The rules for land use,land use change and forestry under the Kyoto Protocol—lessons learned for the future climate negotiations

This paper provides an overview of the rules for accounting emissions of land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) for the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. It first describes the rules in detail, it then provides an overview of the history of negotiations that led to these rules and provides resulting conclusions for future international climate negotiations. We conclude that the current rules can be better understood in the light of the negotiation history. For the future, we conclude that first an agreement on the objectives of including LULUCF in the future climate regime should be developed, e.g. to contribute significantly to the ultimate objective of the convention. Further, a solid set of data should be developed that can assess the magnitude of possible options. The rules should be scientifically sound, complete and balanced as well as unambiguous before the quantitative targets are defined. They should further be simple and inclusive to include all carbon pools, i.e. provide incentives to avoid deforestation and unsustainable logging in all countries.     

Including land use,land-use change,and forestry in future climate change,agreements: thinking outside the box

This paper presents a framework that encompasses a full range of options for including land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF) within future agreements under the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The intent is to provide options that can address the broad range of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and removals as well as to bring the broadest possible range of nations into undertaking mitigation efforts. We suggest that the approach taken for the Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period is only one within a much larger universe of possible approaches. This larger universe includes partially or completely “de-linking” LULUCF commitments from those in other sectors, and allowing commitments specified in terms other than tonnes of greenhouse gases. Such approaches may provide clarity and transparency concerning the role of the various sectors in the agreements and encourage participation in agreements by a more inclusive, diverse set of countries, resulting in a more effective use of LULUCF in addressing climate change.     

Contribution of different sectors to developed countries’ fulfillment of GHG emission reduction targets under the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol

Greenhouse gas (GHG) data submitted in April 2014 on land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF), energy, industrial processes, solvents and other product use, agriculture, and waste for 37 developed countries was analyzed to estimate the relative contributions of different sectors to GHG emission reductions. This GHG data from the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol included 35 parties to Annex B of the Kyoto Protocol, the United States and Canada. Results show that the contribution of each sector was, in order: energy (36.9%), industrial processes (12.4%), agriculture (9.9%), LULUCF (7.7%), waste (3.4%), and solvents and other product use (0.1%). The average proportion of base year emissions reduced in each sector by countries in Annex B was, in order: energy (7.4%), agriculture (2.7%), LULUCF (1.9%), industrial processes (1.2%), waste (0.5%), and solvents and other product use (0.1%). Overall, the energy sector contributed the highest GHG emission reductions, while the agriculture and LULUCF sectors also made contributions. Most countries achieved limited absolute GHG reductions from their chosen LULUCF activities, but the relative contribution of GHG emission reductions from LULUCF was significant but small. This suggests that, unless there are substantial changes to accounting rules, future emission reductions will mainly result from mitigation actions targeting fossil fuel consumption, while the agriculture and LULUCF sectors will continue to play auxiliary roles.     

Options for including land use in a climate agreement post-2012: improving the Kyoto Protocol approach

Many pathways have been proposed for including land use in a post-2012 climate agreement. Several involve new accounting structures which are quite different from the rules established in the Marrakech Accords and related decisions. However, a mechanism based largely on the structure agreed for the first commitment period also has its benefits. This paper discusses the weaknesses of the current system of land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) accounting in the Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period, and proposes a mechanism based on that existing structure, but with modifications to address the weaknesses.     

The Kyoto Protocol could make a difference for the optimal forest-based CO2 mitigation strategy: some results from GORCAM

The Kyoto Protocol was agreed on by more than 150 nations in December, 1997 and (if and when ratified) will establish international commitments to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Under the Kyoto Protocol, some of the carbon emissions and removals within the land-use change and forestry sector can be counted toward a country's commitments for greenhouse gas emissions reductions. In addition to the impacts that land-use practices have on CO₂ emissions from fossil-fuel combustion, changes in the carbon stocks of forests (possibly including forest soils) caused by the direct human activities afforestation, reforestation and deforestation and taking place in the `first commitment period' (2008–2012), are to be accounted for under the Kyoto Protocol. Credits for carbon sinks in the biosphere are limited to projects initiated since 1990. A modified version of the model GORCAM has been used to assess eligible emission-reduction credits under the Kyoto regime and to illustrate how the optimal forest-based strategy for carbon dioxide mitigation might change under the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol offers rewards for only some of the changes in carbon stocks that might occur and hence the forestry project that produces the most emission reduction credits under the Kyoto Protocol is not necessarily the same project that produces the greatest benefit for net emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Supplementing the Protocol with appropriate definitions, interpretations and agreements could help to make sure that it does not provide incentive for activities that run counter to the objectives of the Framework Convention on Climate Change.     

