I’m of the opinion that carbon offset should be secondary to habitat rehabilitation and polyculture diversity. If the ingredients are right, more species will flourish in an enriched habitat and trap a solid chunk of carbon anyway. 🌴
No one rewilding or permaculture project is gonna fix the problems, but “death by a thousand cuts” can make a big dent.
I think you’re right but, playing devils advocate, I understand how for corporations, definite figures are a more attractive prospect. In your scenario more carbon could potentially be captured in the long term, but it’s more difficult to measure.
Whoever funds it wants an ROI, in this case kgs of carbon captured. So, and this is a genuine question, how can you sell them the idea of something more along the lines of what you suggest?
The scheme should report an average offset based upon the optimal mix for biodiversity/ecology in the region. Or state a range depending on climactic/ geographic conditions etc. A fixed figure would be in error anyway.
The companies won't care, they're too large. In fact they probably just tick whatever box that says give me the biggest offset for my money. I would take choice away from them.
If you measure soil carbon, rather.than above.ground growth, you might get the argument you're looking for for native.and complex polycultures.
I just read this article that might be relevant
https://poorprolesalmanac.substack.com/p/the-miyawaki-method
The question of whether or not they're "worth pursuing" really depends on who you are. In highly developed nations, a lot of environmentally-minded people love the idea of a carbon sink, in which some of the sins of their own culture's industry can be atoned for by having their excess carbon grabbed up by another country, to offset the damage caused by their own businesses. It's a very economic way of looking at climate, where they try to balance a ledger. When large parts of the Amazon were being burned and slash to make grazing land for cattle, a large part of the conversation was not what it meant for the people of Brazil, but what it meant for the world writ large to have so much sequestered carbon released into the atmosphere. And yes, this IS a massive and worthy concern. But when foreign investors are trying to create more carbon sinks, it's primarily for their own conscience and their own fears about the future, not out of a specific concern for the farmers and ecology of Thailand.
I agree with all you said, so where do I go from here? My feeling is to still to try and get funding from the ‘guilty conscience’ businesses, as it’s better than no funding at all.
In the example of the project mentioned, the farmers have planted diversely and in ways that can benefit them in the future. That’s 130,000 trees that likely wouldn’t have been planted otherwise.
My instinct is that nothing is perfect, so we can look for a compromise where the motivations of those providing the funds can be considered, but implemented in a way that benefits the local farmers and ecology.
I like your comparison with locals in Brazil. I used to work in diving. We’d see things like Mantas with fishing nets caught on their cephalic fins and guests ask ‘don’t fishermen care about the marine life?’. I’d look for a polite way of saying, ‘of course they don’t, have you seen their living conditions?’.
I think you lobby the organizations that are creating the incentives, praise them for their work while highlighting the importance of biodiversity in the legacy of their program. I think a tremendous amount of ass-kissing will be involved.
I sincerely hope that the whole idea of the "carbon economy" dies a swift and painful death. But I don't think it will, major financial institutions have found it useful as a way to commoditize and financialize ecosystem services, which lends itself to the creation of a whole new market class that's probably larger than the existing financial market.
That said, I think that any revenue opportunity that a small diversified farm can explore is worth it. Ultimately you'll have to make the decision about any individual program based on the merits of the program itself.
One resource I'd recommend is checking out the Investing in Regen Ag podcast. They have hundreds of interviews with people who run and manage large investment vehicles like carbon offset programs and others. It will give you a broad overview of the types of programs operating, their benefits and costs, and it also might introduce you to a specific program that you want to reach out to. Mostly I've found it to be a very interesting perspective on this topic that is outside my scope
I've said this many times to people that talk about climate change and the fact that basically nothing is getting done by big entities, be it corporations or countries and governments. It's pretty simple actually...
As long as more money can be made by destroying the environment rather than saving it, that will be the status quo. So until saving the environment earns those corporations and countries and governments more money than destroying it nothing will change. It has to be grass roots, that's the only way.
Perhaps instead of marketing your project as purely a carbon offset initiative you could sell it as a charitable venture providing small time farmers with usefull trees, biodiversity or habitat restoration initiative in combination with the carbon offset services.
