Published
by the International
Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)
Vol. 12 No. 141
Monday, 17 July 2000
SUMMARY OF THE WORKSHOP ON LAND USE,
LAND-USE CHANGE AND FORESTRY:
10-13 JULY 2000
One hundred twenty-one representatives of governments,
intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), business and industry groups and
academic institutions attended the workshop on land use,
land-use change and forestry (LULUCF), which met from
10-13 July 2000 at the International Fair Center in Poznań,
Poland. This workshop was organized by the Secretariat of the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC)
in response to a request by the FCCC's Subsidiary Body for
Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA)
at its tenth session, held in June 1999. The SBSTA requested
that a workshop be held between SBSTA-12 and the Sixth
Conference of the Parties (COP-6) to analyze the Special
Report on LULUCF prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC). The Special Report provides Parties
with scientific and technical information relating to LULUCF
and relevant articles of the Kyoto Protocol.
Workshop participants heard presentations by lead authors
of the Special Report on LULUCF, as well as by Parties, NGOs,
intergovernmental organizations, and business and industry
groups. They also engaged in question-and-answer sessions on
these presentations and in-depth discussions on key issues
raised. The topics addressed during the workshop were:
afforestation, reforestation and deforestation under Article
3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol; additional human-induced activities
under Article 3.4 of the Protocol; project-based LULUCF
activities; general accounting, verification and reporting
issues; and linkages with other articles of the Protocol.
Although there was no official outcome document, the
workshop provided a forum to consider in-depth LULUCF issues
in light of the IPCC Special Report. This could assist Parties
in elaborating their positions in submissions on LULUCF under
the Protocol, which are due by 1 August 2000, as requested by
COP-5. Both the workshop and these submissions will provide
input for negotiations on these issues at the thirteenth
sessions of the FCCC subsidiary bodies (SB-13) in September
2000 and at COP-6, which will be held in The Hague from 13-24
November 2000. A draft decision on LULUCF under the Protocol
is scheduled to be developed at COP-6 and to be adopted by the
Conference of Parties serving as the first Meeting of the
Parties to the Protocol (COP/MOP-1). The LULUCF workshop was
followed by a field trip programme for participants on 14 and
15 July, including visits to four LULUCF-relevant sites in
Poland.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE FCCC AND THE KYOTO
PROTOCOL
The FCCC was adopted on 9 May 1992 and opened for signature
at the UN Conference on Environment and Development in June
1992. It entered into force on 21 March 1994, 90 days after
receipt of the 50th ratification. To date, it has received 184
instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or
accession.
COP-1: The first Conference of the Parties to the FCCC
(COP-1) took place in Berlin from 28 March - 7 April 1995. In
addition to addressing issues related to the future of the
FCCC, delegates reached agreement on the adequacy of
commitments and adopted the "Berlin Mandate."
Delegates agreed to establish an open-ended Ad Hoc Group
on the Berlin Mandate (AGBM) to begin a process toward
identifying appropriate action for the period beyond 2000,
including the strengthening of Annex I Parties' (developed
country Parties and Parties with economies in transition)
commitments through the adoption of a protocol or another
legal instrument. COP-1 also requested the Secretariat to make
arrangements for sessions of the Subsidiary Body for
Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) and the Subsidiary
Body for Implementation (SBI). SBSTA serves as the link
between the information provided by competent international
bodies and the policy-oriented needs of the COP. SBI was
created to develop recommendations to assist the COP in the
review and assessment of FCCC implementation and in the
preparation and implementation of its decisions.
AD HOC GROUP ON THE BERLIN MANDATE: The AGBM met eight
times between August 1995 and COP-3 in December 1997. During
the first three sessions, delegates focused on analyzing and
assessing what the possible policies and measures to
strengthen the commitments of Annex I Parties could be, how
Annex I countries might distribute or share new commitments,
and whether commitments should take the form of an amendment
or a protocol. AGBM-4, which coincided with COP-2 in Geneva in
July 1996, completed its analysis of the likely elements of a
protocol. At AGBM-5, in December 1996, delegates recognized
the need to decide whether to permit Annex I Parties to use
mechanisms that would give them flexibility in meeting their
quantified emissions limitation and reduction objectives (QELROs).
As the protocol was drafted during the sixth and seventh
sessions of the AGBM, in March and August 1997, delegates
streamlined a framework compilation text by merging or
eliminating some overlapping provisions. Much of the
discussion centered on a proposal from the EU for a 15% cut in
a basket of three greenhouse gases by the year 2010 compared
to 1990 emissions levels. In October 1997, as AGBM-8 began, US
President Bill Clinton called for "meaningful
participation" by developing countries in the negotiating
position he announced in Washington. In response, the
G-77/China distanced itself from attempts to draw developing
countries into agreeing to new commitments.
