Carbon and the Science - Policy Nexus The Kyoto Challenge

Robert T. Watson IPCC, Chair Global Change Open Science Conference Netherlands July 10th

Variations of the Earth’s Surface Temperature: 1000 to 2100

Global Climate Change

A Threat to Sustainable Development, especially in Developing Countries

• • • • • Climate change threatens our ability to:

alleviate poverty

for the 1.3 billion people who live on less than $1 per day and the 3 billion people who live on less than $2 per day -

livelihoods threatened because of degradation of ecological systems (e.g., agriculture, forests, fisheries, coral reefs)

provide adequate

food

, especially for the 800 million people who are malnourished today—

decreased agricultural productivity in tropics and sub-tropics

provide

clean water

for the 1.3 billion people who live without clean water and provide sanitation for the 2 billion people who live without sanitation -

decreased water availability and quality in many arid and semi-arid areas

provide a

healthy environment

for the 1.4 to more than 2 billion people who are exposed to dangerous levels of outdoor pollution and water- and vector-borne diseases -

increased pollution and exposure to water- and vector-borne diseases

provide

safe shelter

for those that live in areas susceptible to civil strife due to environmental degradation and those vulnerable to natural disasters and sea level rise -

degraded natural resources, sea level rise and increased extreme weather events

Emissions and uptakes since 1800 (Gt C)

140

Land use change

115

Oceans

265 110

Terrestrial Fossil emissions

180

Atmosphere

The Kyoto Protocol The Challenge of Mitigation

  The

near-term

Kyoto targets challenge is to achieve the The

longer-term

challenge is to meet the objectives of Article 2 of the UNFCCC, i.e., stabilization of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system  food security  ecological systems and  sustainable economic development

The Kyoto Protocol

 Signed December 1997  A commitment for industrialized countries (OECD countries and Economies in Transition - called Annex I) to reduce overall emissions of six greenhouse gases (or families of gases) by on average 5.2 per cent below 1990 levels in 2008 2012  No quantitative obligations on developing countries to reduce their emissions

The Short-term Challenge

Percentage Change in Emissions from 1990 to 2010

130% 125% 120% 115% 110% 105% 100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 1990 EIT Annex II Annex I 1995 2000 2005 2010 Parties' projections SRES A1F1 SRES A1T SRES A1B SRES A2 SRES B1 SRES B2 OECD IEA US source LG US source REF US source HG EU source Average

The Long-term Challenge Carbon emissions and stabilization scenarios

The Challenge of Mitigation



If

governments decide to stabilize the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide at 550ppm (about twice the pre-industrial level), global emissions would have to peak by about 2025 and fall below current levels by 2040 to 2070.

 This would mean that from most “business-as-usual”scenarios within a few decades

all regions

would have to deviate

  

Mitigation Options

Technologies

 Supply Side  Demand Side 

Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry

 Waste Management and Reduced Halocarbon Emissions

Policies

 Energy pricing strategies and taxes  Removing subsidies that increase Greenhouse gas emissions  Internalizing the social costs of environmental degradation 

Tradable emissions permits--domestic and global

 Voluntary programs  Regulatory programs including energy-efficiency standards  Incentives for use of new technologies during market build-up  Education and training such as product advisories and labels

Research and Development

 energy efficiency technologies and low-carbon technologies

Key issues for the Kyoto Protocol

 Selected key issues to be discussed include:  Differentiated responsibilities - obligations of industrialized and developing countries  Flexibility mechanisms - carbon trading  Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry activities



Differentiated Obligations

It has argued by some that the Kyoto Protocol is neither fair nor effective because developing countries are not obligated to reduce their emissions



Fairness

- This is an equity issue - the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol will have to decide what is fair and equitable, recognizing that:  about 80% of the total anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases have been emitted from industrialized countries;  per capita emissions in industrialized countries far exceed those from developing countries, now and for the for-seeable future;  developing countries do not have the financial, technological and institutional capability of industrialized countries to address the issue; and  increased use of energy is essential for poverty alleviation and for long-term sustainable economic growth 

Effectiveness

- Long-term stabilization of the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases cannot be achieved without global reductions, hence the issue is whom should do what in the short-term recognizing the long-term challenge

Key Issues for the Kyoto Protocol Flexible Mechanisms

 There are three flexibility mechanisms  Article 6 - Joint Implementation among Annex I Parties - these are project-based activities  Article 12 - The Clean Development Mechanism project-based activities between Annex I Parties and developing countries  Article 17 - Emissions rights trading among Annex I countries  Because carbon abatement costs are much lower in most developing countries, carbon trading allows:  reduced costs for industrialized countries  technology transfer to developing countries  financial flows to developing countries

Key Issues for the Kyoto Protocol Flexible Mechanisms

(Art. 6, 12 and 17)     

capped or uncapped

(EU and many developing countries want a cap in contrast to the US: will affect the size of market and the cost to Annex I countries) -

current text states that obligations should be chiefly met through domestic actions should hot-air trading with Russian Federation be allowed allowed within a strict trading cap eligibility of LULUCF activities in CDM afforestation and reforestation (see later slide) liability - limited to