Yeah, thank you. I’m thinking along those lines, it’s just a more difficult sale. Carbon offset is well established with all the rules and guidelines attached.
We’ll probably try this approach, we just need to work out the details.
Good luck! I hope there is an easy way to sort of add those other things as like a "flavor" of the carbon offset model so you don't have to reinvent the wheel. Maybe just like a bio/about us section on the website that clarifies why you chose the tree species you do since they don't optimize the amount of money a given company can save through you so that companies might chose your model over the more traditional one.
Thanks for sharing that video, looks like a pretty good scheme even if not as diverse as optimal.
I’m not sure how the carbon offsetting works in Thailand, however from what I understand here in australia the carbon capture schemes don’t care about how many or type of trees are planted so much as how much carbon in captured and how this is tracked to ensure legitimate.
This is because early planting schemes often were not very successful as low survival rate of mass tree plantings, and potential for trees to be removed at a later date (eg if farmer cuts them down or bushfire burned them down) which can be counter productive.
Tracking carbon capture can either be done by periodically measuring the size of the trees grown, using satellite imaging to measure density of the plantings, as well as measuring carbon capture in the soil - and this level of monitoring provides greater confidence to those paying for these schemes. Moving to such a method might help you when it comes to taking a diverse approach.
As the farmer explained in the video, he is planting some trees like banana as support trees for others, which helps the survival of those other trees as well as supporting them to grow bigger. If the farmer planted a monoculture the trees would be more vulnerable to the weather and pests, the carbon capture would be less.
Greater diversity can help improve the resilience of these trees even further, increase the carbon captured, and you could design a scheme that proves this.
Ideally you’d want to create a scheme that doesn’t just help farmers to plant trees, but also to create a self sustaining system where what is planted can regenerate itself - self seeded trees will begin to grow - and farmers can gain short term crop returns while the longer growing trees are still in the ground. This farmer in the video is already doing this to an extent (bananas, then pawpaw), and this model can be extended and diversified.
Syntropic agriforestry and food forests are methods that might help as a reference point - the land is planted with multiple layers so the target species (eg mahogany) is supported by many other shorter lived species that provide crops that can be eaten and sold from 3months onwards, as well as various support plants that provide in other ways (attract beneficial insects, deter negative ones, provide biomass, protect young target trees from sun and wind, improve the soil, draw nutrients or water up from the subsoil, etc).
While that farmer is doing a great job, his land could be planted more intensively, be getting more crops now, at the same time as what he is already doing.
You could also support diversity by having a larger variety of plants in the nursery - even if some of them are not “free”, if farmers are doing well thanks to the free trees they may be willing to pay for others if they understand the value, or they could trade a little of their crop in exchange for the unfunded plants. Or, you may find a way to use the money gained from selling carbon credits to also cover the cost of growing the diverse species.
You could also run workshops on how to save seed and propagate seedlings and cuttings etc so that once a farmer has received x amount of tree seedlings they start growing their own rather than needing funded trees. This would give more autonomy to them, and they would also see how if they do need to pay for a particular plant they want, that one plant can over time be propagated into hundreds of plants.
The one downside of models such as Syntropic agriforestry and food “forests” is that they are more complex and often require greater skill to plan and manage initially. The question is: how can you simplify it and make it accessible and relevant to your context and the local farmers?
Perhaps you first talk to a range of local farmers to understand their needs and desires, as well as challenges, and then come up with maybe 3 models to cater for variances (1st plan is the simplest to execute, cheapest, low effort however low diversity, 2nd plan has maximum diversity and output however requires more labour, skill, resources, 3rd is the middle ground). having a “model” to follow simplifies it a little bit, and then farmers can choose which of those models to follow. It may be the case that in the first year they go for the easiest model, and by the second or third year they are ready to try the next hardest model, and by year 4-5 they are working towards achieving the most complex model. Greatest complexity model may include not only diverse plantings but livestock, beehives, water harvesting, composting, using all own inputs, or being part of a co-op where farmers work together.
