ORIGINAL ARTICLE How sustainable are forestry clean development mechanism projects?—A review of the selected projects from India Ashish Aggarwal Received: 13 July 2012 / Accepted: 19 September 2012 # Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012 Abstract This paper analyses social, economic and ecological issues affecting sustain- ability of the four selected forestry clean development mechanism (CDM) projects from India. Data from the group discussions and stakeholder interviews suggest that three out of the four projects are economically unsustainable for local people because of high opportunity cost of land and labour, and delayed and low benefits. The average opportunity cost of the land is 20000, 12000 and 9000 INR/ha/year in case of Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, India projects respectively, which is unlikely to be met through projected carbon revenues and other benefits. A significant number of farmers have already withdrawn their private lands in Haryana and Tamil Nadu projects. Very few of them have undertaken plantations on the private lands in the Himachal project. All the four projects have undertaken block plantations of predominantly fast growing species such as Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus hybrid), Casuarina (Casuarina equisettifolia) and Ailanthus (Ailanthus excelsa) for high growth and quick returns, which could have adverse social and ecological impacts over long term. There are social and institutional issues such as low participation of local communities, weak or non existing community institutions, inflexible design and rigid CDM rules, which affect sustainability of these projects. It has implications for other carbon forestry programmes such as Green India Mission and Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) being rolled out at a large scale in the country. The rationale and significance of these programmes needs to be objectively reexamined in context of the issues affecting CDM projects. Keywords Forestry . CDM . Sustainability . India Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change DOI 10.1007/s11027-012-9427-x A. Aggarwal (*) School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester, Arthur Lewis Building, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK e-mail: [email protected]A. Aggarwal The Energy and Resources Institute, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 11003, India
Transcript
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
How sustainable are forestry clean development mechanismprojects?—A review of the selected projects from India
Ashish Aggarwal
Received: 13 July 2012 /Accepted: 19 September 2012# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012
Abstract This paper analyses social, economic and ecological issues affecting sustain-ability of the four selected forestry clean development mechanism (CDM) projects fromIndia. Data from the group discussions and stakeholder interviews suggest that three outof the four projects are economically unsustainable for local people because of highopportunity cost of land and labour, and delayed and low benefits. The averageopportunity cost of the land is 20000, 12000 and 9000 INR/ha/year in case of Haryana,Himachal Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, India projects respectively, which is unlikely to be metthrough projected carbon revenues and other benefits. A significant number of farmers havealready withdrawn their private lands in Haryana and Tamil Nadu projects. Very few of themhave undertaken plantations on the private lands in the Himachal project. All the four projectshave undertaken block plantations of predominantly fast growing species such asEucalyptus (Eucalyptus hybrid), Casuarina (Casuarina equisettifolia) and Ailanthus(Ailanthus excelsa) for high growth and quick returns, which could have adversesocial and ecological impacts over long term. There are social and institutional issuessuch as low participation of local communities, weak or non existing communityinstitutions, inflexible design and rigid CDM rules, which affect sustainability of theseprojects. It has implications for other carbon forestry programmes such as Green IndiaMission and Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) beingrolled out at a large scale in the country. The rationale and significance of theseprogrammes needs to be objectively reexamined in context of the issues affectingCDM projects.
A. Aggarwal (*)School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester, Arthur Lewis Building,Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UKe-mail: [email protected]
A. AggarwalThe Energy and Resources Institute, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 11003, India
1 Introduction
Climate change presents an environment and development paradox. It requires decreased use ofcarbon space to maintain the resilience of environmental systems on one hand but on the other,it necessitates social and economic development of vulnerable communities, which at present islargely carbon dependant (UNDP, 2007). It has strong ethical and equity implications as well(ibid). Developing countries have contributed least to the problem but have to share dispropor-tionate burden (World Bank, 2008). Their growth and development could be setback by climatechange related costs (ibid). The poor in the developing countries are most vulnerable to theadverse effects of climate change due to low incomes, low institutional capabilities and greaterreliance on natural resources and climate- sensitive sectors such as agriculture (IPCC 2001a;IPCC 2001b; Beg et al. 2002; Adger et al. 2003). This dual challenge has led to a search for‘win-win’ approaches that could deliver both climate and development benefits (Beg et al.2002; Halsnæs and Markandya 2002; Munasinghe and Swart 2000; World Bank 2003).
Clean development mechanisn (CDM) defined in Article 12 of the United NationsFramework Convention on Climate Change (UN FCCC) Kyoto Protocol is a policy effortthat aims to reconcile environment and development agendas (Kerr et al. 2006; Olsen 2007;Michaelowa 2002). The protocol defines two objectives of the CDM mechanism. First, it isexpected to help non Annex 1 i.e. developing countries in achieving sustainable develop-ment and second, to help Annex 1 countries in achieving their emission reduction targets andthus contributing to the overall objective of greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction of theconvention (UN 1998). CDM projects have increased exponentially since the adoption ofKyoto Protocol in 2005. There are 4135 registered CDM projects now, although theirsectoral and geographic distribution is unequal (UNFCCC 2012). Forestry projects consti-tute only 0.9% of the registered projects because of their complex nature (UNFCCC 2012;Thomas et al. 2010). CDM allows only afforestation and reforestation (A/R) activities in theforestry sector. Afforestation involves plantations on the lands that have not been forestedfor last 50 years and Reforestation involves plantation on the land which has not beenforested since 31st December 1989 as defined under CDM (CDM rulebook, undated).
With the proliferation of CDM projects, a number of studies have been undertaken to assesstheir performance on various environment and development related criteria (Subbarao and Lloyd2011; Bumpus and Cole 2010; Boyd et al. 2009; Sutter and Parreno 2007; Michaelowa 2002).Some of these studies question the environmental performance of the CDM projects (Zhang andWang 2011; Michaelowa and Purohit 2007), some others find these lacking on both environmentand development criteria (Schneider 2007), whereas most question the development performanceof these projects (Subbarao and Lloyd 2011; Bumpus and Cole 2010; Boyd et al. 2009;Michaelowa andMichaelowa 2007; Olsen 2007; Brown et al. 2004). Some studies even questionthe process and functioning of CDM executive board and argue that the approval process ispoliticized (Flues et al. 2008; Michaelowa and Purohit 2007). A large number of studies critiquethe effectiveness of CDM especially on the development account and argue that developmentobjectives of CDM are ‘more hypothetical than real’ (Brown et al. 2004: 4).
Development issues become more important in case of A/R CDM projects as theseinvolve a change of land use for medium to long term, which affects livelihood of smalland marginal farmers. Also, a large number of farmers lack legal title to the land and accessto other resources such as capital, technology and expertise in developing countries, so theyare not able to participate in the carbon markets (Corbera and Brown 2010; Kerr et al. 2006;Brown and Corbera 2003). In such a scenario, economically better off people might takecontrol of land for carbon revenues and could exclude poor from such arrangementsincreasing existing inequalities (Brown and Corbera 2003). There are issues related to land
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change
rights, livelihoods and equity which disadvantage small farmer in such projects (Kerr et al.2006; Smith and Scherr 2003; Subak 2000; Smith 2002). Much of the existing literatureraise equity and livelihood issues related to A/R CDM projects.
