Re: [Biochar-Ontario] Re: [biochar-production] Biofuelwatch: Biochar Fund Trials in Cameroon: Hype and Unfulfilled Promises

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Art Donnelly

unread,
Nov 29, 2011, 10:28:23 PM11/29/11
to biochar...@googlegroups.com, biochar-p...@yahoogroups.com, biochar-policy, Barry Husk, biocha...@yahoogroups.com, bio...@yahoogroups.com, pnw-b...@googlegroups.com, seacharwo...@googlegroups.com
Buenas Noches everyone,

As some of you may know SeaChar.Org has split a National Geographic grant with Salim Shaban's African Christians organization in Kenya. This money is meant to deepen and enlarge the work of both of our organizations with biochar and biochar technology. Salim in Kenya and us in Costa Rica. We have dozens of local partners, which I am sure is the case for Salim.

We know why we are doing this work. The stoves, the biochar as a soil amendment, the local job creation, the larger scale carbon negative energy production. It's about human and planetary health. We see the positive effects with our own eyes and so do the people we are working with.

We are expecting that as soon as this gets more media attention the haters, like those at BFW, will be all over us. So, Help us... give us advice, ask us questions, make sure we have our bases covered and our ducks in a row. Everything we do will be doing is totally public and totally transparent. You are going to be our witnesses. Please check our website and SeaChar Face Book page for updates. And of course watch for our funding pitches. I would rather have a thousand $15 donations than one $15,000.

Biochar and pyrolysis energy represent a new concept in energy production and resource use in general: it is a sign that we can structure a new reciprocal relationship with our environment. We can grow from "takers" to "contributors" (APORTES). It is a new way of thinking. BFW is stuck in the old black and white, zero-sum mentality, which caused so many problems to begin with. Let's work together to make them irrelevant.

You want to feel good this X-mas. Give a donation, in someone's name, to a change maker's project. Our's is: http://www.globalgiving.org/projects/biochar-cook-stoves-save-lives-and-trees/ Or get a hold of us and ask how you can help out.

Blessings,

Art Donnelly
SeaChar.Org
Proyecto Estufa Finca

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:18 PM, <rongre...@comcast.net> wrote:
Barry and 5 lists:

1.  Thanks for sending this - which I think deserves our serious attention.  I hope you will send us some happier news than you have been recently sending  (but am glad you are sending in these negatives as well - we need to respond to them).

2.  My overall take is that this is a decidedly unfair attack on one person - Laurens Rademakers.  He is BFW's target of opportunity because he had a quite successful, very-low-cost, first Biochar operation in the Cameroon that was not everything that BFW thought it should be.  I see no mention in here that they even attempted to get the other (Rademakers) side of the story.  There are numerous quotes from Rademakers that are offered negatively;  I find all are positive.   As near as I can tell Laurens did an admirable job under very difficult circumstances - and achieved basically positive results at very low cost.  The main BFW complaint was that more should have been done.  My take is that BFW is probably more responsible than any other group in trying to ensure that more was impossible.

3.    The BFW report (with a cite that Barry has given below) is 26 pages, broken into three parts plus a 3-page Annex (which contributes nothing to the Biochar or Rademaker story).  Parts 1 and 3 were written by some un-named BFW person.  In the final 3rd section  p 23,  BFW states: as a 3rd recommendation:

    "Based on the findings of this report as well as the Critical Review of Biochar Science and Policy report, funding for biochar deployment should be suspended since it is not justified by the science."

    The sections 1 (Introduction) and 3 written by the un-named person(s) at BFW, read as though that one sentence was the intent of the Section 2 investigation.   The purpose of the report was given on p 5 by them this way:
    "Prior to this investigation into the Biochar Fund project in Cameroon, no independent assessment or information had been published about any biochar project in Africa."
     I hope we can hear from others if they know of other investigatory reports for Africa.  I will look..