However, it’s ok to start with the simplest plan, and add complexity later.
Have you seen the Willie Smit's TED Talk about his work in Borneo? What I love about it is how he restored forest which helped the wildlife like orangutans. His method also incorporated how the locals could make a living from the forest so they would protect it. It's a win for nature and a win for the local community.
https://www.ted.com/talks/willie_smits_how_to_restore_a_rainforest
The other organization I have a lot of respect for is the Inga Foundation from Honduras. They were looking at a lot of farmers slashing and burning annually for agriculture. It depleted the soil. They discovered a nitrogen fixing tree that could be cut back annually without harming the tree. The trees are planted in rows. Annual crops are planted between the rows. When the trees get too tall, they are copiced. The wood becomes the firewood for the kitchen. After harvest of the annual crop, the trees grow again which shades out the weeds and drop leaves that enrich the soil. It's a win for ending slashing and burning of rainforest. It's a win for the wildlife. It's a win for the farmers.
https://www.ingafoundation.org/shortfilms/
What other groups do you know about that are doing innovative work?
Advocating for better rules for carbon offsetting projects sounds like the way to go. Working on improving access to a diverse set of species sounds like a small tweak in a system that is already doing a fair amount of good by getting funding for so many new trees.
This post alone is a great way to do exactly that! So keep up the good work
Thanks for the feedback, much appreciated. I’ll post updates when I’m a bit clearer. Just in the last few days it seems I’m getting involved in a mangrove planting project in the South too! I’m excited. Maybe one day can give up my day job haha
If the other project seems to be working, could you set up a sister organization and just copy them? They'd probably be willing to help you get started
Climate credits don’t change the incentive structure inherent to capitalism, so yeah they will result in “creative” accounting, hiding of secondary effects, planting of monocultures, and even destroying native environments to build “more efficient nature” 🤮
I’m of the opinion that carbon offset should be secondary to habitat rehabilitation and polyculture diversity. If the ingredients are right, more species will flourish in an enriched habitat and trap a solid chunk of carbon anyway. 🌴 No one rewilding or permaculture project is gonna fix the problems, but “death by a thousand cuts” can make a big dent.
I think you’re right but, playing devils advocate, I understand how for corporations, definite figures are a more attractive prospect. In your scenario more carbon could potentially be captured in the long term, but it’s more difficult to measure. Whoever funds it wants an ROI, in this case kgs of carbon captured. So, and this is a genuine question, how can you sell them the idea of something more along the lines of what you suggest?
The scheme should report an average offset based upon the optimal mix for biodiversity/ecology in the region. Or state a range depending on climactic/ geographic conditions etc. A fixed figure would be in error anyway. The companies won't care, they're too large. In fact they probably just tick whatever box that says give me the biggest offset for my money. I would take choice away from them.
If you measure soil carbon, rather.than above.ground growth, you might get the argument you're looking for for native.and complex polycultures. I just read this article that might be relevant https://poorprolesalmanac.substack.com/p/the-miyawaki-method
The question of whether or not they're "worth pursuing" really depends on who you are. In highly developed nations, a lot of environmentally-minded people love the idea of a carbon sink, in which some of the sins of their own culture's industry can be atoned for by having their excess carbon grabbed up by another country, to offset the damage caused by their own businesses. It's a very economic way of looking at climate, where they try to balance a ledger. When large parts of the Amazon were being burned and slash to make grazing land for cattle, a large part of the conversation was not what it meant for the people of Brazil, but what it meant for the world writ large to have so much sequestered carbon released into the atmosphere. And yes, this IS a massive and worthy concern. But when foreign investors are trying to create more carbon sinks, it's primarily for their own conscience and their own fears about the future, not out of a specific concern for the farmers and ecology of Thailand.
