Blog: Accountability in carbon offsetting: is it effective? Is it fair?
Natalie Boyd Williams will begin her postdoctoral fellowship at ETH Zurich in the group Global Health Engineering (GHE) in May 2024. Applying her extensive experience in understanding success and failure in domestic biogas programmes, Natalie will investigate the effectiveness, transparency and fairness of Switzerland's initiative to install 10,000 domestic biogas digesters in Malawi as part of a carbon reduction initiative under the Article 6 of the Paris Agreement.
Background
Article 6 of the Paris Agreement encourages international cooperation and allows high-income, high-polluting countries to meet their carbon reduction commitments affordably by funding carbon reducing activities in lower-income countries, claiming the external page carbon reductions for themselves. Specifically, Switzerland, under its CO2 Act and through the The Swiss Foundation for Climate Protection and Carbon Offset (external page KliK Foundation) aims to offset about 40 million tonnes of CO2 by 2030—10% of its national emissions–with external page over half of these offsets occurring abroad. Switzerland is a pioneer of Article 6, being the first buyer country to sign bi-lateral agreements, and as of April 2024 has five projects actively trading carbon in three countries, external page Ghana, Thailand and Vanuatu (three activities from UNDP and two from the Klik Foundation), with a number of others in the external page pipeline.
One upcoming collaboration is with external page Malawi, which involves distributing 10,000 household biogas digesters to dairy farmers. This project is expected to mitigate approximately external page 436,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). Biogas digesters have the external page potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support sustainable agriculture. The primary function of these digesters is to convert organic wastes, predominantly animal dung, into a methane-rich gas. Biogas can be used as a cooking fuel, replacing wood, which is often sourced from local forests, thus reducing carbon emissions from deforestation as well as from the burning of biomass. The traditional disposal method for animal dung involves leaving it in pits where methane—a potent greenhouse gas—naturally emits into the atmosphere as it decomposes. By capturing this methane, biogas digesters prevent its release, thereby reducing the overall greenhouse gases emitted. Furthermore, the digesters produce a liquid by-product called slurry, which can be used as a plant fertiliser, enhancing agricultural productivity and sustainability.
Article 6's approach to mitigating climate change may seem like an ideal solution: reducing carbon emissions at lower costs and redirecting capital from high-income to lower-income countries. However, we believe there are important questions that warrant research investigation, such as whether the Malawi Dairy Biogas Project (MDBP) and Article 6 activities more generally will effectively achieve CO2 savings, maintain transparency, and ensure fairness as intended.
.
Efficacy of the programme - how much CO2 is actually being saved
Domestic biogas has been installed in its millions in many Asian, South American and African countries since the 1970s. Yet all programmes have experienced high rates of failure and abandoned or broken installations can be found in rural landscapes where they have been implemented1. For instance, by the end of 2015, the number of China’s installed household biogas digesters reached 41.9 million, but it has been estimated that only 40–60% of these were being utilised post installation2. In India, of the approximately 5 million installed it is also estimated that post installation functionality is anywhere between 40–80%3,4. The historical high failure rate of similar large-scale programmes prompts significant doubts about whether the MDBP can truly achieve the carbon savings it claims to trade and sell. Therefore, the first focal point of my proposed research will be to evaluate the accuracy of the CO2 emission savings estimated by the project.
Domestic biogas projects under carbon trading agreements typically use approved methodologies to estimate how much biogas households will use and the associated CO2 savings. As an Article 6.2 project the MDBP can utilise existing methodologies or create or adapt its own, the methodology used will be published on the Federal Office for the Environment website when project documents become available. However, estimates from existing methodologies have not been extensively verified against actual measured external page digester performance and how the MDBP plans to address these shortcomings is not currently known. To address this, I am working with the amazing students in MAVT to develop devices that measure the volume of biogas and the concentration of methane in the gas. If a reactor is performing badly it could mean the digester has a leak and is not saving CO2 it is supposed to. Installing these devices on a subset of biogas digesters I will verify the accuracy of the project's estimated CO2 savings.
Transparency - what does it mean and to whom?