India has highest number of A/R CDM registered projects across the globe but limitedempirical work has been undertaken to study them (see Jindal et al. 2007; Mate et al. 2011).There is a dearth of research highlighting various issues related to sustainability of CDMprojects in India. This research becomes even more important because of the country’spreparation for large scale carbon forestry programmes like National Mission for a GreenIndia (Green India Mission or GIM henceforth) and Reducing Emissions from Deforestationand Degradation in Developing countries (REDD+). Though these schemes differ in theirdesign and structure from CDM but there is substantive common ground in terms ofrationale and practice. Experiences from forestry CDM projects should be able to informthese new carbon forestry initiatives in the country.
This paper seeks to partly fulfill this knowledge gap through a review of four selected A/RCDM projects in India. It intends to highlight issues related to social, ecological and economicaspects of these projects. This review is not meant to be a comprehensive assessment of theseprojects, rather it is an overview of the issues based on the short fieldwork in these projects. Itshould provide a starting point for undertaking further studies.
This paper is divided in six sections. The second section presents the material andmethods of the study. It also briefs the limitation of this review. The third section gives anoverview of all seven registered forestry CDM projects in India. It sets out the context for theanalysis of the issues. The next section presents an analysis of issues affecting sustainabilityof the four selected projects on social, economic and ecological criteria. Implications ofthese issues for other carbon forestry schemes in India have been discussed in the fifthsection. Sixth section concludes the paper.
2 Material and methods
This review is based on the analysis of secondary and primary data. Secondary data has beencollected from official Indian project documents like project concept notes (PCN) and projectdesign documents (PDD) submitted to national CDM authority and UNFCCC. PDDs areavailable from UNFCCC web but PCNs have been obtained from the project proponentswherever possible. Other information about these projects has been obtained from publishedliterature and web.
Four out of seven registered projects were visited during the period between August andOctober 2011. These projects were selected based on the criteria of scale and type ofproponent (state and private) to understand variety of issues. The selected projects includeHaryana CDM project promoted by Haryana Community Forestry Project (HCFP) underHaryana Forest Department (HFD), Himachal Pradesh project promoted by Mid HimalayanWatershed Development project (MHWDP) linked to Himachal Pradesh Forest Department(HPFD), Andhra Pradesh project promoted by ITC ltd, a multinational company and TamilNadu project promoted by tree planting India private limited (TIST), a private company.8 Group discussions and 30 key stakeholder interviews involving project proponents, projectintermediaries, relevant government department officials and local farmers were conductedto understand the key issues in these four projects. The group discussions and interviewswere conducted as informal conversations with the stakeholders on a checklist of issues.Most of the data collected through this process was qualitative. It was recorded in a Micro-soft (MS) excel data base and was used to frame and analyze the issues.
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change
Tab
le1
Anoverview
ofregistered
forestry
CDM
projectsin
India
S.No
Title
Project
startdate
Registration
date
Project
locatio
n(State/s)
Proponent
bExternal
stakeholders
Area(ha)
Typeof
land
Av.land
holding
underproject/
farm
er(ha)
No.
infarm
ers
involved
Project
period
(year)
Av.Reductio
n(tCo2
e/annum)
1SmallScale
Coo
perativ
eAfforestatio
nCDM
Activity
inSirsa,Haryana
Jul-08
Mar-09
Haryana
HFD
(Govt)
nil
369.87
Private
1.63
227
6011596
2Reforestatio
nin
Khammam
Districtof
And
hra
Pradesh,Indiaun
derITC
SocialForestryProject
Jul-01
Jun-09
And
hraPradesh
ITCltd
(Pvt)
nil
3070.19
Private
0.90
3398
3257792
3The
InternationalSmall
Group
andTreePlanting
Program
(TIST),Tam
ilNadu,
India
Jan-04
Jan-10
Tam
ilNadu
TISTltd
(Pvt)
UK,Northern
Ireland,
clim
ate
change
capital
carbon
fund
IIs.àr.l’
106
Private
0.09
1200
303594
4India:
Him
achalPradesh
Reforestatio
nProject
–Im
prov
ingLivelihoo
dsandWatershedsa
Jul-06
Mar-11
Him
achal
MHWDP(G
ovt)
Spain,Biocarbon
Fund
4003.07
Public,
common
andprivate
NA
INA
6041979
5BagepalliCDM
Reforestatio
nProgram
me
Jan-08
May-11
Karnataka,A
ndhra
Pradesh
ADATS(N
GO)
nil
8933.34
Private
1.10
8,107
100
92103
6Reforestatio
nof
degraded
land
byMTPLin
India.
Jun-01
Aug
-11
Orissa,And
hra
Pradesh,
Chattisgarh
MTPL(Pvt)
nil
14969.46
Private
1.25
12002
50146998
7Im
prov
ingRural
Livelihoo
dsThrou
ghCarbo
nSequestratio
nByAdo
pting
Env
iron
mentFriendly
Techn
olog
ybased
AgroforestryPractices
Oct-04
Feb-11
Orissa,And
hra
Pradesh
JKPLand
VCCSL
(Pvt)
Canada,BioCarbon
Fund
3502.7
Private
1.75
1994
30356696
PDDsof
theprojects
NANot
applicable,INAInform
ationnotavailable
aRevised
values
forHim
achalproject,have
been
takenfrom
(MHWDP,un
dated)
bText
inparenthesesrepresentsthetype
ofprojectpropon
ent.Gov
t,Pvt
andNGO
standforgo
vernment,privateandno
ngo
vernmentorganizatio
nsrespectiv
ely
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change
This review has several limitations. It was a pilot studymeant to understand broad issues beforeundertaking comprehensive assessments. Hence, it was conducted in a short period of time. On anaverage, a week was spent for each project that included meeting with farmers, project proponentsand other stakeholders and visiting plantation sites. Second, language was a constraint in AndhraPradesh and Tamil Nadu projects for the researcher. It was managed with the help of translators tosome extent. Financial resources were very limited, which constrained hiring research support.
Full titles of the projects have been given in Table 1 but these have been referred by thename of state or project proponent in this paper for the sake of convenience.
3 Forestry CDM projects in India
India is only second to China with 821 registered CDM projects, which constitute around20% of the total registered projects (UNFCCC 2012). Most of these projects are in energydomain. In the forestry sector, India has 7 out of 39 registered projects worldwide consti-tuting around 18% of the total projects (ibid).
