I agree with your article and its assessment of that project. That is one project that did not follow the right procedures and did not go through the challenging steps of getting the government and the people to agree to the project. Carbon Credits as a plan/idea started in PNG with Sir Michael Somare going to the UN basically stating that the islands needed to be compensated if they preserve their forests.
Mark Twain said if you find yourself in a hole stop digging. The "civilized" western world has chosen to use all their natural resources for profit and gain. There are 36m ha of humid tropical forest in PNG and if all of that area was logged for profit (disregarding the exploitive nature of the logging industry in PNG as another reason to stop the logging), there would be approximately 155m tons of carbon from that logging introduced into the atmosphere. 97% of the land in PNG is owned by the people.
The people of PNG own one asset and that is the land that they own and what grows there. The mineral rights are all owned by the government, the Lihir Liquid natural gas project produces over $1b a month of LNG and yet the average individual in PNG has not seen their life improved at anywhere near the level that you would anticipate. The people that own the land where the pipeline runs (about 716km) share in a .25% royalty (not a guaranteed lease payment) and not sure why that is the case. In the US the minimum payment for a pipeline is about $2 a foot and an easement would be 5 feet wide (usually higher if you negotiate for an easement). The landowners if they lived in the US would have received up front $23,490,000 or k77,519,685. Most are stuck in land disputes and royalties are always a subjective process.
Those that don't have a pipeline going through their property either grow crops (mostly subsistence farming) or choose to sell their rights and allow a company to log. The typical logging deal in those undeveloped and underserved areas of PNG, which is most of the rural area, is that the chief agrees with the local logging company to sell the timber on his property. The chief will receive between k20,000 and k50,000 with the promise of more money later (maybe a little more is paid -usually not). The logging company comes in (almost all of the loggers are not local workers they are international workers and as required by the law all speak English - not really, most don't speak any English or Tok Pisin, so new employment is created) and once they log 11 trees, at an average of 3 cubic meters per log and they have earned back what they paid the chief! t(hat is based on the minimum number of $500 cubic meter roundwood price -see the ITTO for the pricing). Some of these trees sell for $1500 or more a cubic meter. The loggers selectively clear cut for the best species, cut where they choose as there aren't currently any cadastral maps in these areas to show the boundaries of the clan's land. After logging for 6 months to a year and removing over $3-5million dollars' worth of trees they move on. The local logging company sells to the major international logging companies so they can say they weren't exploitive, yet most of the loggers are from the countries of the major loggers.
What options do the clans have?
Those who rail against carbon credits don't realize that this is an alternative income source which doesn't destroy the environment, (stops the digging as M T said) in the fight against climate change, so these trees stay in place and the sale of the credits provides real income for the people. Most of the civilized world has gotten wealthy by exploiting the environment (not on purpose necessarily) however, that is where the world is. Carbon Credits provide a stop gap measure so that the forests that are still here aren't destroyed and provide an alternative income for those who are economically challenged. Redd + is needed and is a great boon to stopping illegal deforestation. Even if the logging revenue was fairly distributed and royalties paid, do we want to add 150m tons of more carbon to the atmosphere from the sequestered carbon(not to mention those trees are no longer recycling carbon from the air any longer). If we don't what is a better way than a measured, audited carbon offset program? More scrutiny great, more regulations great, however, this is the best process to keep the remaining trees in place until such time as millions more are planted and someone invents a way to clean the carbon and other pollutants out of the air as well as a tree.
I agree with your article and its assessment of that project. That is one project that did not follow the right procedures and did not go through the challenging steps of getting the government and the people to agree to the project. Carbon Credits as a plan/idea started in PNG with Sir Michael Somare going to the UN basically stating that the islands needed to be compensated if they preserve their forests.
Mark Twain said if you find yourself in a hole stop digging. The "civilized" western world has chosen to use all their natural resources for profit and gain. There are 36m ha of humid tropical forest in PNG and if all of that area was logged for profit (disregarding the exploitive nature of the logging industry in PNG as another reason to stop the logging), there would be approximately 155m tons of carbon from that logging introduced into the atmosphere. 97% of the land in PNG is owned by the people.
The people of PNG own one asset and that is the land that they own and what grows there. The mineral rights are all owned by the government, the Lihir Liquid natural gas project produces over $1b a month of LNG and yet the average individual in PNG has not seen their life improved at anywhere near the level that you would anticipate. The people that own the land where the pipeline runs (about 716km) share in a .25% royalty (not a guaranteed lease payment) and not sure why that is the case. In the US the minimum payment for a pipeline is about $2 a foot and an easement would be 5 feet wide (usually higher if you negotiate for an easement). The landowners if they lived in the US would have received up front $23,490,000 or k77,519,685. Most are stuck in land disputes and royalties are always a subjective process.
Those that don't have a pipeline going through their property either grow crops (mostly subsistence farming) or choose to sell their rights and allow a company to log. The typical logging deal in those undeveloped and underserved areas of PNG, which is most of the rural area, is that the chief agrees with the local logging company to sell the timber on his property. The chief will receive between k20,000 and k50,000 with the promise of more money later (maybe a little more is paid -usually not). The logging company comes in (almost all of the loggers are not local workers they are international workers and as required by the law all speak English - not really, most don't speak any English or Tok Pisin, so new employment is created) and once they log 11 trees, at an average of 3 cubic meters per log and they have earned back what they paid the chief! t(hat is based on the minimum number of $500 cubic meter roundwood price -see the ITTO for the pricing). Some of these trees sell for $1500 or more a cubic meter. The loggers selectively clear cut for the best species, cut where they choose as there aren't currently any cadastral maps in these areas to show the boundaries of the clan's land. After logging for 6 months to a year and removing over $3-5million dollars' worth of trees they move on. The local logging company sells to the major international logging companies so they can say they weren't exploitive, yet most of the loggers are from the countries of the major loggers.
What options do the clans have?
Those who rail against carbon credits don't realize that this is an alternative income source which doesn't destroy the environment, (stops the digging as M T said) in the fight against climate change, so these trees stay in place and the sale of the credits provides real income for the people. Most of the civilized world has gotten wealthy by exploiting the environment (not on purpose necessarily) however, that is where the world is. Carbon Credits provide a stop gap measure so that the forests that are still here aren't destroyed and provide an alternative income for those who are economically challenged. Redd + is needed and is a great boon to stopping illegal deforestation. Even if the logging revenue was fairly distributed and royalties paid, do we want to add 150m tons of more carbon to the atmosphere from the sequestered carbon(not to mention those trees are no longer recycling carbon from the air any longer). If we don't what is a better way than a measured, audited carbon offset program? More scrutiny great, more regulations great, however, this is the best process to keep the remaining trees in place until such time as millions more are planted and someone invents a way to clean the carbon and other pollutants out of the air as well as a tree.