Thank you for your briefs on some carbon credits projects in Kenya. However, I would like to comment that, the stories are somehow not balanced and do not paint a fair picture of land/natural resources based carbon credit projects. Let me comment based on my Tanzania experience, and more specifically grassland carbon projects. To start with, carbon credits rights, the Tanzania case, are owned by land owners, not proponents. Proponents and Managing Authorities (Land owners) enter into partnership to generate carbon credits. There is zero change of land ownership. Credits generated are owned by Managing Authorities. This is well articulated in Tanzania Carbon Credit Projects Regulations of 2022 and its amendments of 2023. The Tanzania National Carbon Monitoring Centre (NCMC) with the support of district councils, are on top of managing and overseeing all carbon credits projects in the country. NCMC is a government, take note. Further, the argument that land owners have no control of their land uses is flawed. To implement a carbon credit project in a pastoralist setting, does not require a proponent to own the land; this is the case in soil carbon project implemented in Northern Tanzania by Soils for the Future Tanzania Ltd. It is the case in other projects like one in Manyara and many other part of the country who proponent is Carbon Tanzania. Land ownership remains with villagers/pastoralists and land use decisions are also retained by pastoralists through village grazing committee for the case of projects in pastoralist setting. The role of the proponents in regard to land use decision is purely technical; guiding and facilitating development of rotational grazing plans (RRGP), a process conducted at the village level with the involvement of villagers and the plan has to be approved by the village council. Villagers through the village grazing committee (not created by a carbon proponents, but pre-existing) execute livestock rotational grazing. Further, rotational grazing is nothing new with maasai pastoralists - ronjo, ololili, olokeri etc are common vocabularies among maasai pastoralists denoting rotational grazing.
Benefits sharing is also in favour of land owners or Managing Authorities - villagers in the context of Tanzania. Carbon credit regulations are very prescriptive and crystal clear on carbon credit revenue sharing arrangements where the managing authority takes a lion share, over 50% of the revenue.
Purchasing carbon credits is a cost and an additional cost to any buyer. Claims that "polluters" are not making efforts to decarbonize is a common sense mockery. We all know how many solar and electric driven equipment (vehicles, freezers, lighting etc) are in the market and in use, produced as an attempt to address Climate Change and decarbonize. Who produces them and why? It only takes common sense, ethical practice and professional integrity to appreciate several initiatives to address climate change/global warming. These efforts demand, require and take serious and deep scientific knowledge.
Investors (carbon credit buyers) are making business and generating profits, yes, BUT they are offering services to the entire global. The technology in use is what is available today, but it has challenges associated with it, causing global warming, climate change. Investors are working around the clock to fund innovations, I emphasize to fund, innovative technologies to address global warming-cum-climate change are expressing a concern on global warming and acting to resolve it. It is experts (scientists and carbon credit project proponents) who are acting on the innovation.
The questions I would wish to finally pose is: are the carbon credits projects critics denying climate change? If the answer is yes, what should be an ameliorative measure?
Carbon credit projects have challenges and weaknesses just like many other human created solutions/interventions, lets deal with them with a spirit of solving a problem rather than dismissing a solution because it is not 100% effective or denying a problem i.e. burying heads in the sand to wish away a problem.
Thank you for your briefs on some carbon credits projects in Kenya. However, I would like to comment that, the stories are somehow not balanced and do not paint a fair picture of land/natural resources based carbon credit projects. Let me comment based on my Tanzania experience, and more specifically grassland carbon projects. To start with, carbon credits rights, the Tanzania case, are owned by land owners, not proponents. Proponents and Managing Authorities (Land owners) enter into partnership to generate carbon credits. There is zero change of land ownership. Credits generated are owned by Managing Authorities. This is well articulated in Tanzania Carbon Credit Projects Regulations of 2022 and its amendments of 2023. The Tanzania National Carbon Monitoring Centre (NCMC) with the support of district councils, are on top of managing and overseeing all carbon credits projects in the country. NCMC is a government, take note. Further, the argument that land owners have no control of their land uses is flawed. To implement a carbon credit project in a pastoralist setting, does not require a proponent to own the land; this is the case in soil carbon project implemented in Northern Tanzania by Soils for the Future Tanzania Ltd. It is the case in other projects like one in Manyara and many other part of the country who proponent is Carbon Tanzania. Land ownership remains with villagers/pastoralists and land use decisions are also retained by pastoralists through village grazing committee for the case of projects in pastoralist setting. The role of the proponents in regard to land use decision is purely technical; guiding and facilitating development of rotational grazing plans (RRGP), a process conducted at the village level with the involvement of villagers and the plan has to be approved by the village council. Villagers through the village grazing committee (not created by a carbon proponents, but pre-existing) execute livestock rotational grazing. Further, rotational grazing is nothing new with maasai pastoralists - ronjo, ololili, olokeri etc are common vocabularies among maasai pastoralists denoting rotational grazing.
Benefits sharing is also in favour of land owners or Managing Authorities - villagers in the context of Tanzania. Carbon credit regulations are very prescriptive and crystal clear on carbon credit revenue sharing arrangements where the managing authority takes a lion share, over 50% of the revenue.
Purchasing carbon credits is a cost and an additional cost to any buyer. Claims that "polluters" are not making efforts to decarbonize is a common sense mockery. We all know how many solar and electric driven equipment (vehicles, freezers, lighting etc) are in the market and in use, produced as an attempt to address Climate Change and decarbonize. Who produces them and why? It only takes common sense, ethical practice and professional integrity to appreciate several initiatives to address climate change/global warming. These efforts demand, require and take serious and deep scientific knowledge.
Investors (carbon credit buyers) are making business and generating profits, yes, BUT they are offering services to the entire global. The technology in use is what is available today, but it has challenges associated with it, causing global warming, climate change. Investors are working around the clock to fund innovations, I emphasize to fund, innovative technologies to address global warming-cum-climate change are expressing a concern on global warming and acting to resolve it. It is experts (scientists and carbon credit project proponents) who are acting on the innovation.
The questions I would wish to finally pose is: are the carbon credits projects critics denying climate change? If the answer is yes, what should be an ameliorative measure?
Carbon credit projects have challenges and weaknesses just like many other human created solutions/interventions, lets deal with them with a spirit of solving a problem rather than dismissing a solution because it is not 100% effective or denying a problem i.e. burying heads in the sand to wish away a problem.