The workshop on land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF)
began with opening speeches and an overview of key issues
raised in the IPCC Special Report on LULUCF. Participants then
considered afforestation, reforestation and deforestation (ARD)
under Article 3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol in morning and
afternoon sessions.
OPENING PLENARY
Harald Dovland (Norway), Chair of the Subsidiary Body for
Technological and Scientific Advice (SBSTA) of the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), opened
the meeting and welcomed participants. He said the new IPCC
Special Report on LULUCF marked a watershed in work on this
issue and provided a strong scientific basis for deciding on
the various policy options available. He noted the upcoming 1
August deadline for the submission of country-specific data
and information on proposals by Annex I Parties for activities
related to Article 3.3 (ARD) and 3.4 (additional activities)
of the Kyoto Protocol. Noting that COP-6 was rapidly
approaching, he informed participants that consultations on
LULUCF had been tentatively scheduled for the second week of
October.
Antoni Tokarczuk, Minister of the Environment of Poland,
noted that this workshop was being held in response to a
request by SBSTA to analyze the IPCC Special Report in the
context of the requirements of Protocol Articles 3.3 and 3.4.
He stressed the importance of wise land use and forestry
policies in addressing climate change concerns, and outlined
elements of Poland's National Sustainable Forestry Policy,
including, inter alia: conservation of existing forest areas;
promotion of natural forest regeneration; and reduction of
clear-cutting. Stating that LULUCF is one of the most
important issues addressed by the Protocol, he urged
participants to work to achieve "concrete results"
at this meeting that could support the Protocol's entry into
force in 2002.
COP-5 President Jan Szyszko (Poland) stressed the
opportunity provided by this workshop to make progress on
LULUCF. He noted the carbon storage, biodiversity,
socio-economic and other benefits of sound forestry policy.
Halldor Thorgeirsson (Iceland), Co-Chair of the SBSTA
contact group on LULUCF, noted concerns expressed by a number
of Parties regarding the agenda items relating to discussion
of possible elements of decisions. He stressed that this
workshop was not a forum for negotiating outcomes.
IPCC Chair Robert Watson highlighted key issues for
decisions, including: defining a forest, including single or
multiple thresholds of canopy cover, and aggradation and
degradation; excluding or including the harvest-regeneration
cycle and the problem of accurately reflecting changes in
carbon in the atmosphere; addressing the question of
permanence; differentiating between direct and indirect
human-induced activities; identifying which pools to monitor,
including issues related to costs, the need for precision and
technical feasibility, and monitoring of project-based
activities; addressing 1990-2008 incentives and disincentives;
and determining quantitative potentials considering accounting
approaches and the definition of a forest, including effects
under a single threshold.
PROTOCOL ARTICLE 3.3: AFFORESTATION, REFORESTATION AND
DEFORESTATION
PRESENTATIONS:
Bernard Schlamadinger, IPCC/Joanneum
Research, Austria, provided an overview of ARD issues under
the IPCC Special Report, focusing on the harvest-regeneration
cycle, aggradation/degradation and the limit of forest-nonforest
conversions. He said that, under the IPCC definitional
scenario, ARD activities are based on transitions between
forest and non-forest uses. Under the FAO definitional
scenarios, the harvest-regeneration cycle is included and
aggradation/degradation can be included, although this
requires multiple thresholds in the definition of a forest. He
demonstrated the implications of definitional and accounting
options and noted that the accounted stock change generally
would be different from the actual stock change during a
commitment period, which would lead to artificial credits and
debits. He concluded that the IPCC definitional scenario
provided the highest consistency between reported and actual
changes in stocks in land undergoing ARD activities, noting
that this scenario is likely to result in debits in Annex I
Parties overall, and that aggradation/degradation would be
easier to cover under Article 3.4 than under Article 3.3.
Michael Gytarsky, Institute of Global Climate and Ecology,
Roshydromet and Russian Academy of Sciences, made a
presentation on definitions of ARD within the framework of
Articles 3.3 and 3.4 of the Protocol, suggesting that these
definitions be extended to include various human activities
aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing
sinks. He suggested considering the inclusion of fire
prevention as a human-induced activity under Article 3.4.
Klas Österberg, Principal Technical Officer, Swedish
Environmental Protection Agency, discussed Swedish carbon
budgets in relation to the Protocol. He outlined calculations
on above-ground biomass carbon and emphasized that Article 3.3
would not benefit Sweden, as slow growth in early rotation
cannot compensate for harvested carbon, and could instead
create a significant carbon debit.
Yuji Kimura, Office of Research and Information,
Environment Agency of Japan, made a presentation on ARD under
Protocol Article 3.3. On selection of a definition and
accounting framework for Article 3.3 activities, he stated
that these should include incentives to promote sinks
activities. He highlighted incentives to promote forest
management in Annex I countries where the
harvesting-regeneration cycle is the key factor, and said the
definition and accounting framework should encourage carbon
sequestration in the harvesting-regeneration cycle. He
supported the FAO activity-based accounting method, as it can
promote appropriate harvesting and regeneration.
Yeshey Penjor, National Greenhouse Gas Project Manager,
National Environmental Commission of Bhutan, discussed LULUCF
in a national context. He defined land-use planning as a means
of supporting farmers and rural communities dependent on
natural resources to increase their standard of living
sustainably without diminishing the future resource base.