4.  The longest part (pp 6-19) is the second written by a Cameroon (?) consultant (?),  Mr. Benoit Anthony Ndameu.  He was employed  for nine days to interview participants in a one-year Biochar experiment developed by Mr.  Rademakers.  He obviously had difficulty getting in many interviews  (getting 11 - all I thiknk in only one of 11 project sites).  He seems most critical of the local official with whom Mr.  Rademakers and a second European entrusted local responsibilities.  There are numerous negative statements about the project of course, but here are some factual or positive sentences, provided by Mr. Ndameu:

   a.  p7     "Key Farmers‟ coordinator, Mr. Etchi Daniel Jones advised us during an interview with him that the budget was close to 20 million CFA (about 30,000 Euros)"     [RWL:  This is an amazingly small monetary total for reaching 75 different farmers!]

   b.   p12.   "According to those farmers who completed the trial and were interviewed, many were convinced that
biochar appeared to have produced good results."   [RWL:  None of this positive tone is in parts 1 and 3.]

   c.   p 13-14:   "Indeed, the brochure given to participant farmers at the start of the trials outlined a 'work plan' according to which the trials would only involve a single harvest and the project would end with a report in December 2009, with efforts made to obtain carbon finance for a larger project in 2010."   [RWL:   BFW repeatedly states in Sections 1 and 3 that Rademakers should have done more.  This seems proof that he delivered what was promised.]

   d.  p14;   "The main goal appears to have been to popularize the biochar concept with low cost investment."   [RWL:  With only 30k Euros available, this seems to me like a reasonable "main goal".]

    e.  p15.  " We found no information indicating what efforts, if any, were made by Biochar Fund and/or Key Farmers to obtain such funds.   [RWLe:  Although in Mr. Ndameu's section, this sounds like BFW talking - as much the better "we" to look for this data.    My guess, having heard him speak at the 2010 Iowa Biochar Conference, is that Mr.  Rademakers made huge efforts to find those funds.   We have no way of knowing how hard BFW looked when they "found no information".  If they tried to contact Laurens, I failed to see that fact.]

   f.  p19   "Farmers indicated they would continue the project if there was funding and [if] they were invited to do so."   [RWL:  This is as good a proof of a success for Biochar as one could ask for (given difficulty in finding follow-on funds).]


5.  Here are a few final quotes from Section 3

p21  "Finally, the trials did not in any way prove whether or not biochar use could be profitable for farmers."   [RWL:  The impression  I obtained from Section 2 was the direct opposite - the farmers were looking for a return by Laurens - not something they would do if it couldn't be profitable.   Of course credits should be expected and available.]

p22   " Those who were interviewed and who had participated in and completed trial participation spoke about being impressed with the 'maize yields'from the trial in general and none of them expressed any doubt about what they had been told about the 'positive impacts' to be expected from biochar."     [RWL:   This directly contradicts the previous quote.  What more positive statement could be made?  Perhaps BFW had their conclusions all written out before the site visit report was in.


 p23    "Mr. Rademakers states : 'There is a genuine market out there. At the moment it is worth about 20 Euros but the
rate fluctuates...Getting into the market...can cost as much as 200,000 Euros [per tonne]...We intend to fight for our project on the market and intend to keep our cost down because it is important that the money benefits the poorest farmers around here.'
[RWL:   I include this for two reasons.  I like Mr. Rademakers statement and apparently BFW doesn't  (I guess because they are opposed to all credits).  But also  BFW has incorrectly inserted the "[per tonne]" - which indicates to me that BFW knows very little about the Biochar carbon credit business.

p24:  RWL:   See the quote about suspending Biochar activities given above.  The other recommendationss nearby similarly are not supported by anything in Section 2.

p24-26  Annex 1 -  RWL:   This material should/could be used to make the case for Biochar.- not against it.


6.    I have run out of time, but intend to come back to analyze each of the 30+ citations.  My expectation is that essentially none will be proof of any of their recommendations.  I hope someone/anyone can point out one that really supports their continuing anti-Biochar arguments -- and we can concentrate on those others like.. 

7.  Summation:    I wish I could speak authoritatively on behalf of Mr. Rademakers, but I can't.   He does seem to be "guilty" of not having raised funds that he would like to have raised (and that were probably denied in large part by Biochar's main detractors - the (un-named) BFW authors of this report).   But there is no quotation of his that to me speaks for the poorly justified recommendations made by BFW.  I read the Section 2 (mostly non-BFW) material as being basically supportive of what was accomplished in the Cameroon.
       I score this one as failing at the Freshman level - like all their previous anti-Biochar material.  I look forward to debating an opposite view.

Ron
From: "Barry Husk" <hu...@9bit.qc.ca>
To: biocha...@yahoogroups.com, bio...@yahoogroups.com, biochar...@googlegroups.com, biochar-p...@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 9:27:09 AM
Subject: [biochar-production] Biofuelwatch: Biochar Fund Trials in Cameroon: Hype and Unfulfilled Promises

 
__,_._,___

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Biochar Ontario" group.
To post to this group, send email to biochar...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to biochar-ontar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/biochar-ontario?hl=en.