A key component of external page Article 6 of the Paris Agreement is that parties should ensure external page transparency, including in governance. However, the definition of transparency is not clearly defined, leaving it open to interpretation by different countries and projects. Transparency generally implies openness and clarity about operations, including the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders and the details of financial transactions. Yet, the lack of a universal standard for transparency in Article 6.2 projects creates significant ambiguity. This raises critical questions about what transparency should entail, who it is intended for, and how projects should implement it. Given the global challenge of climate change and the external page eroded trust in carbon markets from past mechanisms, it is crucial to examine the level of transparency in these projects and its implications for their effectiveness and credibility.
During this fellowship, I will explore whether different stakeholders and public groups have varying understandings of Article 6 projects, including the MDBP, and their perceptions of transparency. These findings will help assess whether Article 6 and participating countries, such as Switzerland, are meeting transparency standards, and by whose criteria, while offering suggestions for potential improvements.
Fairness - are the benefits distributed fairly and does everyone feel the same?
Typically, a portion of carbon funds subsidises or fully finances the biogas digester, so users pay little or nothing upfront. However, biogas digesters generate annual revenue on the carbon market which is directed towards programme improvements, not the users themselves. While this approach creates funds for essential supportive activities such as ongoing training and maintenance, it raises some justice considerations. Users can be unaware of the specifics of what they are signing or the details of their participation in agreements like Article 65,6.
There is little to no public information on how benefits from projects like the MDBP are distributed among stakeholders, and current research hasn’t fully addressed whether such carbon trading projects are fair or if the users actually feel they’re getting a fair deal. My upcoming research will tackle these critical questions.
Importance and intention
Article 6 projects are designed to offset emissions rather than reduce them outright, making it vital that they achieve the claimed CO2e savings to avoid an overall external page increase in emissions. With many carbon trading initiatives recently criticised for overestimating their impact7-9, the stakes are high at this critical climate juncture. As a low-income country already grappling with climate change challenges, it's crucial that interventions in Malawi not only address local needs but also pass rigorous effectiveness assessments and ensure equitable benefit distribution. My research will qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate the efficacy and fairness of carbon-funded biogas projects to enhance future projects with evidence-based improvements.
I am keen to forge partnerships with all stakeholders involved in the MDBP, other Article 6 initiatives and those implementing biogas projects. If you are reading this and have insights, questions, or would like to discuss any aspect of my proposed research, please reach out.
If you are interested in learning more, you can stay up to date by following external page GHE and external page Natalie on linkedIn.
This research project is funded by ETH Zurich Postdoctoral Fellowships.
References
1. Kalina, M., Ogwang, J. Ò. & Tilley, E. From potential to practice: rethinking Africa’s biogas revolution. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 9, 374 (2022).
2. Xie, M., Cai, X., Xu, Z., Zhou, N. & Yan, D. Factors contributing to abandonment of household biogas digesters in rural China: a study of stakeholder perspectives using Q-methodology. Environment, Development and Sustainability (2021) doi:10.1007/s10668-021-01754-w.
3. Bhat, P. R., Chanakya, H. N. & Ravindranath, N. H. Biogas plant dissemination: success story of Sirsi, India. Energy for Sustainable Development 5, 39–46 (2001).
4. Mittal, S., Ahlgren, E. O. & Shukla, P. R. Barriers to biogas dissemination in India: A review. Energy Policy 112, 361–370 (2018).
5. Barnhart, S. From Household Decisions to Global Networks: Biogas and the Allure of Carbon Trading in Nepal. Professional Geographer 66, 345–353 (2014).
6. Thapa, S., Morrison, M. & Parton, K. A. Willingness to pay for domestic biogas plants and distributing carbon revenues to influence their purchase: A case study in Nepal. Energy Policy 158, 112521 (2021).
7. Gill-Wiehl, A., Kammen, D. & Haya, B. Cooking the books: Pervasive over-crediting from cookstoves offset methodologies. Research Square 1–23 (2023).
8. Green, J. F. Does carbon pricing reduce emissions? A review of ex-post analyses. Environmental Research Letters 16, (2021).
9. Greenfield, P. Revealed: more than 90% of rainforest carbon offsets by biggest certifier are worthless, analysis shows. The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/revealed-forest-carbon-offsets-biggest-provider-worthless-verra-aoe (2023).