Carbon Dynamics in the Kyoto Context:Sinks and the Science-Policy Nexus

Robert T. Watson, IPCC, ChairIan Noble, CRC for Greenhouse Accounting

Adapted for World Bank PCF Sinks seminar,

Washington, 11/15/01

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

Atmosphere

Fossil Deposits

6.363.0

91.7

60

90

3.2

Plants

Soil

Oceans

750

500

2000

38,400

About 4,100

1.6The Global Carbon Cycle(1990s)

UnitsGt C

Gt C y -1

0.7

Global Carbon Cycle

For every 1 t of carbon emitted from fossil fuels 10 t are taken up and emitted by

terrestrial ecosystems 7 t are taken up and emitted and by

ocean ecosystems ¼ t is emitted from land clearing

The Balance each year...

6.3 Gt from fossil emissions ca. 1.6 Gt emitted from land-clearing 1.7 Gt net uptake into ocean systems

and c. 3.0 Gt into terrestrial systems Leaving a net 3.2 Gt in the

atmosphere

We cannot ignore sinks in UNFCCC

Emissions and uptakes since 1800 (Gt C)

180

110

115

265

140Land use

change emissions

Fossil emissions

Atmosphere Uptake

Oceans Uptake

Terrestrial Uptake

Carbon budget1980s 1990s

Atmospheric increase +3.3 ± 0.1 +3.2 ± 0.1Fossil emissions +5.4 ± 0.3 +6.3 ± 0.4Ocean - Atmosphere flux -1.9 ± 0.6 -1.7 ± 0.5Land – Atmosphere flux -0.2 ± 0.7 -1.4 ± 0.7 Land-use Change 1.7 ± ? ?1.6 ± 0.8 ?

Residual terrestrial sink -1.9 ± ? ?-3.0 ??

The terrestrial carbon sink appears to be increasing

Why is the Terrestrial Carbon Pool Increasing?

CO2 fertilization Warming Nitrogen deposition

Age structure changesFan et al (1998) - Inverse analysis

USA (south of 51 deg N) is net sink of 1.4 Gt C / y

Emissions & sinks from land-use in USA Houghton et al (2000). Global Ecology &

Biogeography 9, 145

Sink

The US Terrestrial Carbon budget

Fan et al 1998 (88-92) 1,400 Mt C / y Houghton et al 2001 (70-90s) 300 Mt C / y Pacala et al 2001 (80-90) 370 to 710 Mt C / y

Inverse results -400 to 1600 Mt C / y Bousquet (North America) 700 to 800 Mt C / y

Schimel et al [CO2 effect] c. 80 Mt C / y(80-93)

Why is the Terrestrial Carbon Pool Increasing? USA is a net sink of 300 to 700+ Mt

C / y

Most sink capacity comes from changes in age structures, fire reduction etc

Is this true elsewhere? China, Australia, Europe

Are forests responding to elevated CO2?

Many small scale experiments show variable but often positive responses

Results from Duke FACE experiment Most additional carbon enters short-

lived pools, thus the increase in carbon density is not as substantial as some may have assumed

Nutrient limitations may limit continued growth enhancement

Can we improve estimates of carbon sinks?

Kyoto Protocol requires transparency and verifiability

Inverse techniques Huge inconsistencies and debate Future improvements, multiple

constraints and [CO2] column estimates

Challenge for IGBP Carbon Project

How will uptakes and emissions from terrestrial ecosystems change over

the next century?

IGBP model comparison

Changes in terrestrial “can” dwarf the changes brought about by Kyoto processes

Gt C / y

Sink

Hadley Models Large feedback with drying out of tropical

(Amazonian) forests and subsequent release of carbon in fires and soil respiration

Does this mean that planting trees could “backfire” on us?

