Transcript Title: Forest/Environment - Copa

Questions

Forest related outcomes of the UNFCCC meeting in Cancun
(COP16) and EU’s position regarding forest in the ongoing
climate change negotiations

Explaining the reference level and its benefits

Role of forest in achieving the EU’s climate change
commitments: outcome of the informal expert group work and
of the public consultation
1
Cancun outcome
UNFCCC COP16
1.
2.
3.
4.
Overall targets:
 2°C objective (assess whether 1,5°C possible)
 Pledges under Copenhagen Accord anchored
(EU: 20-30)
Fate of the Kyoto Protocol?
LULUCF Decision
LULUCF Draft Decision
2
LULUCF Decision

LULUCF will count towards targets under KP

No agreement for accounting method for forest management, but:
– Force majeure rules
– Submission of draft reference levels by 28 February
– review process
3
LULUCF draft
Decision

Agreement reached between EU, Umbrella group (non-EU, non-US Annex
I), G77&China – resistance from small island states and NGOs

Mandatory accounting for forest management (in addition to afforestation,
deforestation, reforestation)

Reference level for forest management (projected, historical)

Review procedure for RL

Natural disturbance (force majeure)

Quantitative limitation of contribution of FM (cap)

Obligatory inclusion of harvested wood products (solid wood, paper) on the
basis of standard decay functions or more refined approaches

(no change of voluntary accounting for agricultural soils)
4
Way ahead

Reference level:
– Submission by 28 February
– Improve analysis of what RLs should be, and associated mitigation
potential – needed for final negotiations on commitments

Confirmation of HWP agreement

Force Majeure:
– definition (single events vs collective)
– trigger level

Nature of forest management cap (exemption from cap if historical RL?)

Status of special rules (compensation rule)
5
Accounting for
forests
Old
New (EU, Umbrella, G77&China)

No comparison with
reference year (gross/net)

Projections of carbon
stock developments

Forest growth generates
credits

Only deviations from
baseline count

Capping of credits to 15%

Force majeure (natural


-> „free credit for most
Parties“
-> limited/no incentives
for mitigation
disturbances,compliance risks)

Harvested Wood Products

Cap?
6
LULUCF trends
reference year 1990
cropland
cap
grassland
forests
(excluding afforestation and deforestation)
Source: IIASA
7
Age classes
150
100
over150
200
141to150
131to140
121to130
111to120
101to110
91to100
81to90
71to80
61to70
300
51to60
41to50
31to40
21to30
11to20
1to10
Area (kha)
Shift in age
class structure
Age structure
250
2005
2010
2015
2020
50
0
8
Elaboration of
reference level
0
Historical data from country
-5000
Model
Ref level
-10000
-15000
?
-20000
-25000
9
Problems: reproducing
historical trends
1. Models results (sum of 16 MS): for many MS the initial models’ results not so close to inventories
Historical data
FM, all pools and
GHG
Historical data
FM, only biomass
-50000
-100000
EFISCEN
-150000
G4M
-200000
Models average
-250000
2020
2018
2016
2014
2012
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
-300000
1990
Emissions (+) and removals (-) in Gg CO2
0
Sensistivity
analysis FM
(+/-20% harvest)
The original models’ results indicated a total sink for the period 2000-2008 in the
16 MS considered which is about 25% less than what reported in the GHG
10
inventories.
This is compatible with the high uncertainties typically reported for LULUCF.
“Calibrated”
results
Emissions (+) and removals (-) in Gg CO2
0
Historical data FM,
all pools and GHG
-50000
Historical data FM,
only biomass
-100000
EFISCEN
-150000
G4M
-200000
Models average
-250000
-300000
2020
2018
2016
2014
2012
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
-350000
Sensistivity analysis
FM (+/-20%
harvest)
proposed Reference
Level
Overall, for the 16 MS, in the period 2013-2020 models project a sink 17% lower than the
average of 1990-2007, due to ageing forest structure and higher harvest rates.
Sensitivity analysis: a +/-20% of harvest would lead to a variation of the sink of about +/-25%,
11
corresponding to +/-1.6% of the total 1990 emissions 16 the MS (but varies a lot among MS!)
Impact of assumptions
Impact of different assumptions of future harvest of specific MS (only for those
with IIASA/EFI/JRC projections), in % 1990 GHG emissions (without LULUCF)
12
+20% of harvest compared to
BAU
9
6
3
0
-3
-6
-9
United Kingdom
Sweden
Spain
Slovenia
Slovakia
Romania
Portugal
Poland
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Lithuania
Latvia
Italy
Ireland
Hungary
Greece
Germany
France
Finland
Estonia
Denmark
Czech Republic
Bulgaria
Belgium
Austria
-12
12
Conclusions RL
Advantages



Broad political
agreement, intra-EU &
international
Equal accounting for
emissions from
biomass and fossil
sources
Addresses age-class
structure
Disadvantages
“Net-net” type of
accounting creates
disincentive for wood
mobilisation
 Uncertainties of
modelling
 Cheating possible?

13
Implications for EU
climate legislation
Targets
 -2° Objective: stepping up of 2020 target?
Include LULUCF into EU mitigation commitment?
 CLIMA report June 2011
– If, how, when?
– Coverage (forests, soils)?
– Which accounting rules?
– Which policy framework (ETS, ESD, new)?
14
Public Consultation 1
Groups of respondents


153 respondents
Almost 2/3 want
LULUCF to
become part of
EU GHG
commitments
Private
companies, business
and industry
organisations; 46;
30%
Academia; 21; 14%
Government and
public bodies; 15;
10%
Individuals and
private forest/land
Q8: Should
NGOs; LULUCF
25; 16% by part of the EU commitment
owners; 46; 30%
No
55
36%
Yes 98, 64%
To achieve a
GHG reduction
commitment
above 20%
53, 54%
To achieve the
EU's unilateral
20% GHG
15
reduction
commitment
45, 46%
Q9 : How should emissions and removals related to LULUCF be
regulated if included in the commitment?
Public Consultation 2
Emissions and
removals in the
sector should count
towards Member
States' targets
under the ESD
42
28%
Emissions and
removals should be
part of the single
EU-wide cap in the
EU ETS
22
14%
Other
6
4%
Yes, one target for
each Member State
24
16%
Yes, one target for
the EU as a whole
22
14%
Emissions and
removals in the
sector should count
towards the EU
No, no target
target through a
6
separate framework
Emissions and
4%
52
removals should not
34% The majority (82%) considered that
be included in the
EU's GHG reduction
existing EU and MS policies are
commitment
insufficient to ensure that land use
31
activities contribute to climate change
20%
mitigation and that all activities need to be
16
addressed via a combination of regional,
MS and EU policies (63%)
9
7
3
1
1
Revegetation
4
7
Wetland
management
6
Grazing land
management
Voluntary
Cropland
management
0
Changes in the
haversted wood
products pool
12
Forest
management
0
Afforestation/
Reforestation

Deforestation
Number of responses
Member States 1
14 MS responded, same questions, similar
trends with a few exceptions:
Which activities should be mandatory or voluntary?
Mandatory
12
9
7
3
1
17
Public
consultation

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/events/0029/final_report_en.pdf

Summary: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/events/0029/responses_en.pdf
18
Stakeholder
conference 28/1/2011






Follows up from ECCP working group
MS, NGOs, economic sectors, academia
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/events/0029/index_en.htm
No clearly emerging “simple” solution
LULUCF inclusion desirable in the long run
Policy framework: ESD or stand-alone framework
19
Thank you
for further questions:
[email protected]
20