Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry - the IEA Bioenergy Task ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

8 IEA Bioenergy Task 25 Workshop, Joensuu, Finland: LULUCF: The Road to COP6Carbon Management via Incentives(amortization)Risks of Early Crediting2000-05 2005-10 2010-15 2015-20 totalBase Emissions 700 720 690 640 2750With Amortization:Credits given -10 -10 -10 -30 -60Book Emissions 690 710 680 610 2690• Issuing credits if forests don’t count in Kyoto II• Issuing credits where benefits are over-estimated• Issuing credits where benefits never happen• Excess credit liabilityActual reductions 0 -10 -20 -30 -60Actual Emissions 700 710 670 610 269013131414Benefits to Early CreditingCountries Net Enissions• Implement many more projects thanwould otherwise happen• Wider range of options to reach Kyototargets• Allows least cost solutions• Doesn’t cost government money, justpaper credits• Government becomes manager of carbon8007507006506005505001990 2000 2010 2020 2030With Early CreditingEmissionsNet EmissionsTarget15151616
S.Subak – Addressing COP6 Decisions on Agricultural Soil Carbon 9Addressing COP6 Decisions on Agricultural Soil CarbonAccumulationSusan SubakAmerican Association for the Advancement of Science FellowOffice of Atmospheric Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyABSTRACTThe Kyoto Protocol introduces the possibility that changes in carbon stock on agricultural and forest landand soils may be counted against countries’ commitments to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.Including activities related to land use change and forestry in the international climate change agreementmay stimulate new incentives for soil-conservation practices domestically. However, a primary criteria fortheir inclusion relates to the level of accuracy and transparency with which carbon stock changes can beassessed. Parties will also be concerned with the wider environmental impact of different sequestrationpractices, and the impact of offsets on overall emissions targets. This paper examines these issues foragricultural soils, considering recent research in temperate regions. It is argued that incentives for carbonsequestration practices may need to be implemented independently of actual stock changes because farmlevelsoil monitoring would be very costly. Priority should be given to establishing incentives for covercrops and to expanding conservation tillage programs. These activities provide a range of ancillaryenvironmental benefits. In contrast, improvements in biomass yield tend to rely on higher fertilizer inputswith their related environmental costs. Carbon accumulated through any of these activities is easily lost if thepractices are discontinued, and so assessment procedures are needed that would avoid overestimatingsequestration. Annual accumulation in agricultural soils could be equivalent to about 10% of Annex I carbondioxide emissions, and therefore options for limiting sink credits from soils should be considered.
Page 1 and 2: Task 25Greenhouse Gas Balances of B
Page 3 and 4: Liski et al - Trees as carbon sinks
Page 6 and 7: 4 IEA Bioenergy Task 25 Workshop, J
Page 8 and 9: 6 IEA Bioenergy Task 25 Workshop, J
Page 12 and 13: 10 IEA Bioenergy Task 25 Workshop,
Page 19: A.Cowie and K.Lamb - Measuring and

Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry - the IEA Bioenergy Task ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?