Transcript Outline - Global Carbon Project

Carbon and the Science - Policy Nexus
The Kyoto Challenge
Robert T. Watson
IPCC, Chair
Global Change Open Science Conference
Netherlands
July 10th
Variations of the Earth’s Surface
Temperature: 1000 to 2100
Global Climate Change
A Threat to Sustainable Development, especially in Developing Countries
Climate change threatens our ability to:
• alleviate poverty for the 1.3 billion people who live on less than $1 per day and the 3
billion people who live on less than $2 per day - livelihoods threatened because of
degradation of ecological systems (e.g., agriculture, forests, fisheries, coral reefs)
• provide adequate food, especially for the 800 million people who are malnourished
today— decreased agricultural productivity in tropics and sub-tropics
• provide clean water for the 1.3 billion people who live without clean water and
provide sanitation for the 2 billion people who live without sanitation - decreased
water availability and quality in many arid and semi-arid areas
• provide a healthy environment for the 1.4 to more than 2 billion people who are
exposed to dangerous levels of outdoor pollution and water- and vector-borne
diseases - increased pollution and exposure to water- and vector-borne diseases
• provide safe shelter for those that live in areas susceptible to civil strife due to
environmental degradation and those vulnerable to natural disasters and sea level rise
- degraded natural resources, sea level rise and increased extreme weather events
Emissions and uptakes since
1800
(Gt C)
140
Land use
change
115
Oceans
110
265
Fossil
emissions
Terrestrial
180
Atmosphere
The Kyoto Protocol
The Challenge of Mitigation
 The near-term challenge is to achieve the
Kyoto targets
 The longer-term challenge is to meet the
objectives of Article 2 of the UNFCCC, i.e.,
stabilization of GHG concentrations in the
atmosphere at a level that would prevent
dangerous anthropogenic interference with
the climate system
food security
ecological systems and
sustainable economic development
The Kyoto Protocol
 Signed December 1997
 A commitment for industrialized countries (OECD
countries and Economies in Transition - called
Annex I) to reduce overall emissions of six
greenhouse gases (or families of gases) by on
average 5.2 per cent below 1990 levels in 2008 2012
 No quantitative obligations on developing
countries to reduce their emissions
The Short-term Challenge
Percentage Change in Emissions from 1990 to 2010
130%
125%
120%
Parties' projections
115%
SRES A1F1
110%
SRES A1T
Evolution in %
Annex II
105%
SRES A1B
100%
SRES A2
Annex I
95%
SRES B1
SRES B2
90%
OECD
85%
IEA
EIT
US source LG
80%
US source REF
75%
US source HG
70%
EU source
65%
Average
60%
55%
50%
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
The Long-term Challenge
Carbon emissions and stabilization scenarios
The Challenge of Mitigation
 If governments decide to stabilize the atmospheric
concentration of carbon dioxide at 550ppm (about twice
the pre-industrial level), global emissions would have to
peak by about 2025 and fall below current levels by
2040 to 2070.
