In Panama the weather is separated into two distinct seasons, the wet season (la lluviosa) and the dry season (la seca) which occurs during the months of December through April. Right now Panama is still in the midst of its dry season, and because of the absence of rain maintenance on our plantations has been minimal. This has given us the opportunity to focus on the UNDP – GEF Small Grants Program project that we’re helping our indigenous partners in Arimae to coordinate.

Kate Kirby, who has done a lot of extensive research on carbon emissions and land cover change with the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama, completed a participatory mapping workshop in February with community members teaching them how to use GPS units to map coordinates of the forest reserve. This information along with historical knowledge from the community will be used to determine the rate of land cover change over time. When combined with data on carbon storage in different land cover types, this information will give the community the raw data needed to begin the process of estimating its carbon stocks.

Construction of the tree nursery is complete and the seedling trays have finally arrived from the manufacturer in Sweden. This week the community will begin the process of planting the seeds collected from the reserve into the seedling trays. The nursery will produce approximately 9,600 native species saplings which will be ready for transplant during planting season.

The European Commission and some EU member states are pushing for palm oil plantations to be classified as "forest" (Full article at REDD-Monitor). Per the current definition of forest from the UN, palm oil plantations would qualify as if they covered "any area larger than 500 square metres with crown cover of 10 per cent and trees [were] capable of growing two metres high." The Indonesian Forestry Ministry is also pushing to classify palm oil plantations as forest. (Full article at the Jakarta Post). The question of what constitutes a forest is a topic for another post, but these headlines have some interesting implications for potential REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) projects.

The demand for bio-fuels is the main driver for palm oil, which is seen as an inexpensive replacement for fossil fuels. But because palm oil plantations drive deforestation, their environmental benefit is largely negated. Classifying them as forests would open the door for inclusion in REDD+ schemes - palm oil trees do sequester carbon, after all. It is ultimately the question of leakage: Should palm oil plantations be included in REDD+ schemes if they spur the destruction of rainforest carbon sinks?

Who should benefit from REDD projects? Another criticism of palm oil plantations is the pressure they put on food prices. Taking arable land out of cultivation means locals suffer from higher prices. In Panama, this pushes squatters further into the jungle to settle new plots for subsistence crops and cattle ranching. REDD schemes won't be very effective until they can incentivize these "shifted cultivators" NOT to deforest.

To dig deeper on this, check out the excellent REDD-Monitor blog.

I enjoyed this clip by John Stewart in retort to the climate change skeptics. That Vancouver is experiencing lower than average snowfall should make people question the rationale behind the DC snowstorm disproving global warming. TreeHugger carried a great piece by Bill Nye.

Seriously though, pointing out that a climate change denier is being irrational or thoughtless probably won't change his opinion (I've tried). When discussing this subject now, I frame the debate within the rubric of making our economy more efficient, healthy (less coal smog=less asthma), and less reliant on foreign energy. These are all things that can save us money by putting a price on the negative externalities (that are essentially subsidized by the US taxpayer). This line of reasoning does not always work, but they are themes that both skeptics and alarmists can usually agree on. The environmentalist movement needs to change its messaging if it is going to be successful. Josh Dorfman, a professional Green communication pundit speaks well to it here.

I enjoy John Stewart's digs at climate change naysayers as much as the next guy, but behind the sarcasm lies genuine frustration. I hope that as the science behind climate change solidifies, the skeptics will soften their positions and Stewart will have less reason to call them out.

We're excited to have Green Living Project produce a story about our work in Panama. Their videos document models of sustainability from around the world towards the goal of helping us live more sustainably. GLP promotes their videos through various event marketing channels around the US. They will be in Panama in early March to take footage of our partner communities and plantations.

If you live anywhere between Washington DC and Philadelphia (or watch the evening news) you know that this winter has produced some epic snow. Yesterday I shoveled 24" from the sidewalk in front of our house. The federal government is closed for the next two days, and public transportation is slow at best. The accumulation for this season is over 45", and with 10-20" more snow predicted for tomorrow, it looks like DC might break its record of 54.4" set in 1898-99. This phenomenon is feeding the flames of argument between global warming naysayers and those who trust the hard science behind climate change. They say "Doesn't this record snowfall disprove global warming? Fortunately, Climate Progress has an answer for us.

Carbon offsets - especially forest carbon offsets - are a tricky subject. We sold carbon offsets to a couple individuals and a development tourism NGO to offset a wedding and their air travel, respectively. But are the carbon offsets certified? No. PE's credits are not certified because we can't afford the $4000 to get a certification and the yearly follow up afterward. With only 20 hectares under management, Planting Empowerment only sequesters 120 tons of carbon per year (6 tons/ha). At $10/ton, it doesn't make economic sense for us to pay for certification. Luckily, the purchasers of our credits believe in our project and understand the methodology we used to find the amount of carbon sequestered.

That said, we will not be selling carbon credits in the near future. Even though they generate a return for our tree owners on the front end (and sales commission for PE) we think it is important to understand better the amount of carbon being sequestered by the trees. We are taking at least one year off to build a reserve of carbon to insure against future "leaks". When a larger plantation project comes online it will be economically viable to certify the credits and sell once again.

Planting Empowerment engaged a team of MBA students from MIT's Sloan School of Business to study potential revenue generating opportunities from the "waste" generated from our plantations. These are the trees that are either crooked or too small to produce good timber in the future. The cutting of these trees allows neighboring trees to grow larger and increase the quality of the timber. Normally the waste trees are marked by a forester and then felled and left to rot. The decomposing trees do return nutrients to the soil, but our plantation undergrowth management plan produces sufficient nutrient recycling. The goal for the student team was to find a productive use for this waste through a business that would generate more work for the local communities, and revenues for our investors.

The team visited PE's plantations, neighboring plantations, local sawmills, and interviewed the local population. They have focused on producing biochar from the waste. Biochar is formed by burning wood waste in a special oven through pyrolysis. The biochar can be either used as initial fertilizer in PE's future plantations or sold to local small farmers. We look forward to continue working with the MIT team to further develop the processing and mechanics of the business. Our first real "waste" thinnings will probably occur either this May or early in 2011.

I find it amazing that investors might finance any type of REDD project in Panama at the moment. Panama is at the forefront of REDD and recently received $5MM from the UN-REDD program to further its national REDD program. However, we feel this is still a good five years away from being operational. As I mentioned in a previous post, the legal architecture of who actually owns the carbon in Panama does not exist. Currently the Panamanian government owns the trees, so the thinking with the Torrijos government was that it also owns the carbon in the trees. If I remember correctly, the government owns all minerals, water sources, etc. until they concession it, so this should be the same with carbon.

So when I read about people promoting REDD projects in Panama, it makes me shake my head. Yes, it is possible that you could make it rich. But to me at least, it is like investing in an oil discovery. It might deliver you some great returns for a while, but the landowner/government will soon realize that you are making a ridiculous profit and make a grab for your resource. Panama does a good job in my opinion of promoting foreign direct investment and protecting those investments. However, when a foreigner makes a huge profit because a private/national resource hadn't been adequately regulated by national legislation, he deserves to lose his shirt. We recommend waiting until Panama decides who owns the forest carbon and the rules of the game before making any type of investment. Rainforest communities forfeiting their opportunity to work the forest should receive the majority of the benefits of any REDD project. To me, this means 70-80% with 10-20% going to the government and a small slice to any private project promoter.