47 / 68
47
Nations considering how best to mitigate climate change need
to consider the cost-effectiveness of the options available to
them. Is ecosystem carbon management a good deal?
Costs of carbon mitigation via avoided deforestation, especially
of tropical peatland, can be very low in contrast with ‘clean en-
ergy’ options (Spracklen
et al.
2008). In agriculture, the costs
of carbon mitigation vary, but many are low: managing grazing,
fertilizers and fire on grasslands costs as little as US$ 5 per tonne
of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. Restoration of soils and
degraded land cost about US$ 10 per tonne of carbon dioxide
equivalent per year (Smith
et al.
2008). To set these costs in con-
text, the IPCC puts costs of carbon capture and storage (CCS) at
US$ 20–270 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (IPCC 2005).
WHAT WILL IT COST? HOW CAN WE PAY?
Ecosystem carbon management can be a low cost mitigation activity, but its global po-
tential is likely to be strongly influenced by the financial incentives made available to key
stakeholders. These incentives may be derived from a non-market instrument such as an
international fund, or from the carbonmarket or through a combination of both. There are
limited opportunities for ecosystem carbonmitigation in the existing compliance markets,
although this could change if REDD is linked to the carbon market. The voluntary market
is smaller but offers models for including non-forest carbon and rewarding biodiversity
conservation. Barriers to including ecosystem carbon include high transaction costs and
issues with accounting and permanence. Factors such as governance and subsidies also
influence land use decisions and hence affect what happens to ecosystem carbon.