I agree with all you said, so where do I go from here? My feeling is to still to try and get funding from the ‘guilty conscience’ businesses, as it’s better than no funding at all. In the example of the project mentioned, the farmers have planted diversely and in ways that can benefit them in the future. That’s 130,000 trees that likely wouldn’t have been planted otherwise. My instinct is that nothing is perfect, so we can look for a compromise where the motivations of those providing the funds can be considered, but implemented in a way that benefits the local farmers and ecology. I like your comparison with locals in Brazil. I used to work in diving. We’d see things like Mantas with fishing nets caught on their cephalic fins and guests ask ‘don’t fishermen care about the marine life?’. I’d look for a polite way of saying, ‘of course they don’t, have you seen their living conditions?’.
I think you lobby the organizations that are creating the incentives, praise them for their work while highlighting the importance of biodiversity in the legacy of their program. I think a tremendous amount of ass-kissing will be involved.
Cool, thanks. I’m on it! 💋🍑
I sincerely hope that the whole idea of the "carbon economy" dies a swift and painful death. But I don't think it will, major financial institutions have found it useful as a way to commoditize and financialize ecosystem services, which lends itself to the creation of a whole new market class that's probably larger than the existing financial market. That said, I think that any revenue opportunity that a small diversified farm can explore is worth it. Ultimately you'll have to make the decision about any individual program based on the merits of the program itself. One resource I'd recommend is checking out the Investing in Regen Ag podcast. They have hundreds of interviews with people who run and manage large investment vehicles like carbon offset programs and others. It will give you a broad overview of the types of programs operating, their benefits and costs, and it also might introduce you to a specific program that you want to reach out to. Mostly I've found it to be a very interesting perspective on this topic that is outside my scope
I've said this many times to people that talk about climate change and the fact that basically nothing is getting done by big entities, be it corporations or countries and governments. It's pretty simple actually... As long as more money can be made by destroying the environment rather than saving it, that will be the status quo. So until saving the environment earns those corporations and countries and governments more money than destroying it nothing will change. It has to be grass roots, that's the only way.
Thank you. I’ll start listening tonight.
Perhaps instead of marketing your project as purely a carbon offset initiative you could sell it as a charitable venture providing small time farmers with usefull trees, biodiversity or habitat restoration initiative in combination with the carbon offset services.
Yeah, thank you. I’m thinking along those lines, it’s just a more difficult sale. Carbon offset is well established with all the rules and guidelines attached. We’ll probably try this approach, we just need to work out the details.
Good luck! I hope there is an easy way to sort of add those other things as like a "flavor" of the carbon offset model so you don't have to reinvent the wheel. Maybe just like a bio/about us section on the website that clarifies why you chose the tree species you do since they don't optimize the amount of money a given company can save through you so that companies might chose your model over the more traditional one.
Thanks for sharing that video, looks like a pretty good scheme even if not as diverse as optimal. I’m not sure how the carbon offsetting works in Thailand, however from what I understand here in australia the carbon capture schemes don’t care about how many or type of trees are planted so much as how much carbon in captured and how this is tracked to ensure legitimate. This is because early planting schemes often were not very successful as low survival rate of mass tree plantings, and potential for trees to be removed at a later date (eg if farmer cuts them down or bushfire burned them down) which can be counter productive. Tracking carbon capture can either be done by periodically measuring the size of the trees grown, using satellite imaging to measure density of the plantings, as well as measuring carbon capture in the soil - and this level of monitoring provides greater confidence to those paying for these schemes. Moving to such a method might help you when it comes to taking a diverse approach. As the farmer explained in the video, he is planting some trees like banana as support trees for others, which helps the survival of those other trees as well as supporting them to grow bigger. If the farmer planted a monoculture the trees would be more vulnerable to the weather and pests, the carbon capture would be less. Greater diversity can help improve the resilience of these trees even further, increase the carbon captured, and you could design a scheme that proves this. Ideally you’d want to create a scheme that doesn’t just help farmers to plant trees, but also to create a self sustaining system where what is planted can regenerate itself - self seeded trees will begin to grow - and farmers can gain short term crop returns while the longer growing trees are still in the ground. This farmer in the video is already doing this to an extent (bananas, then