( if a seller fails to deliver, i.e., seller vs buyer beware)

adaptation fee - CDM or all three mechanisms

(affects size of adaptation fund, hence the ability to mainstream climate change into relevant sectors) -

currently limited to CDM

Key Conclusions of IPCC WG III

 In the absence of trading, Annex B costs of complying with the Kyoto Protocol, range from $150-600/tC (i.e., 0.2 - 2% loss of GDP), where-as with full Annex B trading the costs are reduced to $15-150/tC (i.e., 0.1 - 1% loss of GDP)  These costs could further reduced with use of:  the Clean Development Mechanism  sinks  mixture of greenhouse gases  ancillary benefits and  efficient tax recycling  If all cost reduction activities could be realized then GDP growth rates would only have slow by a few hundreds of a percent per year

Key Issues for the Kyoto Protocol Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry

 Topics covered in this presentation include:  How have LULUCF activities been included in the Kyoto Protocol?

 What are the key decisions?

 What is the potential of LULUCF activities to reduce net emissions

Key Issues for the Kyoto Protocol Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry

     Definitions of a forest, afforestation, reforestation and deforestation How to address the harvesting/regeneration cycle and aggradation/ degradation (Art. 3.3 or 3.4) How to deal with permanence under Articles 3.3 and 3.4

What activities are eligible under Article 3.4

 whether to limit credits under Article 3.4

 whether business-as-usual uptake can be credited Which, if any, LULUCF activities are eligible in the CDM  afforestation, reforestation, slowing deforestation, forest/range land/cropland management, agroforestry  how to address the issues of permanence, baselines, leakage and sustainability criteria under the CDM

Key Issues for the Kyoto Protocol

Article 3.3

Which stock changes? All, or only those directly human induced - what is included?

Article 3.3

The net changes in greenhouse gas emissions from sources and removals by sinks resulting from

direct human induced land-use change and forestry activities

, limited to afforestation, reforestation, and deforestation since 1990,

measured as verifiable changes in stocks

in each commitment period shall be used to meet the commitments in this Article of each Party included in Annex I. The greenhouse gas emissions from sources and removals by sinks associated with those activities shall be reported in a transparent and verifiable manner and reviewed in accordance

--

with Articles 7 and 8.

growth from that due to carbon dioxide, nitrogen fertilization? IPCC has been asked to assess this possibility

Key Issues for the Kyoto Protocol

Article 3.4

Contrasts with Article 3.3 refers to “direct human-induced activities Article 3.4

… Such a decision shall apply in the

second and subsequent commitment periods

. A Party may choose to apply such a decision on these additional

human-induced activities

for its first commitment period,

provided that these activities have taken place since 1990.

The key issue is whether these activities must commence after 1990 or whether activities initiated before 1990, but that are continued after 1990, are eligible -- a key issue with respect to the current residual terrestrial uptake - finessed by discounting for the first commitment period

Key Issues for the Kyoto Protocol Article 12

Emission reductions resulting from each project activity shall be certified by operational entities to be designated by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol, on the basis of: (a) Voluntary participation approved by each Party involved; (b) Real, measurable, and long-term benefits related to the mitigation of climate change; and (c)

Reductions in emissions

that are additional to any that would occur in the absence of the certified project activity.

Does this include sinks? Does it refer to gross or net emissions? Current text suggests allowing afforestation and reforestation, but no other LULUCF activities

Key Issues for the Kyoto Protocol Article 3.3

Definitions of a Forest

 Most definitions are based in part on a single threshold of minimum canopy cover

0% Canopy Cover 100% The current text allows each Party to chose a canopy cover between 10 and 30%, a minimum tree height between 2-5 m, and a spatial extent between 0.05 - 1 ha -- aggradation and degradation is dealt with through forest management -- biome specific definitions may be used after the first commitment period

Proportion of wooded land captured by a percentage cover threshold

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00

0 20 40 60 Percent cover 80

Australia USA Brazil Canada Indonesia New Zealand South Africa Scandinavia Western Europe World

100

Prepared I.R. Noble, O'Brien & Roderick Based on DeFries et al J.Geophys.Res. 100,20867-82

Potential net emissions from forests Art. 3.3 Annex 1 Countries

Mt C yr -1 IPCC definitions AR 26 Annex 1 D -90 Note the qualifications about these estimates.