A/R projects constitute a small fraction of the vast portfolio of CDM projects as there are issuesrelated to long project periods, high upfront costs, complex methodologies, requirements oftechnical know how, labor and large areas of land and coordination with a range of stakeholders(Ecosecurities 2010; Thomas et al. 2010; Kerr et al. 2006). Besides these well known structural anddesign issues, there are many issues at the implementation level that constrain A/R CDM projects.Some of these issues have been discussed ahead. This section gives the overview of seven registeredA/R CDM projects in India. It provides a context to the issues discussed in the next section.
3.1 Geographical distribution
Geographical distribution of Indian A/R CDM projects is uneven. State of Andhra Pradeshseems to be the preferred location for the forestry CDM projects as four out of seven projectsare partly or fully based here (Table 1). This might be due to presence of a number of paperand ply board companies, like ITC ltd. and JKPL; prevalence of agro forestry practices andexisting grassroots institutions like cooperative societies and self help groups.
3.2 Registration and ‘retroactive’ claims
Implementation of all seven projects has started much earlier than their registration (Table 1).These projects are claiming carbon credits ‘retroactively’ i.e. for the period starting before theregistration. Some of the projects viz MTPL, ITC and JKPL promoted projects have a substantialgap of 10, 8 and 7 years respectively (Table 1). A CDM executive board decision enables A/Rprojects started after 1st January 2000 to be validated and registered even after 31st December2005 and earn credits retroactively (CDM rule book, undated). The project proponents have tosubmit documentary proof, which supports their retroactive claims. But senior officers from twoof the visited projects confided that this was an issue of mere ‘record presentation’ and could be‘easily managed’. This enables the proponents to reshape their ‘business as usual’ activities intoCDM projects. It raises issues on the additionality of such projects.
3.3 Project proponent and financing
Private companies, state governments and non governmental organizations (NGOs) arepromoting four, two and one project respectively (Table 1). It clearly suggests dominance
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change
of private sector, followed by state institutions in forestry CDM projects. Requirement oflarge financial resources and ‘technical expertise’ restricts the entry of small NGOs andcommunity institutions; hence the very design of these projects is discriminatory.
It is interesting to note that two of the projects promoted by state governments of Haryanaand Himachal are part of big natural resource management projects financed by EuropeanCommission and World Bank respectively. One of the decisions of UN FCCC MarrakeshAccords of 2001, stresses that there should be no diversion of official development assis-tance funding for clean development mechanism projects (UNFCCC 2002). Even the publicfunds marked for other activities should not be used for CDM projects as it is against theprincipal of ‘financial additionality’(Dutschke and Michaelowa 2003). But officials fromthese projects argue that it is very difficult to maintain the financial additionality especiallywhen these constitute part of other projects. In fact, funds have been diverted from existing‘sand dune fixation’ (SDF) programme for the CDM project in Haryana under the budgethead of ‘additional SDF’. Similarly many of the costs viz. plantation, internal monitoringand administration are shared with the ongoing MHWDP project in Himachal Pradesh. So,financial additionality of these projects is not beyond question.
3.4 Project area
It ranges between 106 ha and 14969 ha (Table 1). Average contribution of a farmer rangesfrom 0.09 ha in TIST project to 1.75 ha in JKPL promoted project. Both small scale projectsof Haryana and Tamil Nadu have project areas less than 500 ha. Small scale projects havesimpler methodologies and requirements. Hence, these projects are expected to have lesstransaction costs. But at the same time, costs decrease marginally with increase in area. So,small size projects do not necessarily have less transaction costs per unit of area. Theseprojects involve mostly small and marginal farmers hence there are serious implications forlivelihoods, which have been discussed in next section.
3.5 Type of land
All Indian projects involve plantations on the private lands. It reflects the strong preferenceof the project developers for private lands to avoid bureaucratic wrangles over the use ofcommon and public lands have been used only in Himachal Pradesh project. It includescommon revenue land managed by Gram Panchayats (GP), which are the lowest level ofelected local self government bodies in the country. It also involves public forest landmanaged by state forest department. People have specific management system and usepattern for land under a particular property regime for specific purpose, which should notbe altered by carbon forestry projects. This issue has been further elaborated in the nextsection.
3.6 Project period
The time period for different projects ranges from 30 and 100 years. Project perioddepends upon the rotation period of selected species and other economic considerations.Three projects each have short time periods of 30 years and medium project period ofaround 50 years. Bagepalli is the only project that has opted for a 100 year project period.The duration of the project has implications for economic viability and hence sustainabil-ity of the project. The relatively longer project periods make A/R CDM projects econom-ically unattractive (Ecosecurities 2010; Thomas et al. 2010).
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change
3.7 Number of farmers
Number of participating farmers ranges between 227 and 12002 (Table 1). Farmers areorganized through various institutional arrangements like sanghas and cooperatives. Itrequires efforts and resources to involve and organize people. Hence, transaction costsincrease with the increase in number of farmers.
4 Issues
UNFCCC with its decision 17/cp.7 in the Marrakesh Accords of 2001 acknowledges the rightof the host countries to decide sustainable development criteria for CDM activities (UNFCCC2002). Designated National Authority (DNA) of each country assesses the proposed projects onthese criteria and forwards these to the CDM board. These criteria broadly address social,economic and environmental dimensions of sustainability (Michaelowa 2003). National CDMauthority of India has defined social, economic, environmental and technological well being asthe sustainable development criteria for Indian CDM projects (CDM India, undated).Technological criteria are more relevant for energy and other technical projects.Hence, this paper analyses forestry projects based on social, economic and ecologicalissues. However, many issues are multidimensional and overlap across different criteria.
4.1 Economic sustainability
It deals with the issues related to the economic viability of the projects and distribution of costsand benefits across different stakeholders. The issues discussed here are related to high projectcosts and low and uncertain returns that affect the economic sustainability of such projects.
4.1.1 Project costs
There are very high transaction and implementation costs associated with the forestry CDMprojects (Kerr et al. 2006; Thomas et al. 2010; World Bank 2011). It has been reported thatproject development costs in A/R CDM project are higher than any other sector in WorldBank’s biocarbon fund supported projects. It exceeds $ 1/tCO2e, which is quite high (WorldBank 2011). Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF), which is the nodal institution forCDM projects in India, reports that on an average amount of Indian Rupees (INR)6 million is required to develop a project in the country, which is quite high (MOEF 2011).
In the selected projects, all the proponents agree that transaction costs of the A/R CDMprojects are much more than the estimated costs during the project preparation. Even theestimated costs are quite high. This is evident from the Table 2, which presents various costsinvolved in the projects. Most of these projected costs have been taken from the projectconcept notes (PCN). But these are underestimates as these leave aside many important costsmost notably the project management and internal monitoring costs. Interview with a seniorofficer in ITC ltd. revealed that company had already spent around INR (Indian Rupees) 7.5million on the project preparation, host country approval, validation, registration andverification. This is in addition to the plantation and other costs. In case of Haryana project,it has been estimated that a total of INR 2.28 million will be spent on project preparation,validation and monitoring in Haryana CDM project (HFD, undated). It does not includecosts of organizing people, internal monitoring and plantation. Similarly, state governmentof Himachal Pradesh has estimated the project preparation cost including first year costs of
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change
the project to be around INR 10 million (converted with exchange rate of 1 USD equals 50INR) (Table 2) (DoFE 2006). Monitoring and plantation costs are additional. Internalmonitoring costs are being borne by the state government’s Mid Himalayan WatershedDevelopment project (MHWDP). The total cost of 110 million INR for Himachal project isan underestimate as it does not involve, replacement plantation costs after 3 years, projectmanagement costs and various other costs.