Kazimierz Rykowski, Professor of Forestry, Polish Forest
Research Institute, highlighted the importance of developing a
set of definitions and accounting procedures, as well as a
measuring and monitoring system. Noting difficulties in
reaching agreement on the definition of a forest, he suggested
focusing instead on seeking definitions and descriptions of
ARD and "forestry activities." While agreeing with
the IPCC's Special Report that afforestation and
reforestation should be classified as forestry activities, he
said deforestation should not be, as it does not take place
within forest management.
DISCUSSION: In the ensuing discussion, FRANCE, speaking on
behalf of the EU, said its position is still under
consideration. However, he highlighted the Council of
Ministers' Decision of 23 June 2000, which notes that, inter
alia: the inclusion of sinks should not undermine the
incentives for emissions reductions or biodiversity
conservation; a decision on inclusion of further activities
under Article 3.4 should not apply until after the first
commitment period, unless concerns relating to scale,
uncertainty and risks are resolved; sinks should not be
included under the CDM; and decisions should be consistent
with sustainable forest management.
The UK called for a simple, environmentally-defensible
framework for decisions and accounting approaches. WWF
addressed the issue of control of forest fires, and questioned
how a baseline could be established. On using a Leaf Area
Index as a method for measuring carbon stocks, Robert Watson
suggested that this was not a particularly useful approach.
On the definition of a forest, FINLAND called for the use
of existing FAO definitions, which countries are already
familiar with. BOLIVIA stressed that adopting a simple, single
threshold definition of a forest would result in a loss of
accuracy, and said the approach needs improvement. JAPAN
called for the inclusion of the harvesting-regeneration cycle
under Article 3.3 to provide incentives to fully utilize
sinks, especially in countries with little opportunity for
increasing forested areas. NORWAY opposed this suggestion,
stressing the need to keep accounting simple. He supported the
IPCC framework, but stressed the need to address the problem
that increases in carbon stocks in boreal forests would
generate debits under the accounting framework.
On ARD and forests, AUSTRALIA suggested including Article
3.3 and 3.4 in a single framework, reinforced by ARD
definitions. He noted the differences between afforestation,
reforestation and deforestation, highlighting that
deforestation needs an accounting framework that ensures that
the extent of land-use change is monitored. FAO emphasized the
dynamism of forestry definitions and acknowledged that current
FAO definitions may not fully meet the needs of carbon
accounting. He said FAO will continue revisiting the question
of definitions and will seek input and suggestions. TUVALU, on
behalf of AOSIS, suggested considering not only ecosystem
accounting but also transactional accounting. He highlighted
the varying levels of technical capability of Parties to make
accounting measurements.
On transparency, GERMANY emphasized the importance of a
transparent accounting system that allows those not involved
in the Expert Review Teams to have access to areas of
afforestation.
Several delegates addressed the issue of potential
discrimination or loopholes relating to credits and debits due
to the timing of the first commitment period and the relevant
text in the Protocol. AUSTRALIA and FINLAND proposed that
sub-rules or exclusions could be developed to avoid any
unintended consequences – such as potential encouragement of
deforestation prior to, rather than during, the first
commitment period, in order to avoid debits. AOSIS said the
implications of sub-rules would need to be considered. He
stressed that commitment periods should run contiguously, and
said policy-makers should take a longer-term perspective that
accounts for the fact that disadvantages accrued during the
first commitment period would be likely to disappear in the
second or third period, depending on the length of the
forestry rotation period. Co-Chair Thorgeirsson said
exceptions or sub-rules should focus on the period prior to
the first commitment period, and agreed with participants'
comments that commitment periods should be contiguous.
On inclusion of non-CO2 greenhouse gases, FINLAND stressed
that not enough is known of the balances in activities under
Article 3.3 for a well-informed decision. Emphasizing the need
for simplicity, the UK and JAPAN argued against inclusion of
non-CO2 greenhouse gases. AUSTRALIA, with the NETHERLANDS,
supported including all greenhouse gases, adding that the
intent behind Article 3.3 was not to focus solely on CO2. He
highlighted the risk of unintended effects if a comprehensive
approach is not taken, citing the case of applying fertilizers
to enhance CO2 uptake and unintentionally increasing N2O
emissions. IRELAND said including all greenhouse gases was a
reasonable proposal, while cautioning that methodological
issues would need to be resolved.
The US said activities under Article 3.4 could be used to
address limitations in activities under Article 3.3. She said
harvested wood products should be included as a managed pool
within the accounting framework. She highlighted the idea that
definitions could vary by Party, involving a review process to
ensure technical credibility and consistency over time. On the
definition of a forest, she said the FAO definitions have not
been adopted for carbon accounting, and need to be considered
more carefully. She preferred definitions to be made at the
Party level. She questioned the role of sub-rules and whether
their purpose was to provide incentives for future behavior or
penalize and reward past behavior.
On soil carbon, AOSIS said presentations had addressed
above- ground carbon stocks, but noted that they did not
necessarily take carbon stocks below ground into
consideration. GERMANY, opposed by JAPAN, supported inclusion
of soil carbon under Article 3.3, saying it would give
incentives for sustainable management, while cautioning
against credits for carbon that has not been genuinely
accumulated. The UK said accounting procedures should not be
too detailed.