Transcript Forestry and Agriculture Sequestration Projects as

Workshop on Forestry & Climate Change:
Sequestration Options in the Context of
U.S. Climate Policy
Ken Andrasko
Office of Atmospheric Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA
at
Workshop on Forestry & Climate Change: Assessing Mitigation
Potential--Lessons Learned, New Delhi, India, Sept. 23-24,
2002
Bush Administration’s New Approach to
Climate Change:
Emissions Intensity Target
• President’s 6/14/02 plan commits U.S. to slow, stop,
and then, as science justifies, reverse GHG emissions
growth.
• Commits U.S. to cut GHG emissions per Gross
Domestic Product (million $/year), a unit of economic
activity: by 18%, by 2012.
• President’s goal would lower emissions 4.5% below
business as usual projections.
• Review progress in 2012; take additional action if
necessary.
President Announced Global Climate
Change Initiatives
• Business engagement: EPA Climate Leaders: ~ 20
companies commit to corporate inventories &
emission reduction targets.
• Revise U.S. GHG registry (1605b) to enhance
accuracy, verifiability, & provide transferable credits
• $700 million increase in FY03 budget for climate
change science and technology-- to $4.5 billion total.
• $4.6 billion proposed tax credits for renewable
energy sources (5 yrs).
• Enhanced support for climate observation and
mitigation in developing world.
• Incentives for sequestration.
Enhanced Support in Developing
Countries & for International Cooperation
• $155 million for US AID climate programs
• ~$68 million for Global Environment Facility
climate change work
• $50 million for tropical forest conservation
(inc. $40 million for debt-for-nature swaps)
• $25 million for climate observation systems in
developing countries
Developing Countries & International
Cooperation: Bilaterals
• Bilateral discussions underway, emphasizing
cooperation on science & technology, with:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
India, China, Korea
Brazil, Mexico
CONCAUSA (7 Central American countries)
South Africa
Japan, Australia, Canada, Italy, New Zealand
EU
Russian Federation, Ukraine
U.S. EPA Forest and Agriculture Climate
Change Activities
• EPA compiles official U.S. GHG inventory for all
sectors: agriculture and forest emissions (w/USDA)
• Mitigation analysis of agriculture and forests:
• modeling project-level, U.S., and international options,
• economics, and policy options.
• Improve sinks in major integrated assessment
models for policy analysis
• EPA voluntary programs:
– methane reduction (livestock)
– Climate Leaders: private sector companies, launched in 2002
Land Use is Major Source of Developing
Country Emissions & Mitigation Potential
• Top 10 emitters
without LULUCF
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
China
India
S. Korea
Brazil
Mexico
S. Africa
Iran
Saudi Arabia
Indonesia
Nigeria
670
240
110
100
100
100
80
70
60
20
• Top 10 emitters with
LULUCF (MMTC/y)
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
China
Brazil
India
Indonesia
Sudan
Mexico
S. Africa
Congo
Iran
Nigeria
650
400
240
210
160
150
100
80
80
70
Assessing Feasibility of Sinks Options:
Cost of carbon ($/t C)
Example:Conceptual impact of barriers on costs and
carbon mitigation potential
Economic
Potential
Market or Achievable
Potential
F7 Estimate –
Socioeconomic
Potential
??
??
Market Failures: Examples
Ill-defined property rights
Lack of information
Absence of markets
Poor capital markets
Barriers: Examples
Carbon leakage
Class structure
Gender Issues
Attitudes and habits
Carbon sequestered or emissions avoided (t C)
Source: Sathaye et al, 2001
F7 and FORCLIMIT
Participating Research Groups (F7 since 1990)
• ASIA:
 CHINA -- Xu, Deying (IPCC Lead Author, LULUCF Report),
Forest Ecology and Environment Institute, Beijing
 INDIA -- Dr. N.H. Ravindranath (IPCC Coordinator, LULUCF
Report, CLA for Tech Transfer, and LA for WGIII Report,
Consultant to UNFCCC), Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore
 INDONESIA -- Prof. Rizaldi Boer (UNFCCC Consultant),
Bogor Agriculture University, Bogor (co-funding with EAP)
 MALAYSIA -- Dr. Roslan Ismail (ITTO Board, IPCC LA),
SustechAsia.com Sdn Bhd., and Prof. Azman Abidin, UPM,
Malaysia (via EAP funding)
 PHILIPPINES -- Prof. Rodel Lasco (IPCC Lead Author,
LULUCF Report), University of the Philippines, Los Banos (via
EAP funding)
• AFRICA:
Technical Cooperation with Experts and
Via Bilateral Relationships is Critical
• FORCLIMIT: Forestry and Climate Change Mitigation
Network, EPA & LBNL (with State Dept. support) with incountry institutes & government
• 2000-02: Indonesia, Philippines, and Malaysia:
– Tech transfer & training in LBNL sinks models: COMAP.
