0
The	
  Terrestrial	
  Carbon	
  Group	
  

             Reference	
  Emission	
  Levels	
  
Using	
  the	
  Collaborative	...
The	
  Terrestrial	
  Carbon	
  Group	
  
                                                  Science,	
  Economics,	
  Publ...
Selected	
  Key	
  Policy	
  Considerations	
  
1	
   Scale	
                                             2	
   Scope	
  
...
Different	
  Circumstances	
  /	
  Different	
  Views?	
  
                                            (IPCC:	
  mitigation	...
Different	
  Circumstances	
  /	
  Different	
  Views?	
  




The	
  Terrestrial	
  Carbon	
  Group	
                   5	
...
Geographic	
  Distribution	
  of	
  	
  
                                       Volatile	
  Terrestrial	
  Carbon*	
  
Top...
The	
  OSIRIS	
  Tool	
  
OSIRIS	
  is	
  a	
  free,	
  transparent,	
  accessible	
  and	
  open	
  source	
  decision	
 ...
OSIRIS:	
  Policy-­‐Relevant	
  Outputs	
  
OSIRIS	
  country-­‐by-­‐country	
  outputs:	
  
  Decrease	
  or	
  increase...
OSIRIS:	
  Flexible	
  Inputs	
  
  Reference	
  level	
  design	
                                                       ...
OSIRIS:	
  Designs	
  Compared	
  
Design	
  option	
  	
                       Reference	
                               ...
OSIRIS:	
  Selected	
  Results                                                                                 	
  




  ...
OSIRIS:	
  Key	
  Messages	
  
Action	
  more	
  
                                                         RED(D+)	
  can	...
OSIRIS:	
  Next	
  Steps	
  to	
  Copenhagen	
  
  RED(D+)	
  designs	
  of	
                                            ...
Terrestrial	
  Carbon	
  Group	
  Policy	
  Briefs	
  


                                                   Available	
  a...
A	
  Solution	
  at	
  Copenhagen	
  COP15	
  
1.          An	
  overarching	
  framework	
  for	
  terrestrial	
  carbon	...
Reference	
  Emission	
  Levels:	
  
  Background	
  Material	
  
Why	
  Reference	
  Emission	
  Levels	
  (and	
  
               Sequestration	
  Levels)	
  are	
  Required	
  

  When...
Avoiding	
  Emissions	
  vs	
  Reducing	
  Rates	
  
Climate	
  change	
  is	
  a	
                %	
  Year	
  O	
  Volum...
Conceptual	
  Approach:	
  Schematic	
  
                       Reward	
  performance	
                                   ...
Conceptual	
  Approach:	
  Evaluation	
  
                                 Data	
  Required	
              Potential	
  Pr...
Conceptual	
  Approach:	
  	
  
                                            Is	
  History	
  a	
  Good	
  Guide?	
  
     ...
TCG	
  Analysis	
  on	
  Tools	
  for	
  RELs	
  
1.  Outlines	
  policy	
  considerations	
  facing	
  decision-­‐makers	...
d	
  
                                                             Tool	
  Comparison	
  
       	
  Update
  Being       ...
Key	
  Data	
  for	
  Tools	
  for	
  RELs	
  
  The	
  following	
  data	
  was	
  used	
  by	
  four	
  or	
  more	
  o...
REL	
  Tools:	
  Implications	
  
  The	
  more	
  a	
  REL	
  reflects	
  a	
  reasonable	
  business	
  as	
  usual	
  s...
Determining	
  Terrestrial	
  Carbon	
  	
  
                                  At	
  Risk	
  of	
  Emission	
  
1.  Total	...
Geographic	
  Distribution	
  of	
  	
  
                                       Volatile	
  Terrestrial	
  Carbon*	
  
Top...
“3	
  Filters”	
  Method	
  to	
  Determine	
  Volatile	
  
Carbon	
  At	
  Risk	
  of	
  Emission	
  over	
  Long	
  Term...
Tropical	
  Forest	
  Carbon	
  at	
  Risk	
  Globally	
  
                                                               ...
TCG	
  Modeling:	
  Next	
  Steps	
  to	
  Copenhagen	
  
Terrestrial	
  Carbon	
  Group	
  is	
  working	
  independently...
Key	
  Actions	
  Required	
  for	
  RELs	
  
International	
  
                                            Ensure	
  long...
Notes	
  and	
  Sources	
  
Slide:	
  “Different	
  Circumstances	
  /	
  Different	
  Views?”	
                            ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Tcg osiris bangkok 091004

844

Published on

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
844
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
13
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Tcg osiris bangkok 091004"