 This would mean that all regions would have to deviate
from most “business-as-usual”scenarios within a few
decades
Mitigation Options
 Technologies
 Supply Side
 Demand Side
 Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry
 Waste Management and Reduced Halocarbon Emissions
 Policies
 Energy pricing strategies and taxes
 Removing subsidies that increase Greenhouse gas emissions
 Internalizing the social costs of environmental degradation
 Tradable emissions permits--domestic and global
 Voluntary programs
 Regulatory programs including energy-efficiency standards
 Incentives for use of new technologies during market build-up
 Education and training such as product advisories and labels
 Research and Development
 energy efficiency technologies and low-carbon technologies
Key issues for the Kyoto Protocol
 Selected key issues to be discussed include:
Differentiated responsibilities - obligations of industrialized
and developing countries
Flexibility mechanisms - carbon trading
Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry activities
Differentiated Obligations
 It has argued by some that the Kyoto Protocol is
neither fair nor effective because developing countries
are not obligated to reduce their emissions
Fairness - This is an equity issue - the Parties to the Kyoto
Protocol will have to decide what is fair and equitable,
recognizing that:
 about 80% of the total anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse
gases have been emitted from industrialized countries;
per capita emissions in industrialized countries far exceed those
from developing countries, now and for the for-seeable future;
developing countries do not have the financial, technological and
institutional capability of industrialized countries to address the
issue; and
increased use of energy is essential for poverty alleviation and for
long-term sustainable economic growth
Effectiveness - Long-term stabilization of the atmospheric
concentration of greenhouse gases cannot be achieved without
global reductions, hence the issue is whom should do what in
the short-term recognizing the long-term challenge
Key Issues for the Kyoto Protocol
Flexible Mechanisms
 There are three flexibility mechanisms
Article 6 - Joint Implementation among Annex I Parties
- these are project-based activities
Article 12 - The Clean Development Mechanism project-based activities between Annex I Parties and
developing countries
Article 17 - Emissions rights trading among Annex I
countries
 Because carbon abatement costs are much lower in
most developing countries, carbon trading allows:
reduced costs for industrialized countries
technology transfer to developing countries
financial flows to developing countries
Key Issues for the Kyoto Protocol
Flexible Mechanisms (Art. 6, 12 and 17)
 capped or uncapped
(EU and many developing countries
want a cap in contrast to the US: will affect the size of market and
the cost to Annex I countries) - current text states that
obligations should be chiefly met through domestic actions
 should hot-air trading with Russian Federation
be allowed - allowed within a strict trading cap
 eligibility of LULUCF activities in CDM - limited to
afforestation and reforestation (see later slide)
 liability (if a seller fails to deliver, i.e., seller vs buyer beware)
 adaptation fee - CDM or all three mechanisms
(affects size of adaptation fund, hence the ability to mainstream
climate change into relevant sectors) - currently limited to CDM
Key Conclusions of IPCC WG III
 In the absence of trading, Annex B costs of complying with
the Kyoto Protocol, range from $150-600/tC (i.e., 0.2 - 2%
loss of GDP), where-as with full Annex B trading the costs
are reduced to $15-150/tC (i.e., 0.1 - 1% loss of GDP)
 These costs could further reduced with use of:
the Clean Development Mechanism
sinks
mixture of greenhouse gases
ancillary benefits and
efficient tax recycling
 If all cost reduction activities could be realized then
GDP growth rates would only have slow by a few hundreds
of a percent per year
Key Issues for the Kyoto Protocol
Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry
 Topics covered in this presentation include:
How have LULUCF activities been included in the
Kyoto Protocol?
What are the key decisions?
What is the potential of LULUCF activities to
reduce net emissions
Key Issues for the Kyoto Protocol
Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry
 Definitions of a forest, afforestation, reforestation and
deforestation
 How to address the harvesting/regeneration cycle and
aggradation/ degradation (Art. 3.3 or 3.4)
 How to deal with permanence under Articles 3.3 and 3.4
 What activities are eligible under Article 3.4
 whether to limit credits under Article 3.4
 whether business-as-usual uptake can be credited
 Which, if any, LULUCF activities are eligible in the CDM
 afforestation, reforestation, slowing deforestation, forest/rangeland/cropland management, agroforestry
 how to address the issues of permanence, baselines, leakage and
sustainability criteria under the CDM
Key Issues for the Kyoto Protocol
Article 3.3
Which stock changes? All, or only those
directly human induced - what is included?
Article 3.3 The net changes in greenhouse gas emissions from
sources and removals by sinks resulting from direct humaninduced land-use change and forestry activities, limited to
afforestation, reforestation, and deforestation since 1990, measured
as verifiable changes in stocks in each commitment period shall be
used to meet the commitments in this Article of each Party included
in Annex I. The greenhouse gas emissions from sources and
removals by sinks associated with those activities shall be reported
in a transparent and verifiable manner and reviewed in accordance
with
Articles
7 andthe
8. growth increment due to “normal” forest
Can
we
separate
growth from that due to carbon dioxide, nitrogen fertilization?
