The rules for land use, land use change and forestry under the Kyoto Protocol—lessons learned for the future climate negotiations (original) (raw)
A generalised approach of accounting for biospheric carbon stock changes under the Kyoto Protocol
Environmental Science & Policy, 2001
The Kyoto Protocol aims to reduce net emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere by various measures including through management of the biosphere. However, the wording that has been adopted may be difficult and costly to implement, and may ultimately make it impossible to cost-effectively include biosphere management to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions. An alternative scheme is proposed here, especially for the second and subsequent commitment periods, to more effectively deal with the anthropogenic component of carbon stock changes in the biosphere. It would categorise the terrestrial biosphere into different land-use types, with each one having a characteristic average carbon density determined by land-use and environmental factors. Each transition from one land-use type to another, or a change in average carbon density within a specified type due to changed management would be defined as anthropogenic and credited or debited to the responsible nation. To calculate annual credits and/or debits, the change in average carbon stocks must be divided by a time constant which would either be a characteristic of each possible land-use conversion, or applicable to the sum of changes to a nation's biospheric carbon stocks. We believe that this scheme would be simpler and less expensive to implement than one based on the measurement of actual carbon changes from all specified areas of land. It would also avoid undue credits or debits, because they would only accrue as a result of identified anthropogenic components of biospheric carbon changes whereas carbon fluxes that are due to natural variation would not be credited or debited.
Environmental Science & Policy, 2000
In the Kyoto Protocol, industrialised countries have agreed to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. To achieve that target, direct human induced activities initiated in the Land-use Change and Forestry sector since 1990, shall be included. However, the wording in the Protocol has caused confusion. The IPCC has been requested to deliver a Special Report on Land-use, Land-use Change and Forestry issues arising from this Protocol. In the present study a limited initial assessment of the implications of alternative interpretations of Aorestation, Reforestation and Deforestation (ARD), addition of the soils compartment, the selection of additional activities, and feasibility of monitoring was done for a limited number of countries.
Environmental Science & Policy, 2007
but also that, in spite of the difficulties, LULUCF will, most likely, be included in future climate change agreements. The inclusion of LULUCF is likely both because emissions from LULUCF are responsible for an estimated 20% of human-induced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (IPCC, 2000) and because LULUCF is expected to provide costeffective, short-term mitigation options, particularly through reducing deforestation (Pacala and Socolow, 2004). The KP was acceptable to, and ratified by, most parties to the UNFCCC (hereafter referred to as Parties). These Parties are now engaged in striving to meet their commitments for CP-1. However, not all large emitters of GHGs are bound to limit their emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. Some Parties failed to ratify this instrument, and others are not required to limit e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 0 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 2 8 3 -2 9 4 a r t i c l e i n f o
International forest carbon sequestration in a post-Kyoto agreement
Harvard Project on International …, 2008
The goal of the Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements is to help identify key design elements of a scientifically sound, economically rational, and politically pragmatic post-2012 international policy architecture for global climate change. It draws upon leading thinkers from academia, private industry, government, and non-governmental organizations from around the world to construct a small set of promising policy frameworks and then disseminate and discuss the design elements and frameworks with decision-makers.
Supplementary methods and good practice guidance arising from the Kyoto Protocol
2003
BACKGROUND The UNFCCC Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol at its seventh session (CMP 7), held in December 2011 in Durban, South Africa, invited the IPCC to: …review and, if necessary, update supplementary methodologies for estimating anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks resulting from land use, land-use change and forestry activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Kyoto Protocol, related to the annex to this decision, on the basis of, inter alia, chapter 4 of its Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry 7. In response to the UNFCCC's invitation, the need to update Chapter 4 was considered at the IPCC Scoping Meeting to consider the Invitation from UNFCCC CMP 7 that took place in Geneva in May 2012. The IPCC at its 35 th Session decided to produce the KP Supplement and agreed Terms of Reference, a Table of Contents and a Work Plan 8. The Terms of Reference specified that the revision of Chapter 4 of the GPG-LULUCF should be consistent with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and with the decisions of the COP and CMP, that it should not revise or replace the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, and that it should maintain the structure and content of the existing Chapter 4 of the GPG-LULUCF. 3 THE NEED TO UPDATE CHAPTER 4 OF GPG-LULUCF Chapter 4 of the GPG-LULUCF provides supplementary methods and good practice guidance related to LULUCF activities, based on the general GHG inventory guidance provided in other chapters of the GPG-LULUCF and the rules governing the treatment of LULUCF activities in the first commitment period of Kyoto Protocol 9. The need to review and update Chapter 4 of the GPG-LULUCF for the second commitment period arises because: First, the rules for reporting and accounting of LULUCF activities for the second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol differ in some respects from the rules for the first commitment period. Second, updating is needed in the light of the CMP decision to use the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for the second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol 10. The new rules for the treatment of LULUCF in the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol agreed by CMP 7 contain, amongst other things, new provisions, which are not covered in the existing Chapter 4 of the GPG-LULUCF, on Forest Management; natural disturbances in Forest Management and Afforestation and Reforestation areas; Harvested Wood Products; and Wetland Drainage and Rewetting. Table 1 summarises the 7 See paragraph 8 of Decision 2/CMP.
Impacts of the Kyoto Protocol on boreal forest climate change mitigation
Annals of Forest Science, 2014
& Context The Kyoto Protocol allows the use of domestic forest carbon sequestration to offset emissions to a limited degree, while bioenergy as an unlimited emission reduction option receives substantial financial support in many countries. & Aim The primary objective of this study was to analyze (1) whether these limits on forest carbon sequestration would be binding, thereby leading to inefficient mitigation, and (2) the total potential effect of the protocol on the greenhouse gas (GHG) fluxes in the forest sector. & Methods A partial equilibrium model of the Norwegian forest sector was used to quantify the GHG fluxes in a base scenario with no climate policy, a Kyoto Protocol policy (KP policy), and a policy with no cap on forest carbon sequestration (FC policy), assuming that the policies apply the rest of the century. & Results Carbon offsets are higher under the KP policy than in the base scenario and likewise higher than under the FC policy in the short run, but the KP policy fails to utilize the forest carbon sequestration potential in the long run as it provides considerably less incentives to invest in forestry than the FC policy. & Conclusion The KP increases the Norwegian forest sector's climate change mitigation compared to no climate policy but less in the long run than a carbon policy with no cap on forest carbon credits.