The high costs of A/R CDM projects have sustainability implications (Subak 2000). Onlyrich entities could invest in these risky and long duration projects. Even the costs of smallscale projects, which involve small and marginal farmers, are too high (Table 2). All the fourselected projects are being promoted by externally financed state projects or multinationalcompanies. Table 2 represents various costs associated with three projects. Similar informa-tion about TIST project was not available. Local communities lack bargaining power in suchprojects due to lack of financial resources. They follow the instructions of the proponentsrather than participating as equal stakeholders in these projects. These costs are passed on tothe local communities partially or fully in the long term during the sale of carbon credits.
Project preparation, monitoring and validation costs constitute 6 to 8% of the total costswhich constitute a significant part. These tasks are short term and are performed by externalconsultants and hence, they are the clear beneficiaries in these projects.
4.1.2 Opportunity cost of land and labour
The most serious challenge being faced by the four selected projects is the high opportunitycost of private land and labour. Land is being diverted for alternative land uses such asindustrial, residential and infrastructural development due to fast economic growth in thecountry. It has led to high demand of land resulting in increase in land prices even in
Table 2 Various costs associated with selected CDM projects
4003.07 10.00 100.00 110.00 Excludes projectmanagement costs,replacement plantationafter 3 years and internaland external monitoringcosts after 1st year
PCNs, PDDs and interviews with project proponents
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change
suburban and rural areas. So, the opportunity cost of private land has gone very high. Landprices have increased 10 times in many areas of Solan district in Himachal Pradesh project.A farmer from village Gaddon in the panchayat Shadiyana of Solan district has refused toparticipate in the project at a later stage because of the increasing land prices. He argues thatprice of his land has gone up 10 times from INR 1,50000/bigha (One hectare equals 12bighas in the region) to INR 15,00,000/bigha between 2007 and 2011, so he can not commithis land under the project. He will rather sell part of the land and use money to installirrigation facilities for remaining land.
Similarly, land prices have increased manifold in the areas of Haryana project. Manyareas of Haryana esp. in the districts of Gurgaon, Bahdurgarh, Rohtak and Sonipat, whichare very close to national capital region (NCR) have seen rapid development in last decade.Land prices have gone sky high in these places due to which farmers have sold part or all oftheir land in these areas for good prices and have purchased land in district Sirsa. It hasincreased land prices 15 to 20 times in the project area. Farmers are now interested to sellpart of their land for other productive activities and personal consumption.
Land prices have also increased due to industrialization and other developmental activ-ities in Tamil Nadu project area. It was learnt during an interview with a project official thatTIST has to withdraw its activities from one of the project districts of Kanchipuram becauseof rapid industrialization and increased opportunity cost of the land.
Wage rates have also significantly increased because of National Rural EmploymentGuarantee Scheme (NREGS) and other developmental activities in the project areas over lastfive years. NREGS is a government scheme, which gives assured employment of 100 daysper year to one member of a family. Average wage rates vary from 120 to 190 INR/dayacross various project states (GOI, 2012). Hence the opportunity cost of labour for plantationand other activities under CDM projects have substantially gone up making them econom-ically unattractive.
Table 3 Opportunity cost of land and benefits to local people so far from the projects
S.No Title Opportunitycost of land(INR/ha/year)
Projecteda
carbon revenues/(INR/ha/year)
Benefits b up toMarch 2012(INR/ha/year)
Details
1 Small Scale CooperativeAfforestation CDMActivity in Sirsa, Haryana
20000 14601 nil
2 Reforestation in KhammamDistrict of Andhra Pradesh,India under ITC SocialForestry Project
4 The International Small Groupand Tree Planting Program(TIST), Tamil Nadu, India
9000 INA 2960 Advance carbonpayments
a These represent the non discounted revenues calculated from values from PCNs or PDDs. In case ofHimachal it has been taken from the project brochure available at project webb Benefits include any major benefit from the project in form of grass, timber, carbon revenue etc. In case ofTIST project benefits are calculated assuming an average of 2000 trees/ha
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change
Table 3 presents a snapshot of the prevalent situation. It gives the opportunity cost of theland across various projects. Opportunity cost of land has been taken as the average annualgrass value in Himachal Pradesh project and net annual value of agriculture produce in caseof Tamil Nadu project.
Many of the interviewed farmers from Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Tamil Nadu do notsee carbon forestry as an economically competitive activity in the current economic scenario.They are either opting out of the project as in case of Haryana and Tamil Nadu projects or do notwant to participate in it as in the case of Himachal project. An area of only 5 ha out of the targeted533 ha of private land could be planted in Himachal project up to year 2011 due to these reasons.
4.1.3 Delayed and low carbon benefits
A forestry CDM project earns first set of carbon credits only after verification by an independentdesignated agency in the fifth year. Verification is further delayed in many projects like Haryanaand Himachal projects, because of implementation delays and various other reasons. So, a projectcould take 7 to 8 years to generate revenues, but amount might not be very significant. Theprojected carbon revenue is INR 2481/ha/year or around INR 207/bigha/year in case of HimachalPradesh project (MHWDP, undated) (Table 3). In contrast to this if a farmer does not plant trees onhis land he could get grass at least worth INR 1000/bigha/year in Himachal Pradesh. He can alsoget fuel wood from the shrubs. So he is economically better placed without the project. Similarly,TIST pays INR1.48/tree/year to the farmers as an advance carbon payment, which is a meageramount (Jindal et al. 2007; TIST 2009). It has adversely affected livelihoods of the farmers.
4.1.4 Uncertainty over timber benefits
Distribution of carbon revenue from different type of lands is well specified in case of Himachalproject, but there are no details of the timber benefits. A senior officer from the project explainedthat timber would be shared as per the existing rules and regulations of the state such asparticipatory forest management rule of 2000. But this rule applies only to common and forestlands and not to the private lands. The lower staff has different understanding about timbersharing arrangement. Some believe that even timber from the private land will be shared withthe forest department. It has created confusion and misunderstanding among staff and people.
4.2 Ecological sustainability
It concerns with the issues related to management of ecosystems and their functions overlong term. Choice of species and plantation models, and wildlife issues are the predominantissues that affect ecological sustainability of the selected forestry CDM projects in India.
4.2.1 Selection of species
Fast growing species seem to be the choice in all the four selected projects (Table 4). This isstriking especially because most of these lands are marginal lands as per the project docu-ments. Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus hybrid) is one of the predominant species in three out of fourprojects. ITC has raised monocultures of Eucalyptus. It is one of the main species planted inthree other projects promoted by Haryana Forest Department and TIST. Casuarina (Casuarinaequisettifolia), another fast growing specie is one of the main species in the project promoted byTIST. Similarly, Ailanthus (Ailanthus excelsa), another fast growing and exotic specie has beenplanted in Haryana and Himachal projects.
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change
Although most of the projects initially planned for a mix of indigenous and exotic; and fastand slow growing species, but fast growing and exotic species have taken over duringimplementation because of the choice of proponents and in many cases farmers also. Farmershave different use and economic expectations from lands under different property regimes.They want to use private lands for regular economic returns over short term, common lands forgrazing and public forests for collection of fuel wood, fodder and timber. So, their preferencesfor species vary across different lands. They can plant fast growing species like Eucalyptus(Eucalyptus hybrid), Poplar (Populus deltoides) or improved species of fruit growing trees ontheir private lands for good economic returns. But they are not keen of planting these species ontheir common or public lands. In fact, they are in favor of no or very low density plantations offodder species on the common lands as these are generally used for open grazing. They favormultipurpose and long term species on the public forest lands.
Pine (Pinus roxburghii) is the most visible specie on the common lands and public forestlands in Renuka division of Himachal Pradesh project. Local people are unhappy about it asit does not have any fodder or timber value for them. Also, they fear that it will destroy theircommon grazing ground as Pine needles cover the ground and do not let the grass come up.The project officials argue that they have planted Pine to tackle grazing pressure on thecommon lands and public forests as cattle do not graze these saplings. Villagers want a verysparse plantation of 100–150 saplings/ha of local fodder species like Bihul (Grewia optiva),Kharik (Celtis australis) as against the project norm of 1100 saplings/ha on common landsso that they could get fodder from grass as well as from trees. They want to plant timberspecies like Deodar (Cedrus deodara) and Oak (Quercus leucotrichophora) on the publicforest lands for multipurpose use values and environmental protection.
Clearly, there is a difference in the perception of the local people and the project officialsabout the choice of species and use of common and public lands.
There is mixed response to Eucalyptus plantations on private lands in Haryana and ITCpromoted projects. Many of the interviewed farmers are satisfied with it as they feel it givesthem a assured return to them in a period of 4 to 5 years from the sale of timber. Farmers havebeen cultivating Eucalyptus clones on their lands for more than 20 years in ITC promotedproject. ITC purchases wood from the farmers after 4 years of cultivation. A farmer earns aroundINR 25000/ha/year. ITC supplies improved variety of saplings to the farmers at very low cost.So, farmers are not much worried about the carbon payments and consider it as a ‘bonus’.
Table 4 Choice of species and plantation models in selected CDM projects
S.No Title Type of land Main Species Plantationmodel
1 Small Scale Cooperative AfforestationCDM Activity in Sirsa, Haryana
But on the other hand, some farmers in both the projects feel that Eucalyptus is degradingtheir lands. This observation is also supported by a study of ITC project by Mate et al.(2011), which suggest that Eucalyptus is degrading farmers’ land in Khammam district andthey are unable to grow other crops on this land, while productivity of Eucalyptus has alsogone down (ibid). Similarly, Jindal et al. (2007) argue that emphasis on carbon value leads toselection of intensive plantation of fast growing species in TIST project.
It is clear from the above analysis that there is an emphasis on survival and growth rate in theselection of species in CDM projects rather than on multiple use, local ecology and biodiversityvalues. There is a difference in the perception of local communities and project proponents inuse of common and public lands, which have affected the choice of species on these lands.
The indiscriminate use of exotic and fast growing species could harm local ecology andlivelihoods in the long run. So, the CDM projects could prove socially and ecologicallydetrimental rather than useful in the long term.
4.2.2 Plantation model
Block plantations i.e. plantations of tree crops across the field at a specified spacing, havebeen undertaken in all four projects (Table 4). It restricts the land to single use and displacesexisting marginal agriculture or grazing. Farmers do not have any significant intermediateyield except in the case of fruit plantations, which are very less. It has affected farmers inmost of the projects as they have not got anything significant so far from their lands except inITC project. Farmers used to cultivate rainfed crops in Haryana on project lands. In thechanged conditions, they could earn a minimum of INR 10000/acre/year by just contractingit out for agriculture. Similarly, farmers in Solan division of Himachal Pradesh projectcomplain that they have lost grass worth INR 1000/bigha/annum because of plantation ontheir common grazing land. In case of TIST project, 24% of the land under project was undercultivation until recently (TIST 2009), which has been displaced by the project activities.
So, the choice of plantation model has displaced the regular marginal produce and incomefrom these lands, which have particularly affected small and medium farmers.
4.2.3 Plantation time
Plantation time is a major issue in Haryana and Himachal projects. Local people report thatsaplings have been planted well after the suitable period, which falls between June and Julyjust before the rains in these states. It has affected the survival rates of the plants. It wasreported that plantations have been undertaken in August and September in Haryana postrains, where as in Renuka division of Himachal project these were undertaken in the periodbetween December and February. Government officers hold delays in project approvals anddisbursement of funds responsible for unsuitable plantation time.
4.2.4 Weeds and pests
CDM norms encourage farmers to practice zero or low tilling on their lands to conserve thesoil carbon. This condition is being strictly followed in Haryana and Himachal projects,which has resulted in growth of weeds such as lantana (Lantana camera), bhui (Aervapersica), aak (Calotpropis procera) and thorny shrubs. It has become difficult for thefarmers to even enter in some of the private lands in Haryana. It has affected their socialstatus and has increased raids of crops by wild animals. These farmers complain that theirrelatives and friends think that they lack resources to clear the land and cultivate it, which is
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change
affecting their social status. Wild animals like blue bulls (Boselaphus tragocamelus) anddeer (Gazella gazella) have become a menace. They take shelter in bushes and raid crops innearby fields more frequently. So, neighbors are putting pressure on the CDM farmers toclear their lands from all the bushes and weeds.
Plantation of fast growing and exotic species mainly in form of block plantations will notonly affect local ecology but also livelihoods over long term. This is in line with the concerns inthe literature about the industrial plantations taking over carbon forestry projects for costeffectiveness, which could risk social and environmental benefits (Smith 2002; Smith andScherr 2003). The increase in weeds and wildlife especially in Haryana though has a positiveimpact on local biodiversity but it has adverse social and livelihood implications.
4.3 Social sustainability
It deals with issues related to society, its structures, systems, formal and informal processesthat affect the quality of life of present and future generations (WACOSS 2002). In thepresent context, it deals with issues of community institutions, rules and processes of CDMthat affect the social viability of forestry CDM projects.