COP-3: The Third Conference of the Parties (COP-3) was held
from 1-11 December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan. Following intense
formal and informal negotiations, Parties to the FCCC adopted
the Kyoto Protocol on 11 December 1997.
In the Protocol, Annex I Parties to the FCCC agreed to
commitments with a view to reducing their overall emissions of
six GHGs by at least 5% below 1990 levels between 2008 and
2012. The Protocol also established emissions trading, Joint
Implementation (JI) between developed countries, and a Clean
Development Mechanism (CDM) to encourage joint emissions
reduction projects between developed and developing countries.
To date, 22 Parties have ratified the Protocol. The Protocol
will enter into force 90 days after it is ratified by 55
Parties to the FCCC, including Annex I Parties representing at
least 55% of the total carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions for 1990.
COP-4: The Fourth Conference of the Parties (COP-4) was
held from 2-13 November 1998 in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Following high-level closed door negotiations, delegates
adopted the Buenos Aires Plan of Action (BAPA). The BAPA
contains the Parties' resolution to demonstrate substantial
progress on: the financial mechanism; the development and
transfer of technology; the implementation of FCCC Article 4.8
and 4.9, as well as Protocol Articles 2.3 and 3.14 (adverse
effects); activities implemented jointly (AIJ); the mechanisms
of the Protocol; and the preparations for the first Conference
of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the
Protocol (COP/ MOP-1).
COP–5: The Fifth Conference of the Parties met in Bonn,
Germany, from 25 October - 5 November 1999. COP-5 adopted 32
draft decisions and conclusions on, inter alia, the
review of the implementation of commitments and other FCCC
provisions, and preparations for COP/MOP-1.
On LULUCF, COP-5 adopted a draft decision endorsing a work
programme and elements of a decision-making framework to
address the issue with a view to COP-6 recommending that
COP/MOP-1 adopt decisions on Protocol Article 3.3 (net changes
in emissions and removals by sinks from afforestation,
reforestation and deforestation) and 3.4 (additional
human-induced activities relating to changes in emissions and
removals). The work programme called for, inter alia,
submissions from Parties by 1 August 2000 that include views
or proposals that address methodologies and definitions
relating to activities under Article 3.3 and additional
human-induced activities to be included under Article 3.4. In
addition, the work programme called on Annex I Parties to
submit preliminary data to establish levels of carbon stocks
in 1990.
SB-12: The twelfth sessions of the subsidiary bodies
(SB-12) of the FCCC were held from 12-16 June 2000 in Bonn,
Germany, preceded by one week of informal meetings. Delegates
continued to work toward fulfilling the BAPA by focusing on a
range of technical and political issues aimed at laying the
foundation for negotiations on a comprehensive agreement to be
completed at COP-6. They adopted 21 draft conclusions on
various issues, including policies and measures, LULUCF,
guidelines under Articles 5 (methodological issues), 7
(communication of information) and 8 (review of information)
of the Protocol, technology transfer, and mechanisms. SB-12
also adopted the Report of the Joint Working Group on
Compliance.
Regarding LULUCF, participants at SB-12 received an
in-depth briefing on the new Special Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had
been developed following a request at SBSTA-8 in June 1998 to
produce a scientific and technical report on this topic. In
addition, SBSTA-12 adopted conclusions that, inter alia:
requested indication of how the additional activities proposed
by Parties in their submissions, due on 1 August 2000, relate
to the objectives and principles of the FCCC and Protocol;
agreed to a data reporting format for Parties' 1 August
submissions and decided to consider this data at SBSTA-13;
requested Parties to provide textual proposals on Article 3.3
and 3.4; and asked the SBSTA Chair, with the FCCC Secretariat,
to prepare a synthesis of textual proposals from Parties' 1
August submissions.
REPORT OF THE WORKSHOP
SBSTA Chair Harald Dovland (Norway) opened the workshop on
Monday, 10 July, and welcomed participants. He said the new
IPCC Special Report on LULUCF marks a watershed in work on
this issue and provides a strong scientific basis for
decisions on the various policy options available. He noted
the upcoming 1 August deadline for the submission of proposals
and information on activities related to Article 3.3 (net
changes in emissions and removals by sinks from afforestation,
reforestation and deforestation) and 3.4 (additional
human-induced activities relating to changes in emissions and
removals) of the Kyoto Protocol. Noting that COP-6 was rapidly
approaching, he informed participants that consultations on
LULUCF have 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 Article 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: 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" that could support the
Protocol's entry into force in 2002.
COP-5 President Jan Szyszko (Poland) stressed the
opportunity this workshop provides to make progress on LULUCF.
He noted the carbon storage, biodiversity, socio-economic and
other benefits of sound forestry policy.