Equity rules for burden sharing in the mitigation process of climate change

Although international negotiation on the mitigation of climate change is a process of determining burden-sharing rules between countries, there has been no clear agreement on equity principles for burden sharing. During the negotiating process up to the Kyoto Protocol, various proposals were made on such burden-sharing rules, but an agreement on emission targets for Annex I countries was achieved without explicitly agreeing to any rules. In the next phase of the negotiation, debates on emission targets are likely to shift from those between developed countries to those between all parties to the convention. In such a phase, debates on burden-sharing rules will be revisited. The purpose of this paper is: (1) to determine implicitly a formula for the rule for burden sharing between Annex I countries that was considered to be underlying the emission targets of the Kyoto Protocol, and (2) to examine plausible emission targets and timing of commitments for non-Annex I countries in the future by using the result of the analysis on the Kyoto Protocol. A multi-regression method is used for this purpose. It was concluded that the burden sharing between Annex I countries in the Kyoto Protocol can mostly be explained by three variables: the increase in the rate of CO₂ emission during the years 1990 to 2010, the increase in the rate of afforestation between 1990 and 1995, and the GDP per capita at the time of negotiation. The timing of future commitments of developing countries and the levels of targets differ widely, depending on which index or formula is agreed as "equitable". Some of the developing countries would have to start limiting their emissions within several years if GDP per capita or CO₂ per capita were chosen as the burden-sharing indicator. Developing countries would not have to make commitments until the mid-late 21st century if population growth rate were chosen. If the inferred formula of the Kyoto Protocol were applied to developing countries, they would have had to start mild limitation from 1990.     

Equity rules for burden sharing in the mitigation process of climate change

Although international negotiation on the mitigation of climate change is a process of determining burden-sharing rules between countries, there has been no clear agreement on equity principles for burden sharing. During the negotiating process up to the Kyoto Protocol, various proposals were made on such burden-sharing rules, but an agreement on emission targets for Annex I countries was achieved without explicitly agree-ing to any rules. In the next phase of the negotiation, debates on emission targets are likely to shift from those between developed countries to those between all parties to the convention. In such a phase, debates on burden-sharing rules will be revisited. The purpose of this paper is: (1) to determine implicitly a formula for the rule for burden sharing between Annex I countries that was considered to be underlying the emission targets of the Kyoto Protocol, and (2) to examine plausible emission targets and timing of commitments for non-Annex I countries in the future by using the result of the analysis on the Kyoto Protocol. A multi-regression method is used for this purpose. It was concluded that the burden sharing between Annex I countries in the Kyoto Protocol can mostly be explained by three variables: the increase in the rate of CO₂ emission during the years 1990 to 2010, the increase in the rate of afforestation between 1990 and 1995, and the GDP per capita at the time of negotiation. The timing of future commitments of developing countries and the levels of targets differ widely, depending on which index or formula is agreed as “equitable”. Some of the developing countries would have to start limiting their emissions within several years if GDP per capita or CO₂ per capita were chosen as the burden-sharing indicator. Developing countries would not have to make commitments until the mid-late 21st century if population growth rate were chosen. If the inferred formula of the Kyoto Protocol were applied to developing countries, they would have had to start mild limitation from 1990.     

