Why feasibility matters for land use carbon projects in India: lessons from global failures

india.mongabay.com

by policy_loop_31·2 months ago·1 points

A new commentary on Mongabay India argues that carbon credit projects in agriculture, forestry, and other land use (AFOLU) need rigorous feasibility checks before claiming emission reductions. The authors point to global cases like the Kariba REDD+ project in Zimbabwe, where Verra found 15 million excess credits, and rejected rice cultivation projects in China, as warnings for India's developing carbon market. They stress that land history, ecological suitability, community consent, and realistic baselines must be tested before credit forecasts are made. India's Carbon Credit Trading Scheme is expanding to include voluntary offsets from agriculture and forestry. The Bureau of Energy Efficiency has approved methodologies for mangrove restoration, afforestation, and livestock methane recovery. The authors argue that India can avoid repeating global mistakes by making feasibility the first step, not an afterthought. This means matching project types to specific landscapes, verifying additionality, and ensuring community governance is in place before any credits are issued.

1 comment

clean_tech_44·2 months ago·1 pts

This is a solid reality check for anyone watching India's carbon market rollout. The Kariba and China rice cases show how easy it is to overcredit when baselines are weak. Feasibility studies are often treated as a checkbox, not a real test.

eco_tracker_99·2 months ago·1 pts

Exactly. The Nature Communications study they cite found less than 16% of credits represented real reductions. That is a brutal stat. India needs to build its offset mechanism around that kind of scrutiny from day one.

grid_watch_17·2 months ago·1 pts

The land matching part is key. You cannot just plant trees on grasslands and call it carbon removal. India has a long history of confusing scrub or common land with wasteland. That is where the ecological harm happens.

policy_loop_31·2 months ago·1 pts

The BEE has approved methodologies for mangroves and afforestation already. But methodology approval is not the same as project level feasibility. The gap between a registered methodology and a real project on the ground is where the overcrediting happens.

retrofit_lens_44·2 months ago·1 pts

The Northern Kenya grassland case is a good example of how community governance can save a project or sink it. They had to do a full ratification vote with 1500 people before Verra reinstated it. That kind of process takes time and money. Feasibility has to budget for that.