The Co-Chairs of the workshop, Halldor Thorgeirsson
(Iceland) and Philip Gwage (Uganda), introduced the agenda for
the meeting. Co-Chair Thorgeirsson noted concerns expressed by
a number of Parties on the agenda items relating to discussion
of possible elements of decisions. He stressed that this
workshop was not a forum for negotiating outcomes.
AFFORESTATION, REFORESTATION AND DEFORESTATION UNDER
ARTICLE 3.3
On Monday, 10 July, the workshop considered afforestation,
reforestation and deforestation (ARD) under Article 3.3 of the
Kyoto Protocol. Participants heard presentations from lead
authors of the IPCC Special Report on LULUCF, as well as
speeches by representatives of five country Parties. These
presentations were followed by a general discussion on the
issue.
IPCC OVERVIEW: IPCC Chair Bob Watson highlighted key issues
for decisions, including:
defining a forest, including whether to use single or
multiple thresholds of canopy cover;
addressing aggradation and degradation of forested land;
excluding or including the harvest-regeneration cycle and
the problem of accurately reflecting within the accounting
system the corresponding actual changes in carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere;
addressing the question of permanence of carbon
sequestered in the biosphere and the risk of reversibility
of such sequestration;
differentiating between direct and indirect human-induced
activities that increase carbon stocks;
identifying which carbon pools to monitor, including
issues related to costs, the need for precision and
technical feasibility, and monitoring of project-based
activities; and
addressing incentives and disincentives for carbon
sequestration between 1990 and the beginning of the first
commitment period in 2008.
He illustrated the potential size of ARD activities in
Annex I countries and globally under different accounting
approaches and based on different options for the definition
of a forest.
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 under ARD activities,
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 would generally 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 carbon stocks on land under ARD
activities, noting that this scenario was 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.
PARTY PRESENTATIONS: Michael Gytarsky, Senior Scientist,
Institute of Global Climate and Ecology of the Federal Service
of Russia for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring
and Russian Academy of Sciences, discussed definitions of ARD
within the framework of Article 3.3 and 3.4 of the Protocol.
He suggested 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 due to implications of the
harvest-regeneration cycle. He said slow growth in early
rotation cannot compensate for carbon in harvested wood, and
could instead create a significant carbon debit.
Yuji Kimura, Office of Research and Information,
Environment Agency of Japan, addressed ARD under Protocol
Article 3.3. He suggested that the selection of a definition
and accounting framework for Article 3.3 activities should
include incentives to promote sinks activities. He said the
definition and accounting framework should encourage carbon
sequestration in the harvesting-regeneration cycle in Annex I
countries where it is a key factor. He supported the FAO
activity-based accounting method, stating it could 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 in an
environmentally sustainable manner.
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 being developed.
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 supported using
existing FAO definitions, with which countries are already
familiar. 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
stressed 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 underscored the need to address the
problem of increases in carbon stocks in boreal forests
generating debits under the accounting framework.
On ARD and forests, Australia suggested including Article
3.3 and 3.4 within a single framework, supported 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 the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS),
suggested considering not only ecosystem accounting but also
transactional accounting. He also highlighted the Parties'
varying levels of technical capability to undertake accounting
measurements.
On transparency, Germany emphasized the importance of a
transparent accounting system that allows those outside of the
Expert Review Teams to have access to areas that have been
afforested.
Several delegates addressed the issue of potential
discrimination or loopholes relating to credits and debits due
to discrepancies between the timing of the first commitment
period and the requirement under Article 3.3 that Parties
consider ARD activities since 1990. 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 policymakers 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. Workshop Co-Chair
Thorgeirsson said exceptions or sub-rules should focus on the
time prior to the first commitment period, and agreed with
participants' comments that commitment periods should be
contiguous.
On inclusion of non-CO 2
greenhouse gases, Finland stressed that not enough was known
of the balances in activities under Article 3.3 for a
well-informed decision to be made. 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, but cautioned 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
individual 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 had not
necessarily taken below-ground carbon stocks into
consideration. Germany, opposed by Japan, supported the
inclusion of soil carbon under Article 3.3, saying it would
give incentives for sustainable management. He also cautioned
against credits for carbon that has not been genuinely
accumulated. The UK said accounting procedures should be clear
and simple and not too detailed.
ADDITIONAL HUMAN-INDUCED ACTIVITIES UNDER ARTICLE 3.4
On Tuesday, 11 July, participants met in morning and
afternoon sessions to consider additional human-induced
activities under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol. Lead
authors of the IPCC Special Report presented an overview of
the Special Report's coverage of this issue, followed by a
question-and-answer session. In addition, representatives of
five Parties and one NGO made presentations, also followed by
a question-and-answer session. Participants then engaged in a
general discussion on the issue.