4.3.1 Community institutions
Local institutions are important for natural resource management projects as thesemediate among different stakeholders stabilizing their expectations and actions (Barrettet al. 2005; Agrawal and Gibson 1999). These become critically important in CDMprojects, where project cycle is quite complex and less comprehensible to the laypeople (Minang et al. 2007). These institutions are important for awareness genera-tion, capacity building, and implementation of work and for negotiating the interestsof local people (Aggarwal 2008).
A cooperative society has been constituted with all the CDM farmers as its members inHaryana CDM project. It has an executive committee of 18 members selected from 8 projectvillages and an ex officio local range forest official as its secretary. It has mandate ofmediating with the project staff and is responsible for implementation of the project anddistribution of carbon revenues (HFD, undated). The executive meets only once in 2 to3 months. But there has been only one general body meeting so far in last 5 years involvingall farmers due to which they are not much clued about the project. Executive committeemembers have facilitated implementation of the project but feel have no role in decisionmaking and management of the project.
In case of Himachal Pradesh CDM project, Village Forest Development Societies(VFDS) are the community institutions expected to manage the common and public landsunder the project with the help of local Gram Panchayats. But these institutions were noteven constituted during the implementation of the project in Renuka division. These arebeing hurriedly constituted now after almost 6 years of the start of the project. So, projectimplementation has been a one sided affair.
In the ITC promoted project, groups of the farmers known as ‘sanghas’ have beenconstituted but much business happens at the individual level. But sanghas havecollected a common fund from various sources, which is used for developmentactivities in the villages. A non government organization (NGO) SHADE is helpingITC to raise awareness level of the farmers about the project.
Similarly, farmers are organized in to small groups of 6 to 10 farmers in TIST promotedproject who are expected to learn best practices in forestry, agriculture and other areas of
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change
common interest from each other. But discussions with farmer reveal that this exchange isquite limited and most of the information is passed on to them by TIST officials.
Though most of the projects have provision for involving local people through commu-nity level institutions, but they have had a very limited role in the decision making andmanagement of the project so far.
4.3.2 Participation in small scale projects
UNFCCC in its decision 9/CMP.3 defines a small scale A/R CDM project as a project thatreduces less than 16 kilotonnes of CO2 per year and is ‘developed or implemented by low-income communities and individuals as determined by the host Party’ (UNFCCC 2007: 26,emphasis added). These projects have simpler methodologies and monitoring requirementsto reduce the transaction costs.
But this is bit ironic that small scale A/R projects have been ostensibly designed to helpsmall and marginal farmers, who have little land to spare for such long term and costlyprojects. They make maximum use of every available inch of land to support their live-lihoods and there is hardly any ‘barren’ or ‘waste land’ for them (Jodha 2000). Two of theIndian projects i.e. Haryana and Tamil Nadu projects have been registered as small scaleprojects based on the above criteria. 92% of the participating households are below inter-national extreme poverty line of US$ 1.00 per day in Haryana project (HFD 2008).Similarly, most of the TIST farmers earn less than US$ 1.00 per day (TIST 2009).
The small and marginal farmers are finding it hard to continue with these projects becauseof loss of livelihoods and other opportunities. Farmers have not gained any monetary orlivelihood benefits from the project in last 5 years in case of Haryana project and very littlesupport in terms of advance carbon payments in Tamil Nadu project. As mentioned earlier,TIST pays a meager amount of INR 1.48/tree/year to the farmers, which equals only around8 days of minimum wage employment if a farmer works hard to raise 500 plants throughoutthe year. This is hardly any incentive for farmers to grow and maintain plants especially whenthere are large wage labour schemes such as National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme(NREGS) and other opportunities available in the region. Hence, many of the farmers arewithdrawing from the projects in both the areas.
4.3.3 Legal contract
Andhra Pradesh, Himachal and Tamil Nadu project require farmers to enter into a legal contract,which binds them not to divert or sell their land during the project period. Farmers are wary ofthis condition as it restricts their options to a single land use for long term. Farmers have notsigned a legal agreement in Haryana project but they have given a written commitment. Someof them have already left the project defying the contract but they are still afraid of governmentaction. Many of them regret committing themselves for such a long and uncertain project.
According to one forest officer, who has been associated with the project in Haryana since itsinception, says that very few participants could remain committed over such a long period.
4.3.4 Rigid CDM land rules
Once a project area is demarcated and submitted to UNFCCC, there is no provision forsubstituting even part of the area under a CDM project. Field staff of Himachal, Haryana andTamil Nadu projects argue that there should be provision for substituting the land, if plantationon the proposed land does not work out. They argue that in a long term project, farmers might
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change
like to withdraw from the project because of the changed conditions. Even in case of commonlands, condition of the group might change over a period. If they could substitute land, it willhelp in meeting the project requirements and will also put pressure on the disagreeing farmers.
4.3.5 Lack of awareness among the field staff
Field staff which interact with farmers and implement the project has very low awareness aboutthe rules and regulations of the project especially in Haryana and Himachal projects. It waslearnt during discussions with the field staff in Himachal project that the terms and conditionswere passed on to them very late. Field staff is still not clear onmany of these aspects, which hascreated problems in the project. Some of the farmers backed out of the project in Himachalwhen they became clear about investment requirements for private lands at a later stage. Fieldstaff of Sapatu unit in Solan division of Himachal project rue that a project should not beimplemented till all the conditions are clear to the ground staff. Similarly, field staff in Haryanaproject complains lack of awareness over various issues especially about the carbon paymentsin the project. They feel that it affects their relationship with local people.
While the issues and impacts of forestry CDM projects are yet to be fully understood inthe country, Government of India has embarked upon other ambitious carbon forestryprogrammes such as National Mission for a Green India (Green India Mission or GIM)and Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+). Though the struc-ture and process of implementation of these programmes is different from CDM but issues atthe ground level could be quite same. Experiences from the CDM projects could provideimportant feedback to these programmes.
5 Implications for other carbon forestry schemes in India
India has adopted a comprehensive National Action Plan for Climate Change (NAPCC) toaddress issues related to climate change. NAPCC aims to bring ‘directional shift in thedevelopment pathway’ of the country by incorporating climate change concerns into country’sgrowth agenda (GOI, undated; pp2). It wants to attain a sustainable development path thatadvances both economic and environmental objectives simultaneously (ibid). NAPCCwants topursue this agenda through eight missions, which covers a range of sectors and issues importantfor the country. Green India Mission, addresses forestry sector issues in this plan (ibid).
GIM aims to treat an additional forest and non forest area of 10 Mha over a period of next10 years spread over two national plans starting from 12th five year plan in 2012. It aims toincrease forest and tree cover over 5 Mha of area and improve the quality of cover overanother 5 M ha. It aims to undertake ‘holistic view of “greening”’ by focusing on ecosystemrestoration and biodiversity conservation rather than merely focusing on plantations (MoEF2010: pp G, emphasis in original). It plans to target a range of ecosystems viz. grasslands,forests, wetlands and non cultivable lands under a range of property ownerships includingpublic, common and private. The estimated budget of GIM for a period of 10 years is INR460 billion, which is a significant amount (MoEF 2010).