-- IPCC has been asked to assess this possibility
Key Issues for the Kyoto Protocol
Article 3.4
Contrasts with Article 3.3 refers
to “direct human-induced
activities
Article 3.4 … Such a decision shall apply in the second
and subsequent commitment periods. A Party may
choose to apply such a decision on these additional
human-induced activities for its first commitment
period, provided that these activities have taken place
since 1990.
The key issue is whether these activities must commence
after 1990 or whether activities initiated before 1990, but
that are continued after 1990, are eligible -- a key issue
with respect to the current residual terrestrial uptake -finessed by discounting for the first commitment period
Key Issues for the Kyoto Protocol
Article 12
Emission reductions resulting from each project activity shall
be certified by operational entities to be designated by the
Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties
to this Protocol, on the basis of:
(a) Voluntary participation approved by each Party involved;
(b) Real, measurable, and long-term benefits related to the
mitigation of climate change; and
(c) Reductions in emissions that are additional to any that
would occur in the absence of the certified project activity.
Does this include sinks? Does it refer to gross or net emissions?
Current text suggests allowing afforestation and reforestation,
but no other LULUCF activities
Key Issues for the Kyoto Protocol
Article 3.3
Definitions of a Forest
 Most definitions are based in part on a single
threshold of minimum canopy cover
0%
Canopy Cover
100%
The current text allows each Party to chose a canopy cover
between 10 and 30%, a minimum tree height between 2-5 m,
and a spatial extent between 0.05 - 1 ha -- aggradation and
degradation is dealt with through forest management -- biome
specific definitions may be used after the first commitment period
Proportion of wooded land captured by a
percentage cover threshold
1.00
Proportion
0.80
Australia
USA
Brazil
Canada
Indonesia
New Zealand
South Africa
Scandinavia
Western Europe
World
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0
20
40
60
Percent cover
80
100
Prepared I.R. Noble, O'Brien & Roderick
Based on DeFries et al
J.Geophys.Res. 100,20867-82
Potential net emissions from forests
Art. 3.3 Annex 1 Countries
-1
Mt C yr
IPCC definitions
Annex 1
AR
D
26
-90
Note the qualifications about these estimates.
•Data often uncertain (carbon content, growth
and areas affected)
•Based on assumption that current rates of
ARD continue through to 2012
•Assumptions about the shape of the growth
curve greatly affect the outcome
Key Issues for the Kyoto Protocol
Article 3.4
What may be covered by Art 3.4
 Forest management other than that
covered by Art 3.3 (ARD)
 Changes in management practices which
do not lead to a change in cover type,
e.g., conservation tillage
 Changes in land management which do
lead to a change in land cover type, e.g.,
reversion of cropland to grassland
Interpretations of Article 3.4
Narrow definition
Broad definition
Forest Management
Cropland Management
Grazing land Management
USA definition
Full carbon accounting
 All stocks across all carbon pools
 If applied to all land in all countries then the
accounting would produce the “Net terrestrial uptake”
of about 1.4 GtC y-1 (IPCC TAR) without any additional
effort to reduce emissions or increase sinks
 Assuming emissions from tropical deforestation are
1.6 GtC y-1, this suggests a global uptake of about 3
GtC y-1
Assuming 50% of the uptake is at mid- and high latitudes, this
would allow Annex I Parties to claim an annual credit of between
about 1.5 GtC y-1 due to the residual uptake because of improved
management practices pre-1990, carbon dioxide and nitrogen
fertilization effect and climate change. Current text would limit this
credit by discounting by 85%.
Direct Human-induced
 “For activities that involve land-use changes (e.g., from
grassland/pasture to forest) it may be very difficult, if
not impossible, to distinguish with present scientific
tools that portion of the observed stock change that is
directly human-induced from that portion that is caused
by indirect and natural factors.”
 Emissions and removals from natural causes such as El
Niño may be large compared with commitments
 For activities that involve land-management changes
(e.g., tillage to no-till agriculture), it should be feasible
to distinguish between the direct and indirect humaninduced components, but not to separate out natural
factors
Permanence
 “Sinks” are potentially reversible
through human activities, disturbances, or
environmental change, including climate change.
