LULUCF Briefing.
M ay 24, 2010
EM ISSION S RED U CT ION M U ST BE PU T AT T H E H EART OF
D EV ELOPED COU N T RY CLIM AT E OBLIGAT ION S ON FOREST S
The land use and forest ry sect or m ust deliver
genuine emissions reduct ions for a safer
clim at e. Int ernat ional rules and incent ives m ust
be designed t o achieve t his. Under t he Kyot o
Prot ocol, rules applying t o land use, land use
change and forest ry (know n as LULUCF) in
Annex 1 count ries are not delivering for t he
clim at e. The draft LULUCF decision w ould
encourage em issions t o increase wit hout
penalt y. Ambit ion and environm ent al integrit y
are now here to be seen.
The Chair of the Kyoto Protocol negotiation
st ream has suggest ed in his scenario not e t hat
w ork on a LULUCF decision could be concluded
in Bonn t his June. Finalizing t he current
approach would ent rench an unacceptable set
of
rules
t hat
would
undermine
the
broadernegot iat ions.
W e need a re-focused LULUCF framework,
free of loopholes, with a goal to reduce
emissions and increase removal of
greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
This will entail substantial change from
current proposals.
The current LULUCF rules must not be finalized in Bonn.
LULUCF as if the clim ate m at t ered – w e are calling for a new approach:
Focus on am bition and environm ent al int egrity: Count ries m ust adopt a goal t o reduce
em issions and enhance sequest rat ion from land use, land use change and forestry in developed
count ries
Form rules around t his emissions reduct ion goal and abandon t he at t em pt t o hide anticipat ed
increased emissions in t he 2nd comm itm ent period.
o Adopt an hist orical baseline for forest m anagem ent 1 (currently volunt ary), not a
projected baseline.
o
o
Require mandatory accounting for forest management;
Plug t he bioenergy emissions gap. It is not accept able t o ignore em issions from forest
m anagement and also count t hese em issions as zero carbon (renew able energy) at t he
point of com bust ion, as takes place in m any developed count ries.
o Com mit t o prot ect reservoirs of carbon (eg. forest s and peatlands).
o Apply environm ent al safeguards (eg. protection of biodiversit y and ecosyst em
services, safeguards against t he conversion of nat ural forest s and ot her ecosyst em s t o
plant at ions)
o Ensure great er t ransparency in t he policy process, dat a report ing, and account ing
o M andat e high quality dat a and adopt a w ork program t o achieve t his.
M ove t ow ards com plete account ing aft er t he 2nd comm itm ent period (recognizing technical
difficult ies)
How LULUCF is failing to deliver for the
W hat is the state of play after
Climate
Copenhagen?
•
•
•
•
•
•
M ost developed count ries are anticipat ing
t hat t heir forest m anagem ent em issions
w ill increase in t he second commit ment
period and propose t o m easure fut ure
em issions against these levels – this
loophole is equivalent to 5% of their total
1990 emissions (approx. 400M t CO2e/ yr)
– a significant fraction of t he t ot al
Copenhagen pledges.
An even larger am ount of emissions from
land use and land-use change w ill go
unaccounted for due t o incom plet e and
volunt ary accounting
Current rules fail t o recognize the
pot ent ially significant cont ribut ion of
forest s and ot her lands in developed
count ries t o clim at e change m itigation
and adapt ation
M any count ries are trying t o avoid
accounting for increased emissions from
cut t ing and burning t rees t o produce
energy, m aking a joke of renew able
energy policies
In t ot al, developed countries are
prom oting a loophole equivalent t o 5% of
t ot al Annex 1 count ries’ em issions
reductions in t he first comm itm ent period.
This w ould undermine global am bit ion t o
fight clim at e change
‘Business as usual’ emissions plus
em issions increases are proposed t o be
enshrined in t he baseline of m ost
count ries, in contrast t o t he approach
applied in ot her sect ors t o t ackling clim at e
change under t he Kyot o Prot ocol, w here
t here is supposed t o be an effort t o
reduce business as usual emissions of
developed count ries com pared t o a
baseline of em issions levels in 1990.
The Draft LULUCF Decision
Abou t CAN
The Clim ate Act ion Net work (CAN) is a
worldwide network of roughly 500 Nongovernm ental Organizat ions ( NGOs)
working to prom ote governm ent and
individual act ion to lim it hum an- induced
clim ate change to ecologically sust ainable
levels. CAN m em bers work t o achieve this
goal t hrough inform at ion exchange and
t he coordinated developm ent of NGO
st rategy on internat ional, regional, and
nat ional clim ate issues. Clim ate Act ion
Net work's vision is t o protect the
at m osphere while allowing for sust ainable
and equit able developm ent worldwide.
