making at all levels, but particularly national and interna- such barriers is likely to require external input, at the very
tional; and they may have less knowledge of and ability to least in the form of capacity-building and the introduction
make use of laws, regulations and policies to support their of appropriate technologies. As discussed in the agriculture
needs and aspirations. section, different ways of increasing soil carbon content will
be appropriate in different circumstances. Carbon manage-
Of particular potential concern is the use of various kinds of ment policies that are too prescriptive about the choice of
financial incentive, for example to encourage the cultivation of technology could lead to pressure on farmers and land man-
biofuel crops, or to promote large-scale afforestation for carbon agers to adopt methods that are inappropriate for them, with
sequestration. Such incentives will in many cases have the ef- negative consequences for their livelihoods. Experience sug-
fect of increasing the economic value of land hitherto consid- gests that farmers prefer a basket of technologies to try out
ered of little commercial interest. Sometimes such lands may and, very often, adapt. Indeed, some would see this as part of
indeed be marginal; in such cases, there may be little conflict in a process by which farmers actually develop the technology
appropriating the land for such schemes. Sometimes, however, (Sumberg and Okali 1997). Many of the agricultural prac-
this may not be the case. The land may be of great importance tices that store more carbon can be implemented at little or
for local people – as rangeland or pasture for livestock, or as a no cost (Smith 2004) and if farmers decide measures are
source of wild food or other resources – or it may be important worthwhile they will keep them when external funding is no
for biodiversity, or both. Appropriation of such land may result longer there, providing a greater mitigation effect than has
in biodiversity losses and in local people finding themselves been paid for.
deprived of traditional benefits with little or no compensation.
If this is not to happen, the full spectrum of values of the land LIKELY FUTURE TRENDS
should be taken into account in any incentive schemes, and Understanding the likely future trends in land use and the
recognition given to customary land tenure and traditional ac- influences on those trends is a crucial part of any attempt to
cess rights. Local people should be enabled and encouraged manage carbon in ecosystems. The IPCC’s fourth assessment
to play a full role in decision making (Rights and Resources report discussed the drivers of land use change in terms of
Initiative 2008). demand for land-based products and services such as food de-
mand, on one hand, and production possibilities and oppor-
In any event, incentive-driven measures that do involve local tunity costs such as technological change, on the other (IPCC
people are likely to have higher transaction costs and are likely 2007a). Population growth and economic development can be
to attract less investment. There is also a danger that the poor seen as the ultimate drivers.
may agree to activities (such as tree planting) that cost them
more to implement than the payments to which they have A few global studies have conducted long term land use pro-
agreed (Campbell et al. 2008; Coad et al. 2008). There may jections using scenarios of these and other factors, e.g the
in addition be local inequalities, including gender imbalances, IPCC’s own SRES scenarios, UNEP’s Global Environment
whereby benefits do reach the local community, but are un- Outlook and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. In the
evenly divided within it and the costs fall disproportionately on short term, almost all scenarios suggest an increase in crop-
the very poor (Parasai 2006). land (IPCC 2007a).
However, with careful planning, there is no intrinsic reason Longer term scenarios are mixed. Those that assume higher
why policies that favour carbon storage and sequestration in population rates and higher food demands with lower rates of
ecosystems should not be beneficial locally. This is particular- technological improvement and thus lower increases in crop
ly true for agriculture, where there is great scope for increas- yields suggest a large expansion (up to 40%) of agricultural
ing carbon storage in ways that may also enhance long-term land between 1995 and 2100. Those that assume smaller pop-
productivity. There are, though, often considerable barriers ulations and a high degree of technological change indicate
to changing agricultural practice, particularly where farmers there could be a reduction in agricultural land by as much as
have little access to information and resources. Surmounting 20% less by the end of the century.
0
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68