IPCC OVERVIEW: IPCC Chair Bob Watson outlined key elements
requiring decisions relating to Article 3.4 (additional
human-induced activities relating to changes in emissions
removals), including which activities to include, if any, and
whether a Party 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;
how to address the issue of baselines;
what the implications are of potential
"windfalls" due to increases in carbon resulting
from natural effects and indirect human-induced activities
such as CO 2
fertilization, nitrogen deposition, and effects of climate
change;
what ancillary benefits exist; and
how to resolve permanence issues.
Ian Noble, IPCC Special Report Lead Author, Australian
National University, outlined options for the definition of an
activity. He said a broad definition 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 from natural causes 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.
On questions relating to monitoring and verification, Noble
acknowledged the high costs involved and raised the need for a
discussion on costs 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 academic scientific papers.
On carbon crediting, the European Commission highlighted
social and environmental baselines, emphasizing the Protocol's
sustainable development goals.
PARTY PRESENTATIONS: David Boulter, Senior Climate Change
Advisor, Canadian Forest Service, provided a national
perspective of forest management under the Protocol. He
suggested 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, discussed carbon sequestration by
revegetation. He emphasized that degradation is a global
phenomenon 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 to specified accounts before
adjusting assigned amounts. 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 State 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, including
through development of an effective forest fire protection
system and a strong afforestation programme.
Lorenzo Ciccarese, Senior Researcher on Climate and
Forestry for Italy's National Environmental Protection
Agency, presented 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, discussed 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 CO 2
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 sequestration by cropland, rangeland
and forest management, 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 differed from the
business-as-usual scenario.
In response to a query relating to WWF's position on
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. Emphasizing the importance of carbon in
agricultural soils, Canada supported the inclusion of cropland
and grassland management and agro-forestry. Uganda stressed
that credits should not be awarded for business-as-usual.
Germany, supported by the Netherlands, said activities
should not be included under Article 3.4 during the first
commitment period unless concerns related to the scale of the
use of sinks, scientific uncertainty and risks related to
permanence were 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 the
key pilot phase in the first commitment period.
On accounting approaches, Norway supported full carbon
accounting that includes soil carbon and non-CO 2
greenhouse gases in the long term. The Netherlands agreed, but
called for careful consideration of short-term implications.
Canada and Japan supported a broad land-based approach.
Australia said its aim was to continue working on a framework
approach to accounting, 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
the discussions, which he said included:
recognition of the difficulty of including aggradation/degradation
and the harvest-regeneration cycle under Article 3.3 and
implications for the links between Article 3.3 and 3.4;
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
On Tuesday evening, 11 July, and Wednesday, 12 July,
participants considered the issue of project-based LULUCF
activities. Lead authors of the IPCC Special Report presented
an overview of the Special Report's coverage of this topic,
followed by a question-and-answer session. In addition,
representatives of seven Parties, five NGOs and two
business/industry organizations made presentations, also
followed by a question-and-answer session.
IPCC OVERVIEW: 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 Special Report Lead
Author, provided information on, inter alia:
development of baselines, which can be project-specific
or generic, and fixed or regularly updated;
leakage, which refers to cases where the benefits of a
project are canceled out through the shift of the unwanted
activity, such as deforestation, to a site outside the
project boundaries;
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 leakage 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 noted that currently there is no
price for carbon, as there is no market and the only
information available relates to investment costs.
In response to a question by the US on baselines, Brown
said baselines in some existing projects are now being
revisited to update or add field data. She noted that, with an
increased number of projects, there will be added incentive
and data to develop generic baselines. The Central African
Republic queried what could be done to monitor small-scale
projects in rural areas. Brown said it was a question of
encouraging cooperation at the 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
highlighted the need for dialogue with indigenous peoples.
PARTY PRESENTATIONS: Joy Grant, Executive Director,
Programme for Belize, spoke about the Rio Bravo Carbon
Sequestration Project. She outlined the project's history
and objectives, including conservation, sustainable forestry,
and sustainable development. She outlined the amount of carbon
sequestered and discussed the community benefits.
Salah Tahoun, Land Resources Advisor, Egyptian
Environmental Affairs Agency, discussed afforestation in
Egypt. He highlighted the important commonalities for forestry
between the FCCC, the Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD)
and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and called
for consideration of overlaps between these conventions.
Alimin Djisbar, National Technical Expert for Forestry,
Indonesia, presented the case of afforestation of degraded
land in Jambi Province, Sumatra. He spoke about degraded
grasslands and the multipurpose use of tree species.
René Yvon Brancart, President of Côte d'Ivoire's
National Committee on Climate Change, discussed 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 about 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
achieving CO 2
benefits.