Consistency and comparability of estimation and accounting of removal by sinks in afforestation/reforestation activities

The Kyoto Protocol accounting system and its market mechanisms, Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI), are built on the key principle that emission and emission reduction units generated by afforestation/reforestation activities under national systems and projects are fully comparable, no matter their origin. Lack of consistency in the quality of emission and emission reduction units can undermine the environmental integrity of the climate stabilization actions. Therefore, it is the ambition that units generated in the land-use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector are of similar quality with those from non-LULUCF sectors. In this paper, the authors pose the question of whether there is full estimation and accounting consistency between Annex I Party’s national GHG systems and CDM projects methodologies in the LULUCF sector, in terms accuracy, completeness, levels of uncertainty and permanence risk. We focus on methodological aspects related to the applicability and practicability of using approved afforestation/reforestation CDM methodologies; estimation, reporting and accounting rules; the small pools and sources issue, uncertainty of removal estimate; leakage and handling of non-permanence risk. We conclude that there is significant scope for improving the consistency of greenhouse gas emission accounting from land use activities in the post-2012 climate change agreement, between Annex I domestic and project activities. As well, we conclude that the preparation and implementation of project activities has to be made simpler by a project framework guideline, which is then adapted to any project circumstances.     

What contribution can tree plantations make towards meeting Australia’s commitments under the Kyoto Protocol?

The Kyoto Protocol has been drafted to bring about an overall reduction in net emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Australia has agreed to limit its increase of net greenhouse gas emissions to 8% between 1990 and 2010. While this target is not as tight as that of other parties to the Protocol, it nonetheless constitutes a significant reduction of net emissions below business-as-usual projections, and it will require significant policy initiatives to achieve this reduction. The Kyoto Protocol allows some carbon sequestration by vegetation sinks to be offset against CO₂ emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. This paper aims to estimate the contribution that forestation projects could make towards meeting Australia’s commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. It concludes that new plantations could sequester between 0.6 and 7 MtC yr⁻¹ over the commitment period (2008–2012) and offset between about 0.5 and 6% of Australia’s 1990 greenhouse gas emissions. The different estimates depend on the area of eligible plantations that will be established from 1999 onwards and whether plantations will be allowed to grow through to the end of the commitment period or will be in short-rotation stands that may be harvested before 2012. The maximum emission offset can only be achieved if new plantations are established at a rate of 100,000 ha yr⁻¹, which is equivalent to the Australian Government’s target under the 2020 vision. It is likely that sufficient suitable land would be available in Australia to achieve the required establishment rates. However, while such a contribution by vegetation sinks would be helpful, it would not, on its own, be sufficient for Australia to meet its required greenhouse gas emission target.     

Equal Opportunity for Biomass in Greenhouse Gas Accounting of CO2 Capture and Storage: A Step Towards More Cost-Effective Climate Change Mitigation Regimes

Carbon dioxide capture and permanent storage (CCS) is one of the most frequently discussed technologies with the potential to mitigate climate change. The natural target for CCS has been the carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from fossil energy sources. However, CCS has also been suggested in combination with biomass during recent years. Given that the impact on the earth's radiative balance is the same whether CO₂ emissions of a fossil or a biomass origin are captured and stored away from the atmosphere, we argue that an equal reward should be given for the CCS, independent of the origin of the CO₂. The guidelines that provide assistance for the national greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting under the Kyoto Protocol have not considered CCS from biomass (biotic CCS) and it appears that it is not possible to receive emission credits for biotic CCS under the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, i.e., 2008–2012. We argue that it would be unwise to exclude this GHG mitigation alternative from the competition with other GHG mitigation options. We also propose a feasible approach as to how emission credits for biotic CCS could be included within a future accounting framework.     

The Kyoto Protocol: provisions and unresolved issues relevant to land-use change and forestry

This paper describes the relevant text of the Kyoto Protocol and its implications for land-use change and forestry (LUCF) activities and addresses some of the technical issues that merit further consideration and clarification before the treaty comes into force. Although the phrasing of the Protocol is sometimes ambiguous and the opportunities limited, the Protocol does provide for some selected forest-related activities to be used to meet national commitments for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. To implement the forest-related portions of the Protocol, most importantly: (1) a clear definition for the word ‘reforestation' is required, (2) contradictory wording in Article 3.3 needs to be clarified to establish how credits are to be measured, (3) further thought should be given to the sentence in Article 3.7 which provides that countries with a net carbon sink in LUCF in 1990 cannot include emissions from land-use change in their 1990 baseline, whereas countries with a net carbon source in LUCF can include those emissions in their 1990 baseline, (4) the rules and baseline issues for joint implementation and the clean development mechanism need to be clarified and (5) inclusion of additional forest management activities needs to be considered.     