Though GIM has been packaged as ‘different’ to usual plantation schemes but from animplementation perspective, it is essentially an afforestation and ecosystem restorationprogramme. Despite all the proposed changes in the approach and institutional structure,the core implementation mechanism remains the same. State forest departments retain thecontrol of implementation. India has been afforesting an average of 1.5 M ha of area since1990s (MoEF 2000), but results are far from satisfactory. If GIM does not have any
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change
significant value addition, it will be futile to duplicate existing efforts and waste publicresources. Hence, rationale and significance of GIM needs to be objectively re-examined.
Similarly, the logic and relevance of REDD+needs to be clearly understood. India hasstabilized its forest cover over last two decades although there are issues related to quality offorests (Aggarwal et al. 2009). Does it need to implement international mechanisms likeREDD+to access international finance to manage its forest cover? India is even expectingfunds from the international community under REDD+to finance part of GIM (Sharma2010). It will have to adopt international approach, which recognizes both ‘markets’ and nonmarket’ sources, for financing REDD+, to be able to gain the financial support frominternational community (UNFCCC 2011). If markets become a financing mechanism inGIM, then it could involve all the risks related to A/R CDM projects mentioned above.
There are considerable apprehensions in the civil society about forest management beingfinanced through markets in form of carbon forestry programmes (Aggarwal 2011). They areconcerned that carbon forestry programmes will adversely affect the rights and livelihoodsof people (ibid). This analysis justifies some of their concerns. More empirical studies needto be carried out to understand the impacts of CDM projects and risks involved with othercarbon forestry schemes.
6 Conclusions
There are many social, institutional, economic and ecological issues that plague A/R CDMprojects in India. These projects are complex, inflexible and time consuming by design,which is frustrating for the stakeholders. Awareness about the CDM is very low in localpeople and field staff of the four surveyed projects, hence they cannot effectively participatein it. All the four projects have provisions for involving people in the implementation anddecision making through community institutions but their involvement has been quitelimited and sometimes even absent. In case of Renuka division of Himachal PradeshCDM project, community institutions have been created after the implementation of theproject.
There are issues related to long project duration, high project costs, and uncertain and lowcarbon revenues that affect the economic sustainability of these projects. Opportunity cost ofland and labour is much higher than the projected carbon revenues and other benefits in threeout of four visited projects making these economically unviable for local people.
All the four selected projects have preferred Eucalyptus and other fast growing speciesfor plantations. This is due to potential quick returns in terms of wood and carbon and tomitigate grazing pressure in some cases. All the projects have undertaken block plantationsthus restricting it to single use. It has particularly affected the livelihoods of small andmarginal farmers, who have limited land to fulfill their multiple requirements. Local peopleare concerned about weed infestations in their lands in case of Haryana and Himachal CDMprojects. CDM plantations have provided shelters to the wild animals which raid crops inHaryana project. It has created a social pressure on the CDM farmers to clear their lands.Hence, most of the projects face ecological challenges.
This research raises some critical questions for the large scale carbon forestry pro-grammes such as Green India Mission and REDD+ underway in the country. Some of thesequestions include- what is the rationale and significance of these programmes given thatsimilar schemes with significant public investment are already being implemented? Howwill these programmes affect forest governance in the country? Do the nature and design ofthese programmes promote monocultures of fast growing species? What will be its impact
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change
on biodiversity in and outside the forest areas? And finally, how carbon forestry programmeswill affect the rights and livelihoods of forest dependant people in the country? Furtherresearch is required to understand these issues better.
Acknowledgments I acknowledge guidance of Prof. Dan Brockington and Prof. Phil Woodhouse from theUniversity of Manchester for this research. My sincere thanks to Dr. P. P Bhojvaid, Mr. V.S. Tanwar and Mr.Baru Ram from Haryana Forest Department for their whole hearted support and guidance. I thank Dr. H.DKulkarni from ITC ltd., Mr. Arvind Kumar from Mid Himalayan Watershed Development Project (MHWDP)and Mr. Ashutosh Samant Singar from Tamil Nadu Forest Department for enabling my field work in the statesof Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Tamil Nadu respectively.
References
Adger WN, Huq S, Brown K, Conway D, Hulme M (2003) Adaptation to climate change in the developingworld. Prog Dev Stud 3(3):179–195
Aggarwal A (2008) Indigenous institutions for natural resource management: potential and threats. Econ PolitWkly XLIII(23):21–24
Aggarwal A (2011) Implementation of forest rights act, changing forest landscape, and “politics of REDD+”in India. Resour Energ Dev 8(2):131–148
Aggarwal A, Paul V, Das S (2009) Forest resources: livelihoods, degradation, and climate change in GreenIndia 2047 renewed: looking back to change track. The Energy and Resources Institute, New Delhi, pp91–108
Agrawal A, Gibson C (1999) Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resourceconservation. World Dev 27(4):629–649
Barrett BC, Lee RD, McPeak GJ (2005) Institutional arrangements for rural poverty reduction and resourceconservation. World Dev 33(2):193–197
Beg N, Morlot CJ, Davidson O, Afrane-Okesse Y et al (2002) Linkages between climate change andsustainable development. Climate Policy 2(2):129–144
Boyd E, Hultman N, Roberts TJ, Corbera E et al (2009) Reforming the CDM for sustainable development:lessons learned and policy futures. Environ Sci Pol 12:820–831
Brown K, Corbera E (2003) Exploring equity and sustainable development in the new carbon economy.Climate Policy 3(S1):S41–S56
Brown K, Adger WN, Boyd E, Corbera-Elizalde E, Shackley S (2004) How do CDM projects contribute tosustainable development?, Technical Report 16, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, UK
Bumpus GA, Cole CJ (2010) How can the current CDM deliver sustainable development? Climate Change 1(4):541–547
CDM India, undated. Sustainable Development Indicators: http://www.cdmindia.gov.in/approval_process.phpaccessed 15/4/12
CDM rule book, undated. Forestry projects: http://cdmrulebook.org/1625 accessed 20/5/12Corbera E, Brown K (2010) Offsetting benefits? Analysing access to forest carbon. Environ Plann 42
(7):1739–1761DoFE (2006) Project Idea Note (PIN), Facilitating Afforestation in HP Mid-Himalayan Region: A Bio Carbon
Sub-Project, Department of Forests and Environment, Government of Himachal Pradesh, 12Dutschke M, Michaelowa A (2003) Development Aid and the CDM - How to interpret “financial addition-
carbon_offsetting_report_2010/default.aspx accessed 23/3/11Flues F, Michaelowa A, Michaelowa K (2008) UN approval of greenhouse gas emission reduction projects in
developing countries: The political economy of the CDM Executive Board, CIS working paper 35, Centerfor Comparative and International Studies, ETH Zurich and University of Zurich
GOI, undated. National Action Plan on Climate Change, Prime Minster’s Council on Climate Change,Government of India: http://pmindia.nic.in/Pg01-52.pdf accessed on 10/3/10
GOI, 2012. The Gazette of India: Ministry of Rural Development Notification, 23rd March 2012, Governmentof India: http://nrega.nic.in/circular/revised_wage_rate_from_01042012.pdf accessed 15/7/12
Halsnæs K, Markandya A (2002) Climate change and sustainable development: prospects for developingcountries. Earthscan, London
HFD (2008) Small Scale Cooperative Afforestation CDM Pilot Project Activity on Private Lands Affected byShifting Sand Dunes in Sirsa, Haryana, Project Design Document: http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/DB/TUEV-SUED1229620290.53/view accessed 5/1/11
HFD, undated. Project Concept Note (PCN) for Small scale cooperative afforestation CDM pilot projectactivity on private lands affected by shifting sand dunes in Sirsa, Haryana, Haryana Forest Department, 23
IPCC (2001a) Climate Change 2001. Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability, Summary for Policy Makers: AReport of the Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/climate-changes-2001/synthesis-syr/english/wg2-summary-policymakers.pdf accessed 15/3/11
IPCC (2001b) IPCC third assessment report, synthesis report. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeJindal R, Kerr J, Nagar S (2007) Voluntary carbon trading: potential for community forestry projects in India.