Sergio Jauregui, Advisor on LULUCF and Climate Change,
Bolivian Vice Ministry of Environment, discussed 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. The project addressed leakage by providing
alternative economic opportunities for the affected
communities. It also addressed 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 over
business-as-usual, leakage and permanence should be addressed
through appropriate rules and project design.
NGO AND BUSINESS 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, stating that
deforestation is a significant source of emissions and
projects can provide co-benefits. Outlining proposed rules, he
said the small number of possible projects means Annex I
countries will still be required to undertake significant
domestic emissions reduction measures.
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.
Igino Emmer, Consultant, FACE Foundation, discussed the
design and management of reforestation projects, outlining the
Foundation's portfolio of reforestation projects to
sequester CO 2.
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 had 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 (CIFOR), outlined the
opportunities for rural livelihoods under CDM forestry
projects. He highlighted the dual purposes of the CDM and
discussed potential benefits and risks 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 the
CDM and that effective rule-making 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 CO 2
sequestered effectively 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 the
effects of leakage and a focus on inexpensive sequestration
projects.
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 was 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 CO 2,
given questions of permanence and additionality and said that,
based on current scientific knowledge, proceeding by reducing
emissions was preferable. 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 assessments 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 Global
Environment Facility 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 such
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 inquired about 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
On Wednesday afternoon, 12 July, and Thursday morning, 13
July, participants considered the issue of general accounting,
verification and reporting issues relating to LULUCF
activities. Lead authors of the IPCC Special Report presented
an overview of the Special Report's coverage of this topic.
In addition, representatives of four Parties and one business
organization made presentations. This was followed by a
question-and-answer session.
IPCC OVERVIEW: Workshop Co-Chair Thorgeirsson introduced
this topic, noting that accounting, verification and reporting
represent the backbone of LULUCF activities.
Ian Noble, IPCC Special Report 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 to meet the requirements of the FCCC rather than the
Protocol, and said an elaboration would be needed. Co-Chair
Thorgeirsson highlighted the importance of distinguishing
between which broad decisions need to be taken by COP-6 and
which issues can be dealt with at a later stage.
PARTY PRESENTATIONS: Ian Carruthers, Australian Greenhouse
Office, outlined 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.
Wayne Lindwall, Director, Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Semi-Arid Prairie Agriculture Research Center, Canada,
discussed measurement and verification of carbon stock changes
relating to agricultural soils. He provided a national
perspective on the implications of LULUCF for the agriculture
sector, highlighting the importance of considering
below-ground carbon stocks and addressing sources and sinks in
a balanced way. He noted the potential for benchmark data in
long-term studies to distinguish between human-induced and
natural activities.
Wojciech Galiñski, Researcher for Silvatica Research
Consultants, Poland, spoke about the effect of uncertainties
in data on estimating CO 2
sequestration for the land-use change and forestry sector in
Poland. He said that, although the IPCC method for measuring
greenhouse gases is relatively simple, it requires a
considerable number of high quality, locally-generated data,
and suggested that wide use of the IPCC definitional scenario
may result in systematic calculation errors.
Dominick Kwesha, Manager of the Vegetation Resources
Inventory System (VegRIS) Project, Zimbabwe Forestry
Commission, discussed land-use and vegetation mapping. He
illustrated the importance of land-use and vegetation mapping
in monitoring LULUCF based on experiences with the VegRIS
Project, which aims to improve management and sustainable use
of vegetation resources in Zimbabwe. He noted that VegRIS
monitors: deforestation hotspots and degraded lands;
resettlement areas; biodiversity areas; and fuelwood deficit
areas. He suggested that the potential exists for monitoring
carbon reservoirs/pools in Zimbabwe by developing VegRIS to
cover a national biomass inventory.
BUSINESS PRESENTATION: Thomas Häusler, Remote Sensing
Expert from the Company for Applied Remote Sensing (GAF),
spoke about 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 ARD 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 using appropriate indicators to monitor changes
after extensive field studies coupled with remote sensing to
determine the baseline.
QUESTION-AND-ANSWER SESSION: In the ensuing
question-and-answer session, Wayne Lindwall responded to a
question by Fiji on carbon stocks by noting that they
typically need to be assessed to the depth of 30 centimeters,
as most soil carbon is stored in the top layers. He agreed
with a comment by the Netherlands that detecting changes in
soil carbon can sometimes be difficult within the standard
five-year monitoring cycle.
Responding to a question by the EU on leakage under Article
3.3 and 3.4, Ian Carruthers said some leakage is inevitable as
long as landscapes are not comprehensively covered by the
accounting system. On comments relating to the inclusion of
degradation under the definition of deforestation, he
supported defining deforestation as a significant removal, and
said Australia is working on a suggestion under Article 3.3,
given that the outcome under Article 3.4 is uncertain. He
outlined an approach that defines a reduction of at least 30%
in the proportion of canopy cover per hectare on a given area
of forest land as deforestation, and said the reduction must
be due to direct human-induced removal of trees.
