Participants at the SBSTA workshop on land use, land-use
change and forestry (LULUCF) met in morning and afternoon
sessions to consider project-based activities and address
general accounting, verification and reporting issues.
PROJECT-BASED ACTIVITIES
IPCC OVERVIEW: Presentations:
IPCC Chair Bob Watson
said the first question relating to project-based activities
was whether or not to include sinks in the CDM and, if they
are included, which ones to allow. Sandra Brown, IPCC Lead
Author, provided information on, inter alia: development of
baselines, which can be project-specific or generic, and fixed
or regularly updated; approaches to accounting for and
mitigation of leakage; permanence; and measuring, monitoring
and verification of selected pools. Watson noted that these
issues must also be addressed in energy projects, while
observing that the question of permanence is considered more
difficult for LULUCF projects.
Question-and-answer session: In the ensuing
question-and-answer session, the EUROPEAN COMMISSION drew
attention to the possibility of leakage having positive
effects. In response to a question on leakage by the
NETHERLANDS, Sandra Brown highlighted the development of
"look-up tables" for leakages covering different
types of tree species and based on market supply and demand.
The US underscored the distinction between the cost and price
of carbon, and said there may be opportunities to sell at a
significant profit. Brown stressed the current lack of a
price, since there is no market and the only information
available is on investment costs.
In response to a question by the US on baselines, Brown
said baselines in some existing projects are now being
revisited to add field data. She noted that, with more
projects, there will be added incentive and data to develop
generic baselines. CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC queried what could
be done to monitor small-scale projects in rural areas, and
Brown said it was a question of encouraging cooperation at a
local level, after which standard statistical sampling could
be used. With regard to a possible minimum area size or carbon
offset, she said several small projects could be bundled into
larger ones.
FINLAND drew attention to the complexity of the underlying
causes of deforestation, highlighting structural and
socio-economic factors, and questioned how much a project
approach would actually address the wider problem of
deforestation. Watson replied that, while it is important to
identify the root cause and to change policy and institutional
frameworks, projects could be of value and are the only
feasible approach under the climate change framework.
In response to a comment by the UK on the possibility of
using sectoral baselines, Watson said this could be a viable
option, although it required careful consideration. AOSIS
noted the potential benefits of projects for indigenous
peoples.
PRESENTATIONS: Following the IPCC overview and
question-and-answer session, participants heard presentations
from representatives of Parties, NGOs and the business sector.
NGO and business presentations: Igino Emmer, Consultant,
FACE Foundation, presented on the design and management of
reforestation projects, outlining the Foundation's portfolio
of reforestation projects to sequester CO2. He emphasized the
benefits of certification and verification of forest
management projects and called for development of sound
monitoring programmes.
Gareth Phillips, Société Générale de Surveillance (SGS),
outlined early experiences with verification of land-based
projects. Highlighting the importance of eligibility, he said
SGS has developed its own carbon offset verification scheme,
including acceptability, additionality, externalities, and
capacity. He suggested that a number of potential JI/CDM
projects exist, and said these will need to overcome
challenges relating to, inter alia: eligibility criteria;
accounting methodology; and defining rules/guidance on
baselines. He recommended using average carbon capacity for
calculating stock changes.
Ken MacDicken, Director of Research, Center for
International Forestry Research, presented on the
opportunities for rural livelihoods under CDM forestry
projects. He highlighted the dual purposes of the CDM and
outlined potential benefits and risk associated with these
projects. He emphasized the importance of undertaking social
impact assessments. He highlighted the need for, inter alia:
incentives for multiple benefits; the inclusion of a broad
range of LULUCF options under the CDM; a reduction in
transaction costs; the approval of tonne-year accounting; and
strengthening of local capacities. He concluded that
livelihood issues are not a reason to exclude LULUCF from CDM
and that rulemaking can increase the probability of positive
impacts.
Bill Hare, Climate Policy Director, Greenpeace
International, spoke on land-use change and forestry
activities under the CDM. He opposed inclusion of these
activities, stressing problems related to: climate change
mitigation, as every tonne of CO2 sequestered permits an
additional tonne of emissions; the sustainable development
criterion and its lack of positive impacts on social and
equity issues and technological development; and a likely
over-estimation of forest conservation and biodiversity
protection due to leakage and a focus on inexpensive
sequestration projects.
Party presentations: Sergio Jauregui, Advisor on LULUCF and
Climate Change, Bolivian Vice Ministry of Environment, spoke
on the Noel Kemmpff Mercado Climate Action Project in Bolivia.
