action plan” misses the mark.
The G8 summit earlier this year focused on Africa and climate change because the two issues are linked: Africa is particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change and therefore must be supported to adapt to it.
Adaptation to climate change is critical worldwide, but nowhere as much as in Africa, where exposure to natural disasters is higher than in most other regions. Aside from adaptation, Africa can also play a role in mitigating climate change through more sustainable forest and land management. Rural populations from Africa have the capacity to compete and export greenhouse-gas emission-reduction credits generated by forestry and agriculture activities that improve their livelihoods, ameliorate local environmental problems, and increase communities’ ability to cope with climate change.
However, in order to fulfill that promise, the industrialized world must give Africa a chance through the emerging international carbon market. The best approach would be for Europe, Japan, and Canada to buy certificates of biological carbon sequestration from Africa as part of their efforts to meet their obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.
Under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol, industrialized countries (so-called “Annex I countries”) have the right to purchase certificates of carbon sequestration from reforestation projects undertaken in developing countries and use them to offset up to 1% of their 1990 greenhouse-gas emissions from industry, transport and housing. Although this represents a small fraction of the effort needed from industrialized countries to fulfill the Kyoto Protocol’s goals by 2012, it would help significantly in improving forest and land use in Africa.
Europe, in particular, can demonstrate its commitment to mitigating climate change and promoting economic development in Africa by filling its 1% quota of credits from reforestation projects. This requires modifying some of the rules governing its own internal carbon market, the EU Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS).
Under current EU ETS rules, carbon credits generated by forestry projects undertaken in the CDM currently have no value, despite their obvious climate, environmental, and social benefits. This is because the so-called “linking directive” – the regulation authorizing EU firms to import Certified Emission Reductions from CDM projects – bans credits from any forestry project. Unsurprisingly, no European firm is currently interested in purchasing such credits. Even European governments, which are not tied by the EU ETS ban, purchase very few.
PS Events: AI Action Summit 2025
It is not too late to watch our AI Action Summit event.
Click the link to watch world leaders, tech experts, and other distinguished speakers – including Justin Trudeau, Petr Pavel, Daron Acemoglu, Reid Hoffman, Marianna Mazzucato, James Manyiga, Audrey Tang, Sylvain Duranton, Celina Lee, Patrick Pouyanné, and others – discuss some of the most important questions raised by the rise of artificial intelligence.
Watch Now
The EU ETS’s exclusion of carbon credits from forestry projects will remain in force at least until 2008, with the question of whether to include them subsequently set to be revisited next year. The European Commission will submit a report for consideration by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers by June 30, 2006.
Preserving the European bias against credits from forest projects is not justified, as positive experience emerging from the first land-use projects will show. In the Doha trade negotiations, industrialized nations accepted the need to liberalize their agricultural markets by reducing subsidies to domestic producers and tariff barriers on agricultural imports. So why not liberalize the carbon market as well – a move that would help, not hurt, domestic producers?
It would also help if all the parties to the Kyoto Protocol amended the post-2012 CDM rules. In particular, three changes are necessary: the relaxation of the 1% rule, the expansion of eligibility criteria to include more than just reforestation, and the removal of the 60-year replacement rule (which mandates the replacement of temporary with permanent credits after 60 years, regardless of the state of the underlying forests).
The first change would enable Annex I countries to satisfy a greater share of their increasing climate responsibilities using credits from land-use projects implemented in non-Annex I countries. The second change would allow forestry and land-use projects that are eligible to issue carbon credits to include such activities as re-vegetation, forest restoration, and improved agricultural management. The third change would eliminate a perverse rule, by which parties to CDM contracts can liquidate forests to buy replacement credits.
The responsibility for reforming the emerging carbon market does not lie solely with the North. All parties to the Kyoto Protocol, including African nations, have a unique opportunity to influence the post-2012 debate and defend the inclusion of land-use projects in the emerging carbon market.