The elephant in the room – A comparative study of uncertainties in carbon offsets

The clean development mechanism (CDM) is a flexible mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol, which makes it possible for developed countries to offset their emissions of greenhouse gases through investing in climate change mitigation projects in developing countries. When the mitigation benefit of a CDM project is quantified, measurable uncertainties arise that can be minimised using established statistical methods. In addition, some unmeasurable uncertainties arise, such as the rebound effect of demand-side energy efficiency projects. Many project types related to land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) have been excluded from the CDM in part because of the high degree of statistical uncertainty in measurements of the carbon sink and risk of non-permanence. However, recent discussions within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have opened up for the possibility of including more LULUCF activities in the future. In the light of this discussion, we highlight different aspects of uncertainties in LULUCF projects (e.g. the risk of non-permanence and the size of the carbon sink) in relation to other CDM project categories such as renewables and demand-side energy efficiency. We quantify the uncertainties, compare the magnitudes of the uncertainties in different project categories and conclude that uncertainties could be just as significant in CDM project categories such as renewables as in LULUCF projects. The CDM is a useful way of including and engaging developing countries in climate change mitigation and could be a good source of financial support for LULUCF mitigation activities. Given their enormous mitigation potential, we argue that additional LULUCF activities should be included in the CDM and other future climate policy instruments. Furthermore, we note that Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) are currently being submitted to the UNFCCC by developing countries. Unfortunately, the under-representation of LULUCF in comparison to its potential is evident in the NAMAs submitted so far, just as it has been in the CDM. Capacity building under the CDM may influence NAMAs and there is a risk of transferring the view on uncertainties to NAMAs.     

Achieving the Kyoto Protocol in the U.S.: How Great are the Needed Changes?

The Kyoto Protocol requires the U.S.to reduce the rate of emissions of six greenhousegases (GHG) to 93% of their 1990 rate and to achievethis target by the 2008 to 2012 commitment period. This study assesses the magnitude of change needed inthe U.S. economy and, specifically, in the U.S. energysector, to achieve and maintain the target establishedby the Kyoto Protocol. A simple carbon (C)emissions-energy model is explained in this analysisusing four key variables. Current and future trendsin C emissions are explained by: the carbon/energy(C/E) ratio, Gross Domestic Product growth, energyprices and an energy trend variable. Potential GHGmitigation policy actions affect C emissionsindirectly by affecting at least one of these keyvariables. The analysis concludes that reducingfossil energy use in the U.S. to meet the Kyoto GHGemissions reduction target would be very costly. Technological progress that reduces C emissions wouldnot be fully sufficient without prematurely abandoningproductive capital equipment. Energy price increasesof about 14% per year, or declines in economic growthof almost 5% per year, could reduce energy demand andassociated C emissions enough to achieve the terms ofthe Kyoto Protocol.     

碳交易市场发展现状与未来走势分析

自《京都议定书》生效以来,国际碳市场取得了长足的发展,并在推动各国低碳转型方面发挥了积极作用。由于受国际气候制度演变带来的政策不确定性影响,以及欧洲主权债务危机的冲击,当前国际碳市场的发展陷入停滞。未来国际碳市场将何去何从？本文立足主要国家国内碳市场发展、国际气候谈判进程以及德班气候变化会议成果,对国际碳市场的未来发展走势进行了系统分析,提出2012年后的国际碳市场将由联合国气候公约缔约方会议相关决定和议定书第二承诺期两个框架同时驱动,同时还将在很大程度上受到主要国家国内政策取向的影响。本文同时还介绍了中国国内碳交易市场的建设进展及其面·临的主要挑战,最后针对环境保护部门在国内碳市场建设中可发挥的作用提出了相应的建议。     

CDM in the Kyoto Negotiations:

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has its origins in the decade of UNFCCC negotiations. ‘Joint implementation’ and ‘activities implemented jointly pilot’ opened the door for the project-based mechanisms between developed and developing countries. The US proposal of the Joint Implementation in the Kyoto Protocol negotiations was almost identical with CDM approved in Kyoto; however, a detour around the Clean Development Fund (CDF) concept raised by Brazil in the negotiations catalyzed the mutual understanding on the win-win nature of the concept of joint implementation.CDM has been played an important role to bridge the developed and developing countries in its development process initiated as the joint implementation in the UNFCCC, and can lead to the cooperative future in the implementation stage starting from the year 2003, including the development of future commitments beyond 2013. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