In response to a question by Canada on the rate of uptake
of remote sensing in African countries, Zimbabwe, Nigeria and
Kenya stressed positive experiences, but emphasized high
initial costs, the need to build local expertise, and the
benefits of future cooperation in the region. Poland
highlighted the benefits of partial harvest, an increasingly
common practice that can enable higher sequestration, due to
the limited influence on undergrowth.
On the issue of permanence, Wayne Lindwall responded to a
question from Sudan by suggesting that carbon loss from
agricultural lands will be recorded under a comprehensive
accounting system. Bernard Schlamadinger, IPCC, stressed that
permanence is the main difference between the energy and
LULUCF sectors. He noted that the permanence of activities
under Article 3.3 and 3.4 would be addressed in the
inventories of Annex I countries, provided that commitment
periods are contiguous, while permanence under the CDM could
be addressed through liability rules, tonne-year accounting,
buffers, project portfolios and insurance policies.
FAO informed participants about systematic terrestrial
observations under the International Global Observation System
(IGOS), including the Terrestrial Carbon Observation
Initiative and the Global Observation of Forest Changes. He
noted the challenges of combining satellite observations and
ground observations.
LINKAGES WITH OTHER ARTICLES OF THE KYOTO PROTOCOL
On Thursday morning, 13 July, Workshop Co-Chair
Thorgeirsson asked participants to consider the question of
linkages with other articles of the Protocol, stressing the
importance of being aware of the connections between the
various issues under negotiation. Helen Plume (New Zealand),
Co-Chair of the SBSTA contact group on Protocol Articles 5
(methodological issues), 7 (communication of information) and
8 (review of information), outlined progress in negotiations
on these issues, which she said included preparation of
various sets of guidelines for Annex I Parties. She noted that
the development of good practice guidance relating to national
systems for data collection did not include the LULUCF sector
specifically, although the principles did apply. She noted
linkages between Articles 5, 7 and 8 with other issues under
negotiation, including compliance, mechanisms and LULUCF. She
drew attention to the fact that final decisions on some parts
of the guidelines under Articles 5, 7 and 8 depend on
decisions being taken in other areas, citing as an example
that it will not be possible to determine what will be
reported under Article 7 or reviewed under Article 8 until
definitions under Article 3.3 are determined. She observed
that, in spite of the linkages between Articles 5, 7 and 8 and
LULUCF, there appeared to be very little overlap in the
composition of the two negotiating groups working on these
issues. The UK noted that work on good practice could be
applicable at least in part to the LULUCF sector.
AOSIS highlighted the significant overlaps and linkages
between the Protocol mechanisms and LULUCF. He applauded
positive examples of proposed CDM projects that attempt to
address difficult issues such as non-permanence. However, he
drew attention to "bad projects," noting the
potential for leakage. He also highlighted the importance of
considering liability issues and called for independent
verification and certification of projects. Noting proposals
for credits for emissions avoidance projects, he asked if
Parties responsible through private companies for
deforestation in developing countries would have such actions
included as debits. Côte d'Ivoire, with Burkina Faso, noted
the multiple socio-economic effects of forests and forestry in
Africa, and asked how credits might be allocated for projects
relating to forests owned by foreign companies. Nigeria noted
that the focus of discussions had been on forestry rather than
land-use change in general. He suggested that credits for
projects could be awarded at the end of the project, rather
than earlier.
Noting a need for reliable data and information, Poland
called for an international, multidisciplinary research
project relating to various elements of the Protocol and
regional rural development, including socio-economic
considerations. Bolivia highlighted links between Article 12 (CDM)
and Article 3.3 and 3.4, and suggested holding a discussion on
possibly assigning a proportion of actions under CDM to LULUCF
activities and a proportion for energy projects. Co-Chair
Thorgeirsson said linkages between the various climate change
issues in the lead-up to COP-6 should also be carefully
considered within delegations.
CONCLUSIONS OF THE CO-CHAIRS
On Thursday afternoon, 13 July, Co-Chair Thorgeirsson
summarized the key issues addressed during the workshop. He
highlighted four main crosscutting issues that emerged:
coverage – addressing what, when and how to measure and
monitor carbon stocks relating to LULUCF, which encompass
issues such as certainty and permanence;
attribution or separation – distinguishing between
human-induced and natural causes;
accounting – including what "triggers" entry
of land into an accounting system under Article 3.3 and 3.4,
issues of reporting, transparency, and third-party
verification; and
links to assigned amounts – addressing questions of
credit assignments.
He concluded that policy makers have a critical
responsibility to develop sound policy judgments and
prioritize issues. He suggested the possibility of exploring
and synthesizing these issues further, while noting that there
was to be no formal report from the workshop.
