Participants at the SBSTA workshop on land use, land-use
change and forestry (LULUCF) met in morning and afternoon
sessions to consider additional human-induced activities under
Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol, including an overview from
IPCC lead authors of the Special Report on LULUCF,
presentations from Parties and one NGO representative, and
questions and comments from the floor. In the evening,
participants heard presentations from Parties, NGOs and
industry representatives on project-based activities.
ADDITIONAL HUMAN-INDUCED ACTIVITIES
UNDER ARTICLE 3.4
IPCC OVERVIEW: Presentations:
IPCC Chair Bob Watson
outlined key elements requiring decisions relating to Article
3.4 (additional activities), including which activities to
include, if any, and whether a Party that chooses to report
activities in the first commitment period should be obliged to
report on the entire set of selected activities. He then
identified several key issues under Article 3.4, including:
whether to adopt a broad or narrow definition of an activity;
how much land will need to be monitored, including cost and
potential windfall considerations; how to address the issue of
baselines; what ancillary benefits exist; and how to resolve
permanence issues.
Ian Noble, IPCC Lead Author, Australian National
University, outlined options for the definition of an
activity. He said a broad definition of an activity would
provide a more simplistic approach covering all practices on
an area of land, while a narrow definition – based on
individual practices – would permit greater accuracy. He
suggested that a broad definition would be more compatible
with land-based accounting, while a narrow definition would
better suit activity-based accounting, although any
combination could be made to work. He then discussed
"scientific baselines," noting the need to account
for the human-induced element. He concluded by elaborating
opportunities or "potentials" under Article 3.4,
identifying groups of activities relating to improved
management and land-use change. He said estimates suggested
that forest, cropland and grazing management could have
significant benefits for Annex I Parties, while transforming
degraded agricultural land to agroforestry could particularly
benefit non-Annex I Parties.
Question-and-answer session: In the subsequent
question-and-answer session on the IPCC overview, AOSIS
queried whether identifying specific "potentials"
was appropriate at this stage. The UK noted that the
scientific baseline was not a baseline as it is regularly
understood. He stressed the importance of separating
human-induced effects under Article 3.4. Replying to concerns
raised by CHINA over conflicting land-use priorities, Ian
Noble said changes from current agricultural practices to
agroforestry should be carefully designed to ensure overall
benefits to the population, and said agroforestry should not
be practiced on prime agricultural land. AUSTRALIA supported
further discussion on frameworks and measurements.
On questions relating to monitoring and verification, Noble
acknowledged the high costs involved, and raised the need for
a discussion on cost and benefits. On verification, he
commented that there should be mechanisms in place, such as
spot checks and checking of documentary evidence, coupled with
indirect verification through scientific papers.
On carbon crediting, the EUROPEAN COMMISSION highlighted
social and environmental baselines, emphasizing the Protocol's
sustainable development goals.
PRESENTATIONS: Following the IPCC overview and
question-and-answer session, participants heard presentations
from representatives of five Parties and one NGO on additional
human-induced activities under Article 3.4.
Party presentations: David Boulter, Senior Climate Change
Advisor, Canada Forest Service, provided a national
perspective of forest management under the Protocol,
suggesting that sustainable forest management would be a
cost-effective sink opportunity for Parties to fulfill their
emissions targets, and should be included under Article 3.4.
Andres Arnalds, Deputy Director, Iceland's Soil
Conservation Service, presented on carbon sequestration by
revegetation. Emphasizing that degradation is a global
phenomenon, he underscored the importance of incentives to
local farming communities and highlighted the multiple
benefits of revegetation, including wide ranging
socio-economic benefits and the encouragement of non-forest
species.
Adele Morris, Special Advisor, US State Department,
presented a national perspective on the LULUCF long-term
approach and phase-in for the first commitment period. She
suggested LULUCF objectives should include: linking Article
3.3 as a package with Article 3.4; incorporating a long-term
system; assisting Parties to meet Kyoto targets
cost-effectively; and considering a phase-in approach to
address first commitment period issues. She proposed moving
toward a system of complete greenhouse gas accounting on all
managed lands and emphasized that Article 3.4 activities
should be broadly defined and take a comprehensive approach.
She suggested a phase-in option to full accounting for the
first commitment period, including: adjusting assigned amounts
by including only net removals over a certain threshold; and
applying a discount rate. She recommended consideration of
incentives and ancillary environmental effects in domestic
implementation and land conversion accounting.
Konrad Tomaszewski, General Director of State Forests for
Poland, discussed the role of the state's involvement in and
ownership of forested areas in addressing climate change
concerns. He outlined Poland's forestry management
legislation, principles and activities. He concluded that
government involvement in forest management has played a
significant role in enhancing carbon storage, such as through
development of an effective forest fire protection system and
strong afforestation programme.
Lorenzo Ciccarese, Senior Researcher on Climate and
Forestry for Italy's National Environmental Protection
Agency, made a presentation on Italy's national experience
relevant to Article 3.4, including identification and
estimation of relevant changes in the carbon budget. He
described work on estimating changes in carbon storage, and
outlined relevant policies, including: emissions avoidance
activities; soil carbon conservation; forest conservation; and
forest management and silviculture techniques.
NGO presentation: Stephan Singer, Head of WWF's European
Climate and Energy Policy Office, made a presentation on
Article 3.4 activities and repercussions on the integrity of
the Protocol. He said Parties should agree to: prohibit
projects and credits without agreed inventories and
independent monitoring; address leakage and permanence
concerns; and exclude commercial forestry and
business-as-usual projects. He expressed concern that
industrialized countries might attempt to negotiate an
agreement at COP-6 that would effectively allow CO2 emissions
to increase by 25-50%. He drew attention to a report on
technical and additional potentials for activities under
Article 3.4 relating to cropland, rangeland and forest
management sequestration, which concluded that Article 3.4
activities could create significant new entitlements for
countries with large landmasses, as well as the potential for
serious loopholes.
