[Stoves] [biochar] Where to discuss STOVES AND CARBON offsets and drawdown

[tmiles at trmiles.com]

Frank, Crispin,

 

These are all great points. Instead of a generic rewards program, biochar from stoves should be connected to real problems like land restoration. The Biochar for Sustainable Soils (B4SS) project by UNDP Global Environment Fund has been testing this with improved stoves in several countries.  http://biochar.international/ 

 

Also, from Patrick Worms, World Agroforestry Centre, today at COP 13 in Ordos, China:

http://www2.unccd.int/news-events/cop13-ordos-china-6-16-september-2017

 

Friends,

 

UNCCD COP: ’Scaling-Up Investment into Land Restoration: Getting the Biggest Bang for the Buck’ will be held Wednesday from 13:00 to 15:00, in room MET-20.

 

If you’re at UNCCD COP13 in Ordos, come and join the European Commission, the World Agroforestry Centre, German International Cooperation, high-level government representatives at the week’s most exciting side event!

 

Land degradation is at the nexus of a vicious spiral linking low primary productivity and biodiversity loss with poverty, hunger, instability and insecurity. Yet the environmental, social and economic functions of even seriously degraded landscapes can be restored if all stakeholders, from farmers and pastoralists to policymakers and businesses, can find ways to work together.

 

Exploring how this can be done at scale and at low cost is the objective of a new five-year European Union-funded project involving eight African countries (Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Somalia), which aims to uncover pathways for large-scale restoration across the world. This event will explore the key ingredients needed to achieve restoration at a truly massive scale, while also looking at successful initiatives from Africa and China.

 

Key speakers will include:

Bernard Crabbé, European Commission

Mark Schauer, German International Cooperation

Dennis Garrity, World Agroforestry Centre

Cai Mantang, Elion Resources

And high-level government representatives from selected partner countries.

 

Hope to see you there!

 

Patrick Worms (MSc Cantab)

Senior Science Policy Advisor, World Agroforestry Centre

Steering Committee Member, Initiatives for Land, Lives and Peace

Trustee, ALAAP International

Trustee, AFS Magyarország Nemzetközi Csereprogram Alapítvány

Member, Ecosystem Restoration Camps Advisory Board

Member, GAP International Advisory Board

 

 <http://www.worldagroforestry.org/> 

 

33 rue du Progrès    |   1410 Waterloo, Belgium |
E:  <mailto:x.yx at cgiar.org> p.worms at cgiar.org   |   T: +32 2 351 6829  |   M: +32 495 24 46 11  |   Skype: patrickworms  |

 

See our Gender methods, indicators and deliverables ( <http://worldagroforestry.org/crp6/gender> http://worldagroforestry.org/crp6/gender)

Reveal the wonder of landscapes ( <http://landscapeportal.org/> http://landscapeportal.org)

Discover ICRAF’s entire set of 6200 publications ( <http://outputs.worldagroforestry.org/> http://outputs.worldagroforestry.org/)

Download our 220 Open Access Datasets ( <http://thedata.harvard.edu/dvn/dv/icraf> http://thedata.harvard.edu/dvn/dv/icraf)

 

 

From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 10:08 AM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar] Where to discuss STOVES AND CARBON offsets and drawdown

 

This is directly relevant to the stoves group when it comes to devising program policy.

 

Who is doing the saving?

Who gets the money?

In what form – price subsidy?

Does the user give informed consent? (I think not!)

Is the public generally aware there exists a CDM finance mechanism in the stove programme that will reward some group with millions of $ the public will not see? 

Is it ethical to make money from the savings produced others because we are ‘clever’?

 

Compliance costs a fortune. Was this deliberate, to benefit the auditors? Have the review mechanisms been competently reviewed to see if they are fit for purpose? What I read says they use the WBT 4.x, 3,x and the CCT 2.0 and KPT 2.0, none of which would pass a competence review. How does this affect the value of the ‘work’? 

 

What are the institutional and reputational risks associated with using un-reviewed and/or discredited methods of performance assessment to dish out money?

 

Crispin

 

 

+++++++++

 

at the risk of being way off topic - I would think the only person getting CC is the person putting it into the ground where it stays. Not later used as fuel.

 

Frank

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170912/08494e40/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 10573 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170912/08494e40/attachment.png>