In the ensuing discussion, Germany emphasized the need to
take into account differences in national circumstances when
considering carbon credits. Japan highlighted variation
between the credits gained from sinks activities and emissions
targets and recommended incentives for countries that are
disadvantaged in terms of land area. The European Commission
underscored the potential financial implications of excluding
the residual sink from credit systems. The US underscored the
significant scientific uncertainty surrounding the potential
residual sink, and called for more research in this area.
AOSIS called for a political overlay to the scientific
framework for LULUCF issues provided by the IPCC Special
Report, stressing the need to give appropriate consideration
to issues such as the accounting system for assigned amounts
and processes of verification. Commenting on views expressed
by participants on the need for consideration of national
circumstances, he cautioned against a "pick and
choose" approach, where the activities to be included
under Article 3.4 are selected at the national level. Canada,
supported by New Zealand, replied that the intention was not a
"pick-and-choose" system, but getting to the same
goal via different routes that reflect each countries'
unique circumstances. He said superimposed solutions that do
not fit should be avoided. France suggested using existing
systems and procedures at the national level as far as
possible for accounting, monitoring and verification. Poland
stressed the need for a good description of
"baseline" with common elements for all Parties.
Austria recommended taking equity issues into consideration.
Australia, supported by the US, noted the continuation of the
process beyond COP-6, which he stressed was not the end point.
He said options under Article 3.4 could be sequenced and
decisions at COP-6 should focus on what is needed for the
first commitment period, while keeping the long-term future in
mind. Recalling the decisions on LULUCF at Kyoto, Finland
stressed that decisions taken at COP-6 must be such that
national-level implications are clear.
CLOSING PLENARY
In the closing Plenary on Thursday afternoon, 13 July,
COP-5 President Jan Szyszko said the aim of the workshop was
to increase understanding of the issues and of participants'
respective positions. Workshop Co-Chair Philip Gwage said
useful progress was made at this meeting and noted the
prevailing view among participants that sinks are an extremely
important issue. He also reflected on participants' concern
that the decisions taken in relation to LULUCF must preserve
the integrity of the FCCC and Protocol. He hoped that the
advances made at this workshop would be built upon at SB-13.
Workshop Co-Chair Halldor Thorgeirsson said this was a very
productive workshop that assisted in building the bridge
between the technical phase and the policy phase of
discussions. He said the workshop was an effective method for
proceeding carefully through the IPCC Special Report, and
stated that the presence of the lead authors contributed
greatly to progress, as had the quality of presentations and
participants' discussions. He highlighted the lessons
learned on how to increase the probability of projects meeting
Protocol and environmental objectives, and said successful
projects are those that meet local goals and aspirations. He
said this workshop provided time to carefully consider the
issues and contributed to collective understanding of
participants' various perspectives.
On the process leading to COP-6, Co-Chair Thorgeirsson said
the next step was for Parties to prepare submissions by 1
August outlining their positions on various matters relevant
to Article 3.3 and 3.4. He noted that Annex I Parties also
need to submit some preliminary data and information relating
to Article 3.4. He said the submissions would provide a
considerable amount of information and material to be digested
and discussed at SB-13, and noted that informal consultations
would take place between SB-13 and COP-6 to assist in
developing the final text for a decision at COP-6.
Dennis Tirpak, SBSTA Coordinator for the FCCC Secretariat,
said this had been a very focused workshop and expressed the
hope that it was of benefit to all Parties. Co-Chair
Thorgeirsson thanked participants, the Government of Poland
for its hospitality in hosting the workshop, and the
Secretariat, and closed the meeting at 4:00 pm.