Question-and-answer session: In the ensuing
question-and-answer session, a number of participants asked
Adele Morris for additional information on the US position. On
thresholds, Morris said an option for the phase-in proposal
during the first commitment period was to adjust assigned
amounts by including only net removals over a set threshold.
She suggested that this threshold could vary by Party to fit
their specific circumstances. In response to questions from
JAPAN and FRANCE on the idea of discount rates, Morris said
this related to the phase-in proposal, and would involve
straightforward percentage discounts for particular accounts
– for instance, forest management accounts – before
adjusting assigned amounts. AOSIS expressed concern over the
degree to which the US position was additional to the
business-as-usual scenario.
Several questions were asked relating to the WWF's
presentation. In response to a query relating to sinks and the
CDM, Stephan Singer said a key concern was that domestic
action should not be undermined as the primary tool in meeting
Protocol commitments.
DISCUSSION: Following these presentations and
question-and-answer sessions, delegates discussed key issues
relating to Article 3.4. On activities under Article 3.4,
POLAND said a wide range of activities should be promoted
through the framework of sustainable forest management.
FINLAND emphasized the role of biofuels, and called for
national circumstances to be considered when deciding on
additional activities. CANADA supported the inclusion of
cropland and grassland management and agro-forestry. UGANDA
stressed that credits not be awarded for business-as-usual.
On the timing of including activities, GERMANY, supported
by the NETHERLANDS, underscored concerns regarding the scale,
uncertainty and risks related to sinks, and highlighted that
activities not be included under Article 3.4 during the first
commitment period unless these concerns can be addressed. He
suggested a pilot project period for activities under Article
3.4 to gain a better understanding of them. AOSIS recommended
Article 3.3 as a key pilot phase in the first commitment
period.
On accounting approaches, NORWAY supported full carbon
accounting, including soil carbon and non-CO2 greenhouse gases
in the long term. The NETHERLANDS agreed, but called for
careful consideration of implications in the short term.
CANADA and JAPAN supported a broad land-based approach.
AUSTRALIA said its aim was to continue working on an overall
framework approach to accounting, expanding across Article 3.3
and 3.4.
On wood products, CANADA and FRANCE drew attention to
opportunities relating to construction products. FINLAND noted
the environmental soundness of wood products, while observing
that discussion on their inclusion is scheduled for 2001.
The US NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGULATORY UTILITY
COMMISSIONERS supported FAO-based definitions and an
accounting framework that reflects land-based human
activities.
IPCC Chair Bob Watson summarized key issues emerging from
discussions, which he said included: links between Article 3.3
and 3.4 due to the recognition among participants of the
difficulty of including aggradation/degradation and the
harvest-regeneration cycle under Article 3.3; the possibility
of using a single threshold that could vary between countries
and biomes; the potential role of wood products under either
Article 3.3 or 3.4; recognition that the magnitude of a
windfall would be very high compared with sequestration
achieved through management practices under Article 3.4; and
an interest in associating sustainable forest management with
carbon enhancement.
PROJECT-BASED ACTIVITIES
PRESENTATIONS: Party presentations:
Joy Grant,
Executive Director, Programme for Belize, spoke on the Rio
Bravo Carbon Sequestration Project. She outlined the project's
history and objectives, including: conservation; sustainable
forestry; and sustainable development. She highlighted the
amount of carbon sequestered and outlined the community
benefits. Tahoun Salah, Land Resources Advisor, Egyptian
Environmental Affairs Agency, spoke on afforestation in Egypt.
He highlighted the important commonalities for forestry
between the FCCC, CCD and CBD, and called for overlaps between
these conventions to be taken into account.
Alimin Djisbar, National Technical Expert for Forestry,
Indonesia, presented on the afforestation of degraded land in
Jambi Province, Sumatra. He spoke about degraded grasslands
and the multipurpose use of various tree species. René Yvon
Brancart, President of Côte d'Ivoire's National Committee
on Climate Change, made a presentation on the development and
condition of forests in Côte d'Ivoire. He highlighted the
significance of forests for rural livelihoods, particularly in
meeting energy needs.
Jesada Luangjame, Researcher, Forest Research Office, Thai
Royal Forest Department, spoke on the status of forests and
reforestation in Thailand. Highlighting increases in protected
areas and reforestation, he said Thailand is striving to
manage forests in a sustainable manner with a view to CO2
benefits.
NGO and industry presentations: Mika Coda, Vice President
of the Nature Conservancy's Climate Change Programme,
speaking on behalf of the Climate Action Network-US, supported
inclusion of forest conservation under the CDM, as
deforestation is a significant source of emissions, and
projects can provide co-benefits. Outlining proposed rules, he
said possible projects are too few to threaten the integrity
of the Protocol targets.
John Kinsman, Manager of Atmospheric Science for Edison
Electric Institute, and Gary Kaster, Chair of the Utilitree
Carbon Company, outlined US electric utility views on forestry
projects. Kinsman provided an overview of experience in
forestry-related projects, including issues related to
permanence and leakage. Kaster called for, inter alia: a
comprehensive full carbon accounting system addressing all
significant sources and sinks; and forestry projects to be
included under the CDM
Jacob Olander, Fundacion Natura, spoke about the
contribution of LULUCF projects under the CDM. Addressing
concerns about the CDM, he stressed the need for rules and
criteria for all types of projects. He highlighted the
importance of, inter alia, full and adequate measurement and
monitoring of greenhouse gas impacts; strategies to address
underlying causes of deforestation and degradation; and
mechanisms for avoiding negative impacts and guaranteeing
adequate stakeholder participation.