No decision w as finalized on draft LULUCF
rules for a pot ent ial 2nd commit ment
period. An opport unit y t herefore exist s t o
push for im provem ent – ie for LULUCF t o
becom e part of t he solut ion rat her t han a
loophole underm ining t he integrit y of any
fut ure deal
Weak emissions reduction pledges from
developed count ries currently fall far
below w hat is needed t o effectively t ackle
dangerous clim at e change. A robust
LULUCF fram ew ork can play a st ronger
role in mit igat ion and result in m ore
am bitious t arget s; alt ernat ively, LULUCF
rules can furt her w eaken t he current
insufficient emissions reductions pledges
The fat e of t he Kyot o Prot ocol is unclear
and t hus t he fat e of LULUCF rules under
t he Kyot o Prot ocol is also uncert ain
It is currently unknow n w het her LULUCF
rules w ill apply t o non-Kyot o developed
count ries, such as t he Unit ed St at es
The Copenhagen Accord m akes no
m ention of LULUCF
Developed country Parties say t hey are
close t o agreem ent , but t his pot ent ial
agreem ent is ignoring t he m assive
accounting loophole, and t hus t he adverse
im pact t hat t hese rules m ay have on
developed country t arget s
On forest m anagem ent rules: count ries
w ould choose w hat ever baseline t hey like
and hide increases in em issions by t his
m et hod; m ost are proposing t o set a
fut ure baseline (reference level) t hat
includes increased em issions;
A pot ent ial deal t o apply a cap t o credit s
in LULUCF is on t he t able, em anating from
t he G77. This is an at t em pt t o limit t he
w orst excesses of Annex I cheat ing on
em issions, but does not address t he
fundament al issues of not accounting for
increased em issions and is t herefore an
inadequate solution.
For f urt her inf ormat ion cont act :
Chris Henschel and M elanie Coat h
LULUCF W orking Group Coor dinat or
chenschel@cpaw s.org M elanie.Coat h@rspb.org.uk
+ 49 1520 443 6798
+44 770 223 7338
EM ISSION S RED U CT ION M U ST BE PU T AT T H E H EART OF
D EV ELOPED COU N T RY CLIM AT E OBLIGAT ION S ON FOREST S
The land use and forest ry sect or m ust deliver
genuine emissions reduct ions for a safer
clim at e. Int ernat ional rules and incent ives m ust
be designed t o achieve t his. Under t he Kyot o
Prot ocol, rules applying t o land use, land use
change and forest ry (know n as LULUCF) in
Annex 1 count ries are not delivering for t he
clim at e. The draft LULUCF decision w ould
encourage em issions t o increase wit hout
penalt y. Ambit ion and environm ent al integrit y
are now here to be seen.
The Chair of the Kyoto Protocol negotiation
st ream has suggest ed in his scenario not e t hat
w ork on a LULUCF decision could be concluded
in Bonn t his June. Finalizing t he current
approach would ent rench an unacceptable set
of
rules
t hat
would
undermine
the
broadernegot iat ions.
W e need a re-focused LULUCF framework,
free of loopholes, with a goal to reduce
emissions and increase removal of
greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
This will entail substantial change from
current proposals.
The current LULUCF rules must not be finalized in Bonn.
LULUCF as if the clim ate m at t ered – w e are calling for a new approach:
Focus on am bition and environm ent al int egrity: Count ries m ust adopt a goal t o reduce
em issions and enhance sequest rat ion from land use, land use change and forestry in developed
count ries
Form rules around t his emissions reduct ion goal and abandon t he at t em pt t o hide anticipat ed
increased emissions in t he 2nd comm itm ent period.
o Adopt an hist orical baseline for forest m anagem ent 1 (currently volunt ary), not a
projected baseline.
o
o
Require mandatory accounting for forest management;
Plug t he bioenergy emissions gap. It is not accept able t o ignore em issions from forest
m anagement and also count t hese em issions as zero carbon (renew able energy) at t he
point of com bust ion, as takes place in m any developed count ries.
o Com mit t o prot ect reservoirs of carbon (eg. forest s and peatlands).
o Apply environm ent al safeguards (eg. protection of biodiversit y and ecosyst em
services, safeguards against t he conversion of nat ural forest s and ot her ecosyst em s t o
plant at ions)
o Ensure great er t ransparency in t he policy process, dat a report ing, and account ing
o M andat e high quality dat a and adopt a w ork program t o achieve t his.
