Global trade in air: is Uganda struggling for elusive wealth?
Dec 09, 2009
WITH rich countries have been emitting enormous amounts of dirty gases that are responsible for global warming, people in poor countries are facing the burden of cleaning up the mess by planting trees. <b>Gerald Tenywa</b> talked to academicians, environm
WITH rich countries have been emitting enormous amounts of dirty gases that are responsible for global warming, people in poor countries are facing the burden of cleaning up the mess by planting trees. Gerald Tenywa talked to academicians, environmental activists and Government officials about the trade in emissions and now writes:
It seems Omuhereza Muzirane, 65, the LC3 chairman of Kyangwali sub-county, Hoima district, was willing to provide a solution to a problem he did not create. But two weeks ago, he was still stuck with his idea of earning money from planting trees.
“I heard about the possibility of earning money from tree growing, but it is not easy. Buyers hold onto the trees, making it difficult to use the land for something else,†Muzirane says.
He is reluctant to engage in tree planting to earn money from carbon emissions because the conditions are too restrictive.
“We are aware of the difficulties,†says Pauline Nantongo Kalunda, the director of Eco-trust, the organisation that has been fronting the scheme in western Uganda.
“That is why we encourage farmers intending to plant trees to set aside land for crop growing and to look at the proceeds from trees as an incentive.â€
She says trade in emissions is bureaucratic since it is trade in air. “This is a service being bought. It is different from trade in commodities,†says Nantongo.
“The owners of the trees have to enter into an agreement not to cut down the trees for a specified period of time.â€
Is the scheme part of what is described by some environmentalists as the ‘green imperialism?’
“It is a voluntary scheme and buyers are not obliged by global protocols to invest in it,†says Nantongo.
How it started
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) defines “polluters†and also obliges them to cut down on emissions. This is contained in the landmark agreement that was steered under the auspices of UNFCCC and concluded in Kyoto, Japan in 1997.
It obliges countries to reduce emissions by 5% of the 1990 levels. The world is currently meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark, to forge a replacement to the Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2012.
But deeper reductions are needed to keep the temperatures from rising above 20C, which the Inter-Government Panel on Climate Change refers to as the threshold.
Developed countries are blamed for releasing large amounts of waste gases, particularly carbon dioxide, from industrial processes into the atmosphere. To a lesser extent, less developed countries are responsible because their growing populations cut down trees for firewood and charcoal.
Carbon dioxide is the main green house emission contributing to global warming. The gas is usually emitted by burning fossil fuels like oil, petrol and coal. Greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide and methane trap heat and cause temperatures in the atmosphere to rise, causing changes in weather patterns.
Dealing with the emissions has become a major political issue over the last two decades.
Environment minister Jessica Eriyo, says less developed countries, which have contributed least to climate change, will suffer most from its negative consequences.
Eriyo, who has attended many climate change meetings, says rich countries have been shifting “goal posts.â€
“When we set targets, they come up with different issues without addressing earlier commitments,†she says.
A juicy carrot?
According to Prof. Fredrick Kayanja, a fiery academician, trade in carbon emissions is dangling a juicy carrot.
He says the trade is not meant to create development in the south, where people are caught in poverty and are cutting down trees to survive.
“It is strange that people who are keeping a granary (carbon sinks) are going hungry,†says Kayanja.
Godber Tumushabe, the director of Advocates for Development and Environment, says it is untenable to reduce emissions in developed countries because this would lead to unemployment and their economy would suffer,†says Tumushabe.
They find it cheaper to reduce emissions by creating carbon sinks in the south. It is the developed north that benefits. “They set the price and people in the south jump onto the bandwagon because they are desperate for the money. The money for buying carbon should come as a reward, not as a payment,†he says.
Achilles Byaruhanga, the director of Nature Uganda, says the idea of carbon trade is good to ensure that many people participate in creating adaptation to climate change. However, the ground is not level.
The prices set for adaptation technologies, Byaruhanga says, are too low. He says $6 (sh11,000) for a tonne of carbon in less developed is peanuts compared to $25 (sh46,000) in the developed countries.
“We lose a lot by putting land under tree cover. We have places that are highly populated and if they are going to turn to tree planting, there is going to be food shortage,†he warns.
As Muzirane ponders his next move, environmental activists believe that hidden in the emissions is political and economic power that is sweeping through his tiny Kyangwali village.