He highlighted the two components of emissions reduction:
eliminating logging, and eliminating conversion of forest to
agricultural land. He said the project addresses leakage by
providing alternative economic opportunities for the affected
communities. It also addresses the issue of permanence by:
assimilating the area indefinitely into a national park;
controlling fires; including local communities in park
management; and discouraging migration by providing key
infrastructure for the local population.
Ken Andrasko, Office of Atmospheric Programs, US
Environmental Protection Agency, outlined US views on
project-based LULUCF activities. He noted the importance of
LULUCF in the global carbon cycle, the fact that projects
could be widely distributed internationally, and the potential
for co-benefits that may be larger than the carbon benefit. He
argued that the potential problems of additionality, leakage
and permanence should be addressed through appropriate rules
and project design.
Question-and-answer session: In the ensuing
question-and-answer session, GERMANY asked whether the
prospect of carbon credits for emissions avoidance - such as
prevention of planned deforestation - could act as an
incentive for deforestation activities. In response, Sergio
Jauregui said this was not a problem in Bolivia, where
deforestation is primarily due to socio-economic reasons, and
where most people involved in deforestation would not be aware
of the Kyoto Protocol or carbon credits. He said any attempts
to manipulate the credit system would be identified at the
accreditation stage.
In response to a question from SWITZERLAND on how
compatible Greenpeace's opposition to LULUCF projects under
the CDM is with the objectives of the Protocol, Bill Hare
noted that LULUCF carbon credits would not be an appropriate
means of achieving stable atmospheric concentrations of CO2,
given questions of permanence and additionality, and said
that, based on current scientific knowledge, emissions
reductions were a safer way to proceed. He also suggested that
the Protocol was not necessarily the most suitable context for
addressing in-depth forest management issues. Responding to
comments on how best to move forward, Ken Andrasko said the US
supported working in parallel on the key issues rather than
addressing one after the other.
NIGERIA questioned whether developing countries would
benefit from sinks projects under the CDM, and emphasized the
need for social impact assessment of projects' long-term
implications. Bill Hare suggested that Parties only consider
renewable energy projects under the CDM.
MEXICO commented on the importance of co-benefits in sinks
projects. Ken MacDicken agreed, suggesting harmonization of
projects with co-benefit elements from the CBD and GEF
programmes. AUSTRIA underscored the risks of increased forest
losses due to perverse incentives. In response, Gareth
Phillips said that clear guidelines are necessary to avoid
potential deforestation arising from perverse incentives.
Responding to a question from SENEGAL on baselines in Bolivia,
Sergio Jauregui said the baseline assumes that: logging
companies continue to exploit and farmers continue slash and
burn practices; parameters are dependent on the rate of
logging of nearby forest concessions and historical land-use
trends established by communities; and carbon monitoring
relies on satellite data, data from nearby logging
concessions, and permanent plots. AUSTRALIA queried the lack
of carbon projects in degraded land areas in Africa. Ken
MacDicken responded that restoring degraded savannah lands
using sinks projects would require the transfer of
sophisticated technology to resolve the problem of water
constraints.
GENERAL ACCOUNTING, VERIFICATION AND REPORTING ISSUES
Workshop Co-Chair Thorgeirsson introduced this topic,
noting that accounting, verification and reporting represent
the backbone of LULUCF activities.
IPCC OVERVIEW: Ian Noble, IPCC Lead Author, noted
that the Special Report had addressed issues of accounting,
verification and reporting. He stated that the Revised 1996
Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories were
devised for the purposes of the FCCC rather than the Protocol,
and said an elaboration will be needed. Co-Chair Thorgeirsson
highlighted the importance of distinguishing between what
broad decisions need to be taken by COP-6, and what issues can
be dealt with at a later stage.
PRESENTATIONS: Thomas Häusler, Remote Sensing
Expert from the Company for Applied Remote Sensing (GAF),
presented on earth observation in the context of LULUCF
applications. He highlighted, inter alia, the reliability and
cost benefits of using remote sensing to provide data for
forest inventories and to monitor afforestation, reforestation
and deforestation at frequent intervals. He stressed the need
for a standardized nomenclature and harmonized technical
procedures. He noted, however, that remote sensing cannot be
used to measure carbon stocks, and suggested the use of
appropriate indicators.
Ian Carruthers, Australian Greenhouse Office, made a
presentation outlining Australia's perspective on carbon
accounting for LULUCF. He said land areas would enter into an
accounting system for Article 3.3 and 3.4 once eligible LULUCF
activities were established on that land. He suggested that,
once the land area entered into the accounting framework, all
changes in greenhouse gases and carbon stocks from all
relevant pools should be included, and the land should remain
within the system into future commitment periods. He expressed
a preference for a narrow approach to the selection of
activities and land-based accounting. He drew attention to
Australia's work on developing a national carbon accounting
system, which he said could be applicable to other countries.