• • •

Data often uncertain (carbon content, growth and areas affected) Based on assumption that current rates of ARD continue through to 2012 Assumptions about the shape of the growth curve greatly affect the outcome

Key Issues for the Kyoto Protocol Article 3.4

What may be covered by Art 3.4

 Forest management other than that covered by Art 3.3 (ARD)  Changes in management practices which do not lead to a change in cover type, e.g., conservation tillage  Changes in land management which do lead to a change in land cover type, e.g., reversion of cropland to grassland

Interpretations of Article 3.4

Narrow definition Broad definition Forest Management Cropland Management Grazing land Management USA definition

Full carbon accounting

  

All stocks

across

all carbon pools

If applied to all land in accounting would produce the “Net terrestrial uptake” of about 1.4 GtC y -1

all countries

then the (IPCC TAR) without any additional effort to reduce emissions or increase sinks Assuming emissions from tropical deforestation are 1.6 GtC y -1 , this suggests a global uptake of about 3 GtC y -1

Assuming 50% of the uptake is at mid- and high latitudes, this would allow Annex I Parties to claim an annual credit of between about 1.5 GtC y -1 due to the residual uptake because of improved management practices pre-1990, carbon dioxide and nitrogen fertilization effect and climate change. Current text would limit this credit by discounting by 85%.

 

Direct Human-induced

“For activities that involve land-use changes (e.g., from grassland/pasture to forest) it may be very difficult,

if not impossible

, to distinguish with present scientific tools that portion of the observed stock change that is directly human-induced from that portion that is caused by indirect and natural factors.” Emissions and removals from natural causes such as El Niño may be large compared with commitments  For activities that involve land-management changes (e.g., tillage to no-till agriculture), it should be feasible to distinguish between the direct and indirect human induced components, but not to separate out natural factors

Permanence

  “Sinks” are potentially reversible  through human activities, disturbances, or environmental change, including climate change.  This is a more critical issue than for activities in other sectors, e.g., the energy sector. A pragmatic solution... (consistent with the current text) ensure that any credit for enhanced carbon stocks is balanced by accounting for any subsequent reductions in those carbon stocks, regardless of the cause.

Annual C sequestration potential (GtC/y) improvement of management within cover type new activities since 1990 I

Urban land management Rice Paddies Agroforestry Grazing land management Cropland management Forest management Annex 1 Global 0 0.1

0.2

0.3

Contains a best estimate of the rate of uptake of these activities by 2010 (vary between 3% to 80%) -- current text would inhibit investment under Article 3.4 because forest management because is discounted 85%

Annual C sequestration potential (GtC/y) Transformation between cover types

Annex 1 Global Degraded land restoration Wetland restoration Degraded agriculture to agroforest Cropland to grassland 0 0.1 0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Key Issues for the Kyoto Protocol Article 12

Key Issues for the Kyoto Protocol

The Clean Development Mechanism

  What will be included: 

Current text would allow afforestation and reforestation

 Current text would not allow avoided deforestation or other land management practices Key issues, especially for avoided deforestation, include: 

baselines

- issue of additionality  local, regional or national sectoral  business-as-usual or ??????



permanence

 time-limited credits, avoiding national sovereignty issues 

leakage

 local, regional or national sectoral baselines (does not avoid transboundary leakage) 

sustainable development criteria



monitoring

 project-based or national systems will need to be developed

Potential emissions reductions from forests under CDM (using Art. 3.3 rules) in non-Annex 1 Countries

Mt C yr -1 IPCC definitions Non-Annex 1 AR 373 D

-1600

Avoided deforestation not allowed under current text concern about baselines, leakage, permanence multiple benefits, including biodiversity, water resource management



Sustainable Development Criteria

LULUCF ACTIVITES AND PROJECTS CAN HAVE A BROAD RANGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS, e.g.



biodiversity



Forests, soils, water resources



Food, fiber, fuel



Employment, health, poverty, equity



SYSTEM OF CRITERIA AND INDICATORS (C&I) COULD BE VALUABLE TO COMPARE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS ACROSS LULUCF ALTERNATIVES



IF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA VARY SIGNIFICANTLY ACROSS COUNTRIES OR REGIONS, MAY BE INCENTIVES TO LOCATE ACTIVITIES AND PROJECTS IN AREAS WITH LESS STRINGENT CRITERIA.

Maximum USA & Japan purchases

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% Forest mgmt discount (Pronk = 85%) 100% The current text discounts credits for forest management under Article 3.4 by 85%, and 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Cap on the use of sinks (Pronk 50%) 80% limits the use of sinks to 50% of total reductions Accounts for pre-1990 activities, does not separate direct from indirect human activities, and accepts broad definitions

Potential for international trading in sinks (Pronk proposal Apr 2001, using Aug 1 submitted data)

Credits under Art 3.4

Unlikely Purchases Potential Purchases

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Estimated potential trade of about 20 MtC/yr through all three mechanisms

      

Conclusion

Climate change is occurring, in part because of human activities, and further human-induced climate change is inevitable Most people will be adversely affected by climate change, particularly the poor within developing countries Climate change is a serious environmental/development issue that requires action to limit greenhouse gases now, recognizing both short-and long-term objectives Climate change mitigation and adaptation technologies and policies need to be integrated into national development plans Technologies and policies are available to address climate change in a cost-effective manner Governments, the private sector,civil society, the media and the scientific community all have critical roles in addressing the issue of climate change Policy-relevant research and assessments are needed for informed policy formulation - need to communicate results in a clearer manner