As I left Kyangwali for Kampala, I saw Muzirane lost in thought. He reminded me of a popular saying: “Whoever pays the piper determines the tune of the song.â€
Will he resist the winds of change or stand up and get his tiny slice of the cake in the name of carbon trade?
It seems Omuhereza Muzirane, 65, the LC3 chairman of Kyangwali sub-county, Hoima district, was willing to provide a solution to a problem he did not create. But two weeks ago, he was still stuck with his idea of earning money from planting trees.
“I heard about the possibility of earning money from tree growing, but it is not easy. Buyers hold onto the trees, making it difficult to use the land for something else,†Muzirane says.
He is reluctant to engage in tree planting to earn money from carbon emissions because the conditions are too restrictive.
“We are aware of the difficulties,†says Pauline Nantongo Kalunda, the director of Eco-trust, the organisation that has been fronting the scheme in western Uganda.
“That is why we encourage farmers intending to plant trees to set aside land for crop growing and to look at the proceeds from trees as an incentive.â€
She says trade in emissions is bureaucratic since it is trade in air. “This is a service being bought. It is different from trade in commodities,†says Nantongo.
“The owners of the trees have to enter into an agreement not to cut down the trees for a specified period of time.â€
Is the scheme part of what is described by some environmentalists as the ‘green imperialism?’
“It is a voluntary scheme and buyers are not obliged by global protocols to invest in it,†says Nantongo.
How it started
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) defines “polluters†and also obliges them to cut down on emissions. This is contained in the landmark agreement that was steered under the auspices of UNFCCC and concluded in Kyoto, Japan in 1997.
It obliges countries to reduce emissions by 5% of the 1990 levels. The world is currently meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark, to forge a replacement to the Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2012.
But deeper reductions are needed to keep the temperatures from rising above 20C, which the Inter-Government Panel on Climate Change refers to as the threshold.
Developed countries are blamed for releasing large amounts of waste gases, particularly carbon dioxide, from industrial processes into the atmosphere. To a lesser extent, less developed countries are responsible because their growing populations cut down trees for firewood and charcoal.
Carbon dioxide is the main green house emission contributing to global warming. The gas is usually emitted by burning fossil fuels like oil, petrol and coal. Greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide and methane trap heat and cause temperatures in the atmosphere to rise, causing changes in weather patterns.
Dealing with the emissions has become a major political issue over the last two decades.
Environment minister Jessica Eriyo, says less developed countries, which have contributed least to climate change, will suffer most from its negative consequences.
Eriyo, who has attended many climate change meetings, says rich countries have been shifting “goal posts.â€
“When we set targets, they come up with different issues without addressing earlier commitments,†she says.
A juicy carrot?
According to Prof. Fredrick Kayanja, a fiery academician, trade in carbon emissions is dangling a juicy carrot.
He says the trade is not meant to create development in the south, where people are caught in poverty and are cutting down trees to survive.
“It is strange that people who are keeping a granary (carbon sinks) are going hungry,†says Kayanja.
Godber Tumushabe, the director of Advocates for Development and Environment, says it is untenable to reduce emissions in developed countries because this would lead to unemployment and their economy would suffer,†says Tumushabe.
They find it cheaper to reduce emissions by creating carbon sinks in the south. It is the developed north that benefits. “They set the price and people in the south jump onto the bandwagon because they are desperate for the money. The money for buying carbon should come as a reward, not as a payment,†he says.
Achilles Byaruhanga, the director of Nature Uganda, says the idea of carbon trade is good to ensure that many people participate in creating adaptation to climate change. However, the ground is not level.
The prices set for adaptation technologies, Byaruhanga says, are too low. He says $6 (sh11,000) for a tonne of carbon in less developed is peanuts compared to $25 (sh46,000) in the developed countries.
“We lose a lot by putting land under tree cover. We have places that are highly populated and if they are going to turn to tree planting, there is going to be food shortage,†he warns.
As Muzirane ponders his next move, environmental activists believe that hidden in the emissions is political and economic power that is sweeping through his tiny Kyangwali village.
As I left Kyangwali for Kampala, I saw Muzirane lost in thought. He reminded me of a popular saying: “Whoever pays the piper determines the tune of the song.â€
Will he resist the winds of change or stand up and get his tiny slice of the cake in the name of carbon trade?