Asia Pac Dev J 14(2):107–126Jodha NS (2000) Wastelands management in India: myths, motives and mechanisms. Econ Polit Wkly 35
(6):466–473Kerr J, Foley C, Chung KC, Jindal R (2006) Reconciling environment and development in the clean
development mechanism. J Sustain Forest 23(1):1–18Mate N, Sahu KS, Yasmin H (2011) Forestry CDM case study: ITC social forestry project in Khammam,
Andhra Pradesh, Mausam 3(1):25–31MHWDP, undated. India. Himachal Pradesh Reforestation Project, Improving livelihoods and watersheds, A
Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Biocarbon project: http://www.hpmidhimalayan.org/Bio%20Carbon_Broucher.pdf accessed 29/8/11
Michaelowa A (2002) The AIJ pilot phase as laboratory for CDM and JI. Int J Global Environ Issues 2(3–4):260–287
Michaelowa A (2003) CDM host country institution building. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for GlobalChange 8(3):201–220
Michaelowa A, Michaelowa K (2007) Does climate policy promote development? Clim Chang 84(1):1–4Michaelowa A, Purohit P (2007) Additionality determination of Indian CDM projects: Can Indian CDM
Minang AP, McCall KM, Bressers ATH (2007) Community capacity for implementing clean developmentmechanism projects within community forests in cameroon. Environ Manag 39(5):615–630
MOEF (2000) National forestry action programme – India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Governmentof India, New Delhi, pp 177
MOEF (2010) National mission for a green India (Under The National Action Plan On Climate Change), Draftsubmitted to Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change: http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/GIM-Report-PMCCC.pdf accessed 15/6/11
MoEF (2011) Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education Recognized By UN as India’s FirstCertification Entity For Clean Development Mechanism Projects: http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/Press%20Brief%20-%20ICFRE%20DOE%20Status.pdf accessed 14/9/12
Munasinghe M, Swart R (eds) (2000) Climate change and its linkages with development, equity andsustainability. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Geneva
Olsen HK (2007) The clean development mechanism’s contribution to sustainable development: a review ofliterature. Climatic Change 84:59–73
Schneider L (2007) Is the CDM fulfilling its environmental and sustainable development objectives? Anevaluation of the CDM and options for improvement, Institute for Applied Ecology, Berlin, pp 75
Sharma V (2010) Statement by Vijai Sharma, Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Environmentand Forests Oslo Climate and Forest Conference, 27th May 2010: http://www.moef.nic.in/downloads/publicinformation/OSLO_Conference.pdf, last accessed on 15/2/2011
Smith J (2002) Afforestation and reforestation in the clean development mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol:implications for forests and forest people. Int J Global Environ Issues 2(3–4):322–343
Smith J, Scherr JS (2003) Capturing the value of Forest carbon for local livelihoods. World Dev 31(12):2143–2160
Subak S (2000) Forest protection and reforestation in Costa Rica: evaluation of a clean developmentmechanism prototype. Environ Manag 26(3):283–297
Subbarao S, Lloyd B (2011) Can the clean development mechanism (CDM) deliver? Energ Pol 39:1600–1611Sutter C, Parreno CJ (2007) Does the current Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) deliver its sustainable
development claim? An analysis of officially registered CDM projects. Climatic Change 84:75–90Thomas S, Dargusch P, Harrison S, Herbohn J (2010) Why are there so few afforestation and reforestation
Clean Development Mechanism projects? Land Use pol 27(3):880–887TIST (2009) The International Small Group and Tree Planting Program (TIST), Tamil Nadu, India, Project
UN (1998) Kyoto protocol to the United Nations framework convention on climate change: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf accessed12/9/11
UNDP (2007) Human development report 2007/2008, fighting climate change: human solidarity in a dividedworld. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, p 384
UNFCCC (2002) Report of The Conference of the Parties on its Seventh Session, Held at Marrakesh from 29October to 10 November 2001: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop7/13a02.pdf accessed 8/5/12
UNFCCC (2007) Implications of possible changes to the limit for small-scale afforestation and reforestationclean development mechanism project activities: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2007/cmp3/eng/09a01.pdf accessed 18/5/12
UNFCCC (2011) Report of the Conference of the Parties on its seventeenth session, held in Durban from 28November to 11 December 2011:http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/cop17/eng/09a01.pdf#page04accessed 8/5/12
UNFCCC (2012) CDM in Numbers: http://cdm.unfccc.int/Statistics/index.html accessed 17/5/12WACOSS (2002) cited in Partridge E. 2005. Social sustainability’: a useful theoretical framework? Paper
presented at the Australasian Political Science Association Annual Conference 2005, Dunedin, NewZealand, 28–30 September 2005: http://auspsa.anu.edu.au/proceedings/publications/Partridgepaper.pdfaccessed 15/5/12
World Bank (2003) World Development Report 2003. Sustainable development in a dynamic world. Trans-forming institutions, growth, and quality of life, Washington.
World Bank (2008) Development and Climate Change : A Strategic Framework for the World Bank Group,The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, Washington, pp 88
World Bank (2011) BioCarbon Fund Experience Insights from Afforestation and Reforestation Clean Devel-opment Mechanism Projects: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCARBONFINANCE/Resources/57853-A_BioCarbon_LOW-RES.pdf accessed 12/4/12
Zhang J, Wang C (2011) Co-benefits and additionality of the clean development mechanism: an empiricalanalysis. J Environ Econ Manag 62:140–154