--
Art Donnelly
President SeaChar.Org
US Director, The Farm Stove Project
Proyecto Estufa Finca

http://www.globalgiving.org/projects/biochar-cook-stoves-save-lives-and-trees/

"SeaChar.Org...positive tools for carbon negative living"

rongre...@comcast.net

unread,
Nov 30, 2011, 12:02:27 AM11/30/11
to pnw-b...@googlegroups.com, Art Donnelly, biochar-p...@yahoogroups.com, biochar-policy, Barry Husk, biocha...@yahoogroups.com, bio...@yahoogroups.com, seacharwo...@googlegroups.com, biochar...@googlegroups.com
Art (and now six lists)

Few response notes below.

From: "Art Donnelly" <art.do...@seachar.org>
To: biochar...@googlegroups.com
Cc: biochar-p...@yahoogroups.com, "biochar-policy" <biochar...@yahoogroups.com>, "Barry Husk" <hu...@9bit.qc.ca>, biocha...@yahoogroups.com, bio...@yahoogroups.com, pnw-b...@googlegroups.com, seacharwo...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 8:28:23 PM
Subject: {PNW-BC} Re: [Biochar-Ontario] Re: [biochar-production] Biofuelwatch: Biochar Fund Trials in Cameroon: Hype and Unfulfilled Promises


Buenas Noches everyone,

As some of you may know SeaChar.Org has split a National Geographic grant with Salim Shaban's African Christians organization in Kenya. This money is meant to deepen and enlarge the work of both of our organizations with biochar and biochar technology. Salim in Kenya and us in Costa Rica. We have dozens of local partners, which I am sure is the case for Salim.
   [RWL:  Can you describe a bit more the character of those partners?   And why you have sought them out?  And whether you have found any resistance in Costa Rica of the type that BFW strives to generate?]


We know why we are doing this work. The stoves, the biochar as a soil amendment, the local job creation, the larger scale carbon negative energy production. It's about human and planetary health. We see the positive effects with our own eyes and so do the people we are working with.
  
We are expecting that as soon as this gets more media attention the haters, like those at BFW, will be all over us. So, Help us... give us advice, ask us questions, make sure we have our bases covered and our ducks in a row. Everything we do will be doing is totally public and totally transparent. You are going to be our witnesses. Please check our website and SeaChar Face Book page for updates. And of course watch for our funding pitches. I would rather have a thousand $15 donations than one $15,000.
   [RWL:     Re the first part of your message - I will predict BFW will leave you alone - now that they (may probably?) have received your above challenge.   But more importantly  - I don't think they will want to tangle with the National Geographic (and congratulations for receiving that important distinction).   And even more importantly,  you clearly have a long-range plan.  From my reading of all the BFW anti-Biochar material since 2008, the most important thing you can be cataloging to answer BFW is that the local forest is being saved by your actions.  Should you be near any indigenous people, that would help - as well as cataloging topics related to biodiversity preservation/improvement.   BFW sees Biochar as just another biofuel - and is not prepared to accept that Biochar can help, rather than hurt forests, indigenous people and biodiversity.  They will not care as much about char lifetime, agricultural improvements, N2O capture, etc. - as you will never have enough data to satisfy them on those scores.  
   My wife and I just exchanged an Xmas present  through your site.  (To others - I have been communicating with Art for 3 or 4 years after meeting at a Seattle stove meeting.  Art is a key part of what might be the only city-based Biochar group in the world (SeaChar). Ours is not an impulse donation  decision, nor because he is sort of responding to the next message (mine).  ]


Biochar and pyrolysis energy represent a new concept in energy production and resource use in general: it is a sign that we can structure a new reciprocal relationship with our environment. We can grow from "takers" to "contributors" (APORTES). It is a new way of thinking. BFW is stuck in the old black and white, zero-sum mentality, which caused so many problems to begin with. Let's work together to make them irrelevant.
    [RWL:   It is really sad that BFW has taken on this anti-Biochar crusade.  I can't figure them or their methods out - except they are deeply based in an anti-corporate outlook.  They are not thinking of most of things that are driving your project  (excess atmospheric carbon, etc).  Do not get them against you (as Nat Mulcahy [WorldStove] has learned).
    Art - it is good to see your very positive response to the BFW artificially-generated problems now facing Laurens Rademakers - who we should now be concentrating on helping as well.
   Best of luck.      Ron]
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PNW Biochar" group.
To post to this group, send email to pnw-b...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pnw-biochar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pnw-biochar?hl=en.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages