canary islands carbon footprint register

Pioneering carbon offset plan for Canary Islands unveiled

A new approach to carbon offsetting

When will the Canary Islands’ carbon footprint register be available? Our plan is for it to be operational next year. What structure will it have? The same as the national Ministry for Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge register. They all follow the same format. You simply record the carbon footprint of your activity, although in the Canary Islands you will also be able to do so for a specific event – that is a new departure. I say that in relation to the state register, because it is something that local-level registers, such as the one in Santa Lucía de Tirajana, which was one of the first in Spain to open, already allow. However, the register is one thing, but there is another vital part: the provision of projects to offset carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. How does it work? A project is registered and, if it meets the requirements, it goes ahead and receives the corresponding CO2 certificate. The person who submitted it walks away with a document guaranteeing that they have genuinely offset their emissions with the project they have launched.

Tailored to the islands

What characterises the Canary Islands model you are finalising? At all levels – national, local, and even European – what exists so far are CO2 absorption projects through reforestation. What we are proposing, which is highly innovative, is to create our own reforestation regulations, because the national ones do not match what we need in the Canary Islands. In what sense? We want to include shrub species, our native plants, such as the tabaiba spurge. We want it to be possible for projects that propose planting more than just trees. That is one aspect, and the other is size. Under the national register, only very large plots of many hectares count, and we do not have those. Beyond these adaptations to our reality, which in themselves constitute a significant innovation, we are opening up an even more novel spectrum: the inclusion of projects that are not straightforward reforestation but regeneration or restoration. To give a simple example, restoring a ravine that is full of invasive plants, removing them and repopulating it with native species. And we will not stop there; we are far more ambitious and want to pursue projects that are highly innovative within the realm of CO2 compensation. For example? Anything that falls under the idea of restoring our landscape. That concept is broad and opens up a wide range of possibilities. If an urban climate shelter absorbs CO2, we propose that it could be certified, and that would make us world pioneers. We do not have huge estates for reforestation, so we must find other mechanisms. But what is more, it is logical. Imagine a local council that decides to install one of these climate shelters. It is highly likely that the certified CO2 compensation could help finance its maintenance. In other words, we are also seeking financing opportunities for projects that are pioneering in the Canary Islands.

Reducing emissions at source remains the priority

Does this come at the expense of efforts to reduce emissions in other areas? Of course not. That would make no sense at all. The most immediate task is to transform the energy system, because the current one is responsible for 88% of emissions in the Canary Islands, which total between 10 and 14 million tonnes of CO2 per year. More than half of these come from tourism and, as I say, 88% overall is generated by the production and use of energy, which leaves no doubt as to where action must be taken first. Where does the remaining 12% come from? Between 12% and 14%, let us leave it at that because it varies from year to year. About 8% is generated by waste and landfill sites, so another area for action is energy recovery. I cannot say that a plant with powerful filters could reduce methane emissions to zero, which would be possible in theory, but the investment might not be proportionate to the islands’ waste levels, though they could be brought below 1%. That would be a significant reduction. Many things can be done to tackle the problem, and our idea is to find compensation systems that somehow encompass things that are not the typical ones. Another example: the integrated water cycle. How so? Half of the desalinated water consumed in the autonomous community is lost during distribution, and that can be quantified in terms of CO2. If we know – and we do – how much energy it costs to produce that water, we propose that a comprehensive upgrade to prevent leaks could be certified as a project to offset emissions. We are including issues that are sometimes more technological or purely about regenerating and restoring our landscape. Green spaces? Yes, of course, but let us not limit ourselves to that. We are even looking at how CO2 absorption by the sea that surrounds us could be increased. The avenues opening up are multiple, but, I repeat, the first thing we must do is transform the energy system and eliminate landfill sites.