Efforts to establish woody vegetation on areas of low carbon will almost always yield a net carbon gain for many decades to centuries Exceptions include

heavy use of fertilisers (leading to other GHGs)

major soil disturbance at establishment creating fire hazards that affect other

vegetation

Does this mean that planting trees could “backfire” on us?: 2

Opportunities for carbon sequestration in vegetation are likely to be modest

Reforestation and other revegetation will rarely take place for its carbon value alone

Even a few tonnes of carbon per hectare can make major differences to some land rehabilitation projects

What does sink saturation mean to the Kytoto Protocol arrangements? From about the middle of this century

it will become increasingly difficult to maintain or reduce greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmopshere We have a 1.6 to 3.0 Gt C /y “free-ride”

that may peak at about 5 Gt C / y After that it will become increasingly

more difficult to maintain the status quo

Challenges in Modelling

Processes Interactions of CO2, temperature,

nitrogen and water Scaling

Landscape issues & disturbances Global base-data

Carbon Ecology Will ecosystems

Collapse Migrate Modify in situ?

How will carbon storage change as ecosystems change?

Can carbon fluxes be measured “top-down” - e.g. inverse approaches?

The Kyoto ProtocolThe Challenge of Mitigation

The near-term challenge is to achieve the Kyoto targets

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

Kyoto Process: meeting greenhouse gas reduction targets

UNFCCC Convention: Rio, 1992

Kyoto Protocol: December 1997

Kyoto: 5.2% reduction below 1990 baseline by 1st period of 2008-12. Targets for developed countries and countries with economies in transition (“Annex I”). No target for dev’g ctries.

Reduction: About 0.2 GtC/y below 1990 but 0.7 GtC/y below “business-as-usual” projections

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

125%

130%

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Evo

lutio

n in

%

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

Annex II

Annex I

EIT

The Short-term Challenge

Percentage Change in Emissions from 1990 to 2010

The Long-term ChallengeCarbon 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 all regions would have to deviate from most “business-as-usual”scenarios within a few decades

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 ProtocolFlexible Mechanisms

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? - limited to afforestation and reforestation

liability? (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 Issues for the Kyoto ProtocolFlexible Mechanisms (Art. 6, 12 and 17)

Key Conclusions of IPCC WG III Without trading, Annex B costs of complying with the

Kyoto Protocol, range from $150-600/tC (i.e., 0.2 - 2% loss of GDP). 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 slowed by a few hundreds of a percent per year

Key Issues for the Kyoto ProtocolLand-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

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

What needs to be monitored 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 ProtocolLand-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry

Interpretations of Article 3.4

Narrow definitionNarrow definition

Broad definitionBroad definition

USA definitionUSA definition

Forest Management

Cropland Management

Grazing land Management

Full carbon accounting All stocks across all carbon pools If applied to all land in all countries then the

accounting would produce the “Net terrestrial uptake” of about 1.4 GtC y-1 (IPCC TAR) without any additional effort to reduce emissions or increase sinks

Assuming emissions from tropical deforestation are 1.6 GtC y-1, suggests 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 land-management changes (e.g., tillage to no-till agriculture), it should be feasible to distinguish between 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.

I

0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Forest management

Cropland management

Grazing land management

Agroforestry

Rice Paddies

Urban land management Annex 1 Global

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) improvement of management within cover type -

new activities since 1990

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

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Cropland to grassland

Degraded agriculture to agroforest

Wetland restoration

Degraded land restoration Annex 1 Global

Key Issues for the Kyoto ProtocolArticle 12: CDM

(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.

Emission reductions ... shall be certified by operational entities to be designated by the Conference of the Parties... on the basis of:

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

What will be included: COP-7 text allows afforestation and reforestation

But rules & modalities need be agreed first Not allow avoided deforestation or other land management

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

Key Issues for the Kyoto ProtocolThe Clean Development Mechanism

LULUCF activites and projects can have a broad range of environmental, social and economic impacts, e.g.

biodiversityforests, soils, water resourcesfood, fiber, fuelemployment, 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.

Sustainable Development Criteria

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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Germ

anyJapanU

K Ukraine

Italy

FranceU

SA

Poland

Spain

Russian Fed

Rom

aniaN

etherlandsC

zech Rep

Bulgaria

Belgium

Australia*

Greece

Other N

ations

Mt

C p

er

ye

ar

Credits under Art 3.4 Unlikely Purchases Potential Purchases

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

mechanisms

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

Conclusion