A new post-Kyoto climate regime based on per-capita cumulative CO<Subscript>2</Subscript>-emission rights—rationale,architecture and quantitative assessment of the implication for the CO<Subscript>2</Subscript>-emissions from China,India and the Annex-I countries by 2050

Climate change is one of the most severe global problems in the 21st century. Main drivers are the combustion of fossil fuels, the emissions of industrial gases, emissions from agricultural sites and animal husbandry as well as deforestation. A new cooperative climate regime is necessary to meet the World’s energy and environmental problems against the background of China’s and India’s energy consumption growth. For the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol after 2012, a successor regime has to be agreed on. The current approaches, however, have a common weakness. They at the same time (a) do not acknowledge the historical responsibilities of the industrialized countries for the historical greenhouse gas emissions and the responsibility of developing countries for a large fraction of the current future emissions, and (b) do not provide for a fair distribution of emission rights. Against this background, this article aims at forecasting China’s and India's CO₂-emissions up to 2050 and developing a new suggestion for a post Kyoto climate regime based on a cumulated per capita CO₂-emission rights taking the weaknesses of the currently discussed post Kyoto approaches into account.     

What is the potential and demonstrated role of non-life insurers in fulfilling climate commitments? A case study of Nordic insurers

Collective actions of stakeholders are required for fulfilling the climate commitments of the Kyoto protocol. The insurance sector's global influence and societal impact is fairly well documented. The sector influences societies based on its interaction with stakeholders, on its products, business and political stance. As such, it is a critical actor in facilitating key climate change actions of mitigation and adaptation, and has already been recognized as a leading sector in terms of climate adaptation. The aim of this paper is to explore the role of non-life insurers in fulfilling the climate commitments of the Kyoto Protocol. This paper is based on a case study on Nordic non-life insurance companies. The study documents that Nordic insurers are responding to climate-related threats and opportunities in a strategic manner by reducing their own impacts, through their core activities, and by influencing others to act. Although Nordic insurers do not classify their actions into mitigation and adaptation, but classify them according to their core activities, they demonstrate through actions their role as potential allies for nations in fulfilling the Kyoto protocol climate commitments. The study also reveals that the commercial reality of the industry is not the same as the expected contribution to climate commitments, for instance as specified in international conventions and treaties and in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and industry reports.     

多哈气候会议结果分析

本文总结和分析了多哈气候会议的谈判热点和成果,特别介绍涵盖2013至2020年的《京都议定书》第二承诺期的要点;展望了计划于2015年达成新的有法律效力的全面的国际气候协议。     

A Possible Way Forward on Climate Change

Although some have raisedsome valid points regarding scientificuncertainties and economic costs, a numberof arguments can be made in favor ofmultilateral cooperation to address globalclimate change. The approach presentedattempts to respond to some of the concernsraised and problems encountered in theinternational negotiation process. Thisalternative to the current approachcontained in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Kyoto Protocol wouldinvolve negotiating a package ofmulti-component commitments by each countrybased on national circumstances andnegotiated from the bottom up, as in amultilateral trade agreement.     

Trees as carbon sinks and sources in the European Union

The carbon (C) sinks and sources of trees that may be accounted for under Article 3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol during the first commitment period from 2008 to 2012 were estimated for the countries of the European Union (EU) based on existing forest inventory data. Two sets of definitions for the accounted activities, afforestation, reforestation and deforestation, were applied. Applying the definitions by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the trees were estimated to be a C source in eight and a C sink in seven countries, and in the whole EU a C source of 5.4 Tg year⁻¹. Applying the definitions by the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC), the trees were estimated to be a C source in three and a C sink in 12 countries, and in the whole EU a C sink of 0.1 Tg year⁻¹. These estimates are small compared with the C sink of trees in all EU forests, 63 Tg year⁻¹, the anthropogenic CO₂ emissions of the EU, 880 Tg C year⁻¹, and the reduction target of the CO₂ emissions, 8%. In individual countries, the estimated C sink of the trees accounted for under Article 3.3 was at largest 8% and the C source 12% compared with the CO₂ emissions.