THINGS TO LOOK FOR BEFORE COP-6
FCCC CONSULTATIONS AND WORKSHOPS: A
number of workshops and consultations were announced at SB-12
to assist the process leading to SB-13, including:
consultations on compliance from 18-20 July 2000 in Reykjavik,
Iceland; consultations on technology transfer from 2-4 August
2000, in Colorado, USA; an African regional workshop on
non-Annex I communications from 14-18 August 2000 in South
Africa; and, informal consultations on adverse effects from
23-25 August 2000, tentatively planned for Bonn, Germany. For
more information, contact: the FCCC Secretariat; tel:
+49-228-815-1000; fax: +49-228-815-1999; e-mail: secretariat@unfccc.de;
Internet: http://www.unfccc.int
XXI IUFRO WORLD CONGRESS: The International Union of Forest
Research Organizations' (IUFRO) World Congress will meet in
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, from 7-12 August 2000. For more
information, contact: Congress Secretariat IUFRO 2000, Putra
World Trade Center, 41 Jalan Tun Ismail, 50480 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia; e-mail: iufroxxi@frim.gov.my; Internet: http://iufro.boku.ac.at/iufro/
congress/
CONGRESS OF THE 29TH INTERNATIONAL GEOGRAPHICAL UNION
COMMISSION ON CLIMATOLOGY: This conference will take place
from 9-13 August 2000 in Seoul, South Korea. The theme of the
conference is "Climate Change and its Impacts." For
more information, contact: Hyoun-Young Lee, Department of
Geography, Konkuk University, 93-1, Mojin-dong, Kwangjin-gu,
Seoul, 143-701, South Korea; tel: +822-446-6756; fax:
+822-446-8194; e-mail: leekwons@kkucc.konkuk.ac.kr
FIFTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON GREENHOUSE GAS CONTROL
TECHNOLOGIES (GHGT-5): This conference will take place from
13-16 August 2000, in Cairns, Australia. For more information,
contact: Colin Paulson, CSIRO Energy Technology, PO Box 136,
North Ryde, NSW 1670, Australia; tel: +61-2-9490-8790;
fax: +61-2-9490-8909; e-mail: c.paulson@det.csiro.au;
Internet: http://www.ieagreen.org.uk
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON FOREST ECOSYSTEMS - ECOLOGY,
CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT: This conference will
meet in Chengdu, Sichuan, China, from 15-21 August 2000. The
conference will aim to share the knowledge and technologies
needed for sustainable management of forest resources and
biodiversity conservation and to promote multifunctional
management and forest resources utilization. For more
information, contact: Shi Zuomin and Dong Na, Institute of
Forest Ecology, Environment and Protection, Chinese Academy of
Forestry, tel: +86-10-6288-8308 or 6288-9513; fax:
+86-10-6288-4972; e-mail:Shizm@fee.forestry.ac.cn or Keyan.hb@fee.forestry.ac.cn;
Internet: http://www.agnic.org/mtg/2000/icfeecsm.html
13TH SESSION OF THE FCCC SUBSIDIARY BODIES: SB-13 will
convene from 11-15 September 2000 in Lyon, France, and will be
preceded by one week of informal meetings, including
workshops. For more information, contact: the FCCC
Secretariat; tel: +49-228-815-1000; fax: +49-228-815-1999;
e-mail: secretariat@unfccc.de; Internet: http://www.unfccc.int
LULUCF CONSULTATIONS: Informal SBSTA consultations are
tentatively scheduled to take place during the second week of
October with the aim of making further progress on
negotiations prior to COP-6. For more information, contact:
the FCCC Secretariat; tel: +49-228-815-1000; fax:
+49-228-815-1999; e-mail: secretariat@unfccc.de; Internet:
http://www.unfccc.int
FAO EXPERT CONSULTATION ON FOREST CHANGE: This meeting will
take place from 16-20 October 2000 in San Jose, Costa Rica.
For more information, contact: Robert Davis, Senior Forestry
Officer (Forest Resources Appraisal and Monitoring), Forestry
Department, FAO; tel: +39-06-570-53596; e-mail: Robert.davis@fao.org:
Internet: http://www.fao.org/forestry/ Forestry.htm
11TH INTERNATIONAL SOIL CONSERVATION ORGANIZATION
CONFERENCE: ISCO 2000 will be held from 22-27 October 2000 in
Buenos Aires, Argentina. For more information, contact:
Faculty of Agronomy - University of Buenos Aires, e-mail:
isco2000@mail.uba.ar; Internet:
http://www.isco2000.org.ar/ingles/ index-ing.htm
EARTH TECHNOLOGIES FORUM: This meeting, organized by the
Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy, will be held in
Washington, DC, USA, from 30 October – 1 November 2000. For
more information, contact: Alliance for Responsible
Atmospheric Policy: tel: +1-703-243-0344; e-mail: alliance98@aol.com;
Internet: http://www.earthforum.com/
NATIONAL AND REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACT ASSESSMENTS IN
THE FORESTRY SECTOR: This meeting will be held from 10-13
November 2000 in Potsdam, Germany, and will be hosted by the
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and European
Forest Institute. For more information, contact: Marcus
Lindner, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research,
Telegrafenberg, P.O. Box 601203, D-14412 Potsdam, Germany; tel:
+49-331-288 2677; fax: +49-331-288-2695; e-mail: lindner@pik-potsdam.de;
Internet: http://www.pik-potsdam.de/
SIXTH CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE FRAMEWORK CONVENTION
ON CLIMATE CHANGE: COP-6 will be held in The Hague, The
Netherlands, from 13-24 November 2000. For more information
contact: the FCCC Secretariat; tel: +49-228-815-1000; fax:
+49-228-815-1999; e-mail: secretariat@unfccc.de; Internet:
http://cop6.unfccc.int
|