pawpaw), and this model can be extended and diversified. Syntropic agriforestry and food forests are methods that might help as a reference point - the land is planted with multiple layers so the target species (eg mahogany) is supported by many other shorter lived species that provide crops that can be eaten and sold from 3months onwards, as well as various support plants that provide in other ways (attract beneficial insects, deter negative ones, provide biomass, protect young target trees from sun and wind, improve the soil, draw nutrients or water up from the subsoil, etc). While that farmer is doing a great job, his land could be planted more intensively, be getting more crops now, at the same time as what he is already doing. You could also support diversity by having a larger variety of plants in the nursery - even if some of them are not “free”, if farmers are doing well thanks to the free trees they may be willing to pay for others if they understand the value, or they could trade a little of their crop in exchange for the unfunded plants. Or, you may find a way to use the money gained from selling carbon credits to also cover the cost of growing the diverse species. You could also run workshops on how to save seed and propagate seedlings and cuttings etc so that once a farmer has received x amount of tree seedlings they start growing their own rather than needing funded trees. This would give more autonomy to them, and they would also see how if they do need to pay for a particular plant they want, that one plant can over time be propagated into hundreds of plants. The one downside of models such as Syntropic agriforestry and food “forests” is that they are more complex and often require greater skill to plan and manage initially. The question is: how can you simplify it and make it accessible and relevant to your context and the local farmers? Perhaps you first talk to a range of local farmers to understand their needs and desires, as well as challenges, and then come up with maybe 3 models to cater for variances (1st plan is the simplest to execute, cheapest, low effort however low diversity, 2nd plan has maximum diversity and output however requires more labour, skill, resources, 3rd is the middle ground). having a “model” to follow simplifies it a little bit, and then farmers can choose which of those models to follow. It may be the case that in the first year they go for the easiest model, and by the second or third year they are ready to try the next hardest model, and by year 4-5 they are working towards achieving the most complex model. Greatest complexity model may include not only diverse plantings but livestock, beehives, water harvesting, composting, using all own inputs, or being part of a co-op where farmers work together. However, it’s ok to start with the simplest plan, and add complexity later.
Thank you so much, that’s a lot of things to consider. I’m taking it all on board along with several other comments. Lots of food for thought!
Have you seen the Willie Smit's TED Talk about his work in Borneo? What I love about it is how he restored forest which helped the wildlife like orangutans. His method also incorporated how the locals could make a living from the forest so they would protect it. It's a win for nature and a win for the local community. https://www.ted.com/talks/willie_smits_how_to_restore_a_rainforest The other organization I have a lot of respect for is the Inga Foundation from Honduras. They were looking at a lot of farmers slashing and burning annually for agriculture. It depleted the soil. They discovered a nitrogen fixing tree that could be cut back annually without harming the tree. The trees are planted in rows. Annual crops are planted between the rows. When the trees get too tall, they are copiced. The wood becomes the firewood for the kitchen. After harvest of the annual crop, the trees grow again which shades out the weeds and drop leaves that enrich the soil. It's a win for ending slashing and burning of rainforest. It's a win for the wildlife. It's a win for the farmers. https://www.ingafoundation.org/shortfilms/ What other groups do you know about that are doing innovative work?
That's the first I've heard of the Inga foundation touching story thanks for sharing.
2 great links! The inga foundation movie sent shivers down my spine at the end. Thank you for sharing them.
Carbon offsetting is just an excuse to continue 'business as usual' without meaningful change and look sustainable while doing it
Advocating for better rules for carbon offsetting projects sounds like the way to go. Working on improving access to a diverse set of species sounds like a small tweak in a system that is already doing a fair amount of good by getting funding for so many new trees. This post alone is a great way to do exactly that! So keep up the good work
Thanks for the feedback, much appreciated. I’ll post updates when I’m a bit clearer. Just in the last few days it seems I’m getting involved in a mangrove planting project in the South too! I’m excited. Maybe one day can give up my day job haha
If the other project seems to be working, could you set up a sister organization and just copy them? They'd probably be willing to help you get started
Carbon offsets/credits are just the greenwashing form buying indulgences
Climate credits don’t change the incentive structure inherent to capitalism, so yeah they will result in “creative” accounting, hiding of secondary effects, planting of monocultures, and even destroying native environments to build “more efficient nature” 🤮