Working with universities on native species

What steps are you taking? For the inclusion of Canary Islands plant species, for example. We are working on that with the universities. We know that a Canary Islands pine absorbs the emissions of ten cars in a year, but we do not know that absorption curve for other plant species. And I come back to saying that we must always look at things from every angle, because the best thing would be to reduce the number of cars, replace them with electric vehicles, increase the number of users of public transport… We have to act globally. When will the Canary Islands register be operational? It will be approved shortly, and we hope to have it up and running next year, so that we can certify carbon footprints for this year, 2025, and receive the first absorption projects. Little by little, because in parallel we have to develop the regulations. The first to be issued will be the reforestation one, with the specific features I mentioned: local flora and smaller plot sizes for reforestation or restoration. From there, methodologies will be certified, and the idea is to start pilot projects. Any progress on that front? We already have some agreements in place to start certifying ravine restoration projects. The essential thing is to certify methodologies, to make the rules of the game clear. Once all this is clear, project methodologies will be gradually incorporated. I am talking about pilot projects. At a general level, it is based on reforestation, but that is not to say there may not be more innovative pilot projects.

Business interest and the integrity of offsetting

Have you gauged the interest from companies in cleaning up their image in this way? Evidently. And look, “cleaning up their image” – not really, because they are going to invest, and it will all materialise in something objective that benefits everyone. Bless this kind of image laundering. Furthermore, the spirit of the law stipulates that once companies have measured their footprint, the first thing they must do is try to reduce it. Offsetting is the next step; it is not a blank cheque to continue polluting the same amount or more. There are companies that, no matter how hard they try, will continue to emit harmful gases. That is true. At least for as long as it takes for technology to enable them to reduce emissions. In the meantime, of course, it is in all their interests to offset; they are the first to be keen. Airlines, for example? We have several niches linked to transport that are emission-intensive. And, as I said before, half of the emissions produced in the Canary Islands come directly or indirectly from the tourism sector, so preliminary work has also been done with the sector to stimulate business interest in Canary Islands restoration projects. Could companies that operate in other territories, that pollute elsewhere, come here? The condition is that the project they develop to offset must be located in the Canary Islands. What we cannot include for offsetting are companies that are already within the emissions trading market. Those cannot, because the law does not allow it – we are talking about the European framework. They cannot use the registers to offset; they have to reduce their own emissions. To what extent does that limit the success of the initiative? Our approach is to exploit the potential of companies that operate here, even if their headquarters are elsewhere. They have an image here and they want to offset here because their reputation is partly tied to it. I find it unlikely that a company operating elsewhere would come to develop an offset project here – although we are not closed to it, it could happen – but the project, obviously, would have to be developed in the archipelago. They would probably be better off implementing the project on a large estate in Andalusia. We are mainly targeting companies and institutions that could not offset anywhere else. I think we will be copied many times over afterwards, because this is an initiative without parallel anywhere in the world.

Public sector involvement and multi-departmental collaboration

Can the public sector also offset? Of course. In fact, we see it as a very interesting mechanism for local councils, for example – let us not think only of companies. As I said, a municipality that wants to create a climate shelter, a large park. They obtain the investment, and by selling the certificates they get, we believe they can guarantee the maintenance plan. It has that almost social interest too. What do you need to do to make that possible? Be able to create a methodology that can certify the CO2 absorption of that climate shelter, that large urban park. That is where we are focused – trying to develop projects for the land. Thinking of those who operate here. How is development shared between the different regional government departments? An initial protocol was signed and, based on it, a work programme is being developed, led by the Tourism department. We provide the projects, the definition of which ones can be used to offset through the register. There is a committee for this, and the Tourism and Finance departments will be involved, because the aim is to create a clear framework for those tourism companies that may be interested in developing projects that allow them to offset. From the outside, it seems straightforward. Several things are mixed together. It may be that a tourism company goes for a regeneration project and is more interested in nature credits – a concept that the European Commission has put on the table but has not yet developed. Our biodiversity department is working on this; it is the one drawing up the proposals, but it is still quite green. There may be companies interested in this type of project that do not necessarily go to the register to offset CO2, and others that aspire to both. All of this needs to be articulated with precision.

Source

Scroll to Top