– Mitigation cost curves, by in-country experts
– 2-3 stakeholder workshops in each country: Dialog on
policy & project issues w/ government, private industry,
NGOs, academics. Foreign experts brought in.
– Publication of results.
• 2002-03: Proposal: work with India?, and Mexico?
– Same activities as above, or as agreed with country.
FORCLIMIT Network: 2
• FORCLIMIT partners: Indonesia: IBP Bogor (Bogor
Agric. Univ,). Malaysia: Regional Centre for Forest
Management. Philippines: Univ. of Philippines, Los
Banos
• Activities 2000-02: Performed national and case study
analyses of forest mitigation. Held 3 workshops each
country. Publications in major journals.
• Dialog with private sector, NGOs, academics led to new
cooperation, informed government policy positions.
FORCLIMIT: Lessons Learned
• Exchange methods, tools: US, plus experts from peer
countries: in region; India, Brazil, etc.
• Analysis by in-country institutions, to build capacity
• Cooperation w/ government, but technical process: freer
participation by private, NGOs. 2-year process.
• Include all stakeholders: regional, private, NGO, academic
• Share how US, other countries addressing same issues
• Explain IPCC, UNFCCC technical issues, results.
• Assess projects as tangible examples to avoid endless
debate, and force real study of technical issues.
Workshop Goals
• Identify potential forestry mitigation options for India
• Discuss methods for sequestration accounting, and
project technical issues
• Share analyses from other countries
• Identify research needs and discuss potential areas
of research cooperation
• Listen to perspectives of stakeholders: priority areas
for work, issues to address
• Identify next steps for cooperation and schedule
Incentives for Carbon Sequestration
in the President’s Plan
• Farm Bill of 2002 passed Congress, and includes:
• Conservation Reserve Program set-aside acreage expands from
34 to 40 million acres (16 million ha): cropland into grass or
trees.
• Enhanced Environmental Quality Incentives Program (e.g.,
fertilizer and waste management plans).
• Wetlands Reserve Program: doubled.
• Potential pilot sequestration projects and methods
development.
• President directed Departments of Energy,
Commerce, Agriculture, and EPA, to propose
improvements to current voluntary emissions
reduction registry program (1605b).
Summary:
Areas of Potential Cooperation to Realize
Sinks Potential
• Perform pilot project analyses: issues.
• Stimulate development of standard methods & guidance
for US and developing country offsets.
• Improve models to handle socioeconomic and technical
issues.
• Dialog on potential activities & issues with stakeholders.
• Assess rural livelihood, biodiversity effects.
• Assist key countries in assessing international offsets
opportunities, barriers, institutional arrangements.
EPA-LBNL FORCLIMIT
Network: Capacity Building
• FORCLIMIT = Forestry and Climate Change
Mitigation Network: Indonesia, Malaysia,
Philippines. Objectives:
– Assist LUCF inventory improvement: data, methods
– Assess options for forest maintenance, expansion, &
improved management, & GHG benefits.
– Dialog among government, private, NGO, experts.
– Assess 1-3 case studies: technical, financial, rural
livelihood, sustainable development aspects.
The FORCLIMIT Network Experience:
Potential Cooperation in India?
• Identify priority areas for research cooperation
• Establish working groups or relationships
• Schedule set of activities over 1-2 years: say,
workshops in May or June, and in December, 2003??
• Seek stakeholder input, especially from private sector
in India and U.S.: identify their needs, questions,
polaicy concerns, technical issues
• Select 1-2 case studies for intensive analysis of
technical issues?
• Schedule for outreach and publishing results