 This is a more critical issue than for activities
in other sectors, e.g., the energy sector.
 A pragmatic solution... (consistent with the
current text) ensure that any credit for
enhanced carbon stocks is balanced by
accounting for any subsequent reductions in
those carbon stocks, regardless of the cause.
Annual C sequestration potential (GtC/y)
improvement of management within cover type new activities since 1990
I
Annex 1
Urban land management
Global
Rice Paddies
Agroforestry
Grazing land management
Cropland management
Forest management
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Contains a best estimate of the rate of uptake of these
activities by 2010 (vary between 3% to 80%) -- current
text would inhibit investment under Article 3.4 because
forest management because is discounted 85%
Annual C sequestration potential (GtC/y)
Transformation between cover types
Annex 1
Degraded land restoration
Global
Wetland restoration
Degraded agriculture to agroforest
Cropland to grassland
0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Key Issues for the Kyoto Protocol
Article 12
Key Issues for the Kyoto Protocol
The Clean Development Mechanism
 What will be included:
Current text would allow afforestation and reforestation
Current text would not allow avoided deforestation or other land
management practices
 Key issues, especially for avoided deforestation, include:
baselines - issue of additionality
local, regional or national sectoral
business-as-usual or ??????
permanence
time-limited credits, avoiding national sovereignty issues
leakage
local, regional or national sectoral baselines (does not avoid
transboundary leakage)
sustainable development criteria
monitoring
project-based or national systems will need to be developed
Potential emissions reductions
from forests under CDM (using Art.
3.3 rules) in non-Annex 1 Countries
Mt C yr-1
IPCC definitions
Non-Annex 1
AR
D
373
-1600
Avoided deforestation not allowed under current text
-
concern about baselines, leakage, permanence
-
multiple benefits, including biodiversity, water
resource management
Sustainable Development Criteria
 LULUCF ACTIVITES AND PROJECTS CAN HAVE A BROAD RANGE
OF ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS, e.g.
biodiversity
Forests, soils, water resources
Food, fiber, fuel
Employment, health, poverty, equity
 SYSTEM OF CRITERIA AND INDICATORS (C&I) COULD BE
VALUABLE TO COMPARE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS
ACROSS LULUCF ALTERNATIVES
 IF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA VARY SIGNIFICANTLY
ACROSS COUNTRIES OR REGIONS, MAY BE INCENTIVES TO
LOCATE ACTIVITIES AND PROJECTS IN AREAS WITH LESS
STRINGENT CRITERIA.
Maximum USA & Japan purchases
The current text
60
M t C / yr
50
40
30
20
10
0
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
discounts credits for
forest management
under Article 3.4 by
85%, and
Forest mgmt discount (Pronk = 85%)
limits the use of sinks
to 50% of total
reductions
60
Mt C / yr
50
40
30
20
10
0
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Cap on the use of sinks (Pronk 50%)
80%
Accounts for pre-1990
activities, does not separate
direct from indirect human
activities, and accepts
broad definitions
Potential for international trading in sinks
(Pronk proposal Apr 2001, using Aug 1 submitted data)
Credits under Art 3.4
Unlikely Purchases
Potential Purchases
70
Mt C per year
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Estimated potential trade of about
20 MtC/yr through all three
mechanisms
Conclusion
 Climate change is occurring, in part because of human activities, and
further human-induced climate change is inevitable
 Most people will be adversely affected by climate change, particularly
the poor within developing countries
 Climate change is a serious environmental/development issue that
requires action to limit greenhouse gases now, recognizing both
short-and long-term objectives
 Climate change mitigation and adaptation technologies and policies
need to be integrated into national development plans
 Technologies and policies are available to address climate change in a
cost-effective manner
 Governments, the private sector,civil society, the media and the
scientific community all have critical roles in addressing the issue of
climate change
 Policy-relevant research and assessments are needed for informed
policy formulation - need to communicate results in a clearer manner