M ove t ow ards com plete account ing aft er t he 2nd comm itm ent period (recognizing technical
difficult ies)
How LULUCF is failing to deliver for the
W hat is the state of play after
Climate
Copenhagen?
•
•
•
•
•
•
M ost developed count ries are anticipat ing
t hat t heir forest m anagem ent em issions
w ill increase in t he second commit ment
period and propose t o m easure fut ure
em issions against these levels – this
loophole is equivalent to 5% of their total
1990 emissions (approx. 400M t CO2e/ yr)
– a significant fraction of t he t ot al
Copenhagen pledges.
An even larger am ount of emissions from
land use and land-use change w ill go
unaccounted for due t o incom plet e and
volunt ary accounting
Current rules fail t o recognize the
pot ent ially significant cont ribut ion of
forest s and ot her lands in developed
count ries t o clim at e change m itigation
and adapt ation
M any count ries are trying t o avoid
accounting for increased emissions from
cut t ing and burning t rees t o produce
energy, m aking a joke of renew able
energy policies
In t ot al, developed countries are
prom oting a loophole equivalent t o 5% of
t ot al Annex 1 count ries’ em issions
reductions in t he first comm itm ent period.
This w ould undermine global am bit ion t o
fight clim at e change
‘Business as usual’ emissions plus
em issions increases are proposed t o be
enshrined in t he baseline of m ost
count ries, in contrast t o t he approach
applied in ot her sect ors t o t ackling clim at e
change under t he Kyot o Prot ocol, w here
t here is supposed t o be an effort t o
reduce business as usual emissions of
developed count ries com pared t o a
baseline of em issions levels in 1990.
The Draft LULUCF Decision
Abou t CAN
The Clim ate Act ion Net work (CAN) is a
worldwide network of roughly 500 Nongovernm ental Organizat ions ( NGOs)
working to prom ote governm ent and
individual act ion to lim it hum an- induced
clim ate change to ecologically sust ainable
levels. CAN m em bers work t o achieve this
goal t hrough inform at ion exchange and
t he coordinated developm ent of NGO
st rategy on internat ional, regional, and
nat ional clim ate issues. Clim ate Act ion
Net work's vision is t o protect the
at m osphere while allowing for sust ainable
and equit able developm ent worldwide.
No decision w as finalized on draft LULUCF
rules for a pot ent ial 2nd commit ment
period. An opport unit y t herefore exist s t o
push for im provem ent – ie for LULUCF t o
becom e part of t he solut ion rat her t han a
loophole underm ining t he integrit y of any
fut ure deal
Weak emissions reduction pledges from
developed count ries currently fall far
below w hat is needed t o effectively t ackle
dangerous clim at e change. A robust
LULUCF fram ew ork can play a st ronger
role in mit igat ion and result in m ore
am bitious t arget s; alt ernat ively, LULUCF
rules can furt her w eaken t he current
insufficient emissions reductions pledges
The fat e of t he Kyot o Prot ocol is unclear
and t hus t he fat e of LULUCF rules under
t he Kyot o Prot ocol is also uncert ain
It is currently unknow n w het her LULUCF
rules w ill apply t o non-Kyot o developed
count ries, such as t he Unit ed St at es
The Copenhagen Accord m akes no
m ention of LULUCF
Developed country Parties say t hey are
close t o agreem ent , but t his pot ent ial
agreem ent is ignoring t he m assive
accounting loophole, and t hus t he adverse
im pact t hat t hese rules m ay have on
developed country t arget s
On forest m anagem ent rules: count ries
w ould choose w hat ever baseline t hey like
and hide increases in em issions by t his
m et hod; m ost are proposing t o set a
fut ure baseline (reference level) t hat
includes increased em issions;
A pot ent ial deal t o apply a cap t o credit s
in LULUCF is on t he t able, em anating from
t he G77. This is an at t em pt t o limit t he
w orst excesses of Annex I cheat ing on
em issions, but does not address t he
fundament al issues of not accounting for
increased em issions and is t herefore an
inadequate solution.
For f urt her inf ormat ion cont act :
Chris Henschel and M elanie Coat h
LULUCF W orking Group Coor dinat or
chenschel@cpaw s.org M elanie.Coat h@rspb.org.uk
+ 49 1520 443 6798
+44 770 223 7338