  1. 1. The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   Reference  Emission  Levels   Using  the  Collaborative  Modeling  Initiative’s  OSIRIS  Tool  to  Compare  Various   Designs  for  RED(D+)  Reference  Emission  Levels  and  Incentive  Systems   Presentation  by  Ralph  Ashton   Convenor  and  Chair,  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   Senior  Policy  Fellow  and  Project  Director,  The  Heinz  Center   Visiting  Scholar,  Columbia  University   ralph.ashton@terrestrialcarbon.org   Forum  on  Readiness  for  REDD:  REDD  Negotiator  Training  Workshop   Bangkok,  4  October  2009  
  2. 2. The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   Science,  Economics,  Public  Policy   Ralph  Ashton     Tim  Flannery     Carlos  Nobre     Chatib  Basri     Thomas  Lovejoy   Hugh  Possingham     Rizaldi  Boer   Yadvinder  Malhi   Bernhard  Schlamadinger†   Peter  Cosier     Jacques  Marcovitch   Hadi  Soesastro     Ruth  DeFries     Warwick  McKibbin   Joseph  Stiglitz   Mohamed  El-­‐Ashry   Daniel  Nepstad   Bernardo  Strassburg   Please  see  full  paper  for   †  RIP  2008   more  details  –  available   in  five  languages   Objective:  Terrestrial  carbon  is  effectively  included   in  the  international  response  to  climate  change   The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   2  
  3. 3. Selected  Key  Policy  Considerations   1   Scale   2   Scope   At  what  scale  should  action  be   What  scope  of  terrestrial  carbon  and   measured  and  rewarded?   land  management  activities  should  be        Project  /  sub-­‐national   included?          National     RED        Aggregate  of  participating     REDD   nations        REDD-­‐plus     Global  all  sectors        AFOLU   3   Conceptual  Approach     4   Sources  of  Incentives   What  should  action  be  measured   How  should  incentives  be  provided?   against?          Carbon  market     Business  as  usual        Voluntary  or  performance-­‐based     Status  quo   funds     Pragmatic        Carbon-­‐market  linked  funds        Negotiated        Meeting  national  commitments   The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group    Emerging  consensus             Some  support   3  
  4. 4. Different  Circumstances  /  Different  Views?   (IPCC:  mitigation  potential  per  annum  in  2030  up  to  US$100  /  tonne  CO2e)   GtCO2e  pa   4   Agriculture   2   Forest   Sequestration   Avoided   Deforestation   0   Latin  America   South  &  South  East   Africa   Asia   The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   4  
  5. 5. Different  Circumstances  /  Different  Views?   The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   5  
  6. 6. Geographic  Distribution  of     Volatile  Terrestrial  Carbon*   Top  10  Volatile  Forest  Carbon   GtC   Top  10  Volatile  Non-­‐Forest  Carbon   GtC   Brazil   86.9   Brazil   19.3   Democratic  Republic  of  Congo   39.2   China   19.1   Indonesia   27.3   India   10.8   China   18.1   Indonesia   10.4   Peru   14.8   Argentina   9.4   Angola   12.3   Mexico   7.8   Colombia   11.8   Sudan   6.8   Bolivia   10.0   Kazakhstan   6.7   Mexico   9.5   Democratic  Republic  of  Congo   4.1   Venezuela   8.5   South  Africa   4.1   Total  Top  10   238.3   Total  Top  10   98.5   Total  All  Non-­‐Annex  I  Countries   363.7   Total  All  Non-­‐Annex  I  Countries   207.1   Top  10  as  %  of  all   66%   Top  10  as  %  of  all   48%    *  Carbon  that  would  be  emitted  in  the  event  of  land   The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   use  change  =>  100%  vegetation  &  25%  soil   6  
  7. 7. The  OSIRIS  Tool   OSIRIS  is  a  free,  transparent,  accessible  and  open  source  decision  support   spreadsheet  tool  designed  to  support  UNFCCC  negotiations  on  REDD+   www.conservation.org/osiris   Collaborative  Modelling  Initiative   Woods  Hole     Research  Center   With  the  International   The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   Institute  for  Applied   Systems  Analysis  (IIASA)   The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   7  
  8. 8. OSIRIS:  Policy-­‐Relevant  Outputs   OSIRIS  country-­‐by-­‐country  outputs:     Decrease  or  increase  in  deforestation  (Ha/yr)     Decrease  or  increase  in  emissions  from  deforestation     (ton  CO2  e/yr)     Distribution  of  revenue  ($/yr)     Cost-­‐efficiency  of  emissions  reductions  ($/ton  CO2  e)       Currently  limited  to  RED  (rather  than  REDD,  REDD+  or  AFOLU)   Focused  on  comparing  effectiveness,  efficiency  and  equity   The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   This  slide  is  modified  from  a  presentation  by  Jonah  Busch  (Conservation  International)   8  
  9. 9. OSIRIS:  Flexible  Inputs     Reference  level  design     Base  period  (’90-­‐’00  or   ’00-­‐’05)     Carbon  price  ($/ton  CO2)     Responsiveness  of  price  of     Management  cost  and  transaction   frontier  land  agricultural   cost  ($/Ha  or  $/ton  CO2)   output  to  changes  in  extent     Fraction  of  soil  carbon  eligible  for   of  deforestation  (“price   RED(D+)   elasticity  of  demand”)     Market,  fund,  or  quota     Weight  of  countries’     Timing  of  payment   preference  for  REDD+  surplus   vs.  agricultural  surplus     Suite  of  countries  participating  in   RED(D+)     Design-­‐specific  parameters   Can  be  adapted  to  answer  negotiators’  questions   The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   This  slide  is  modified  from  a  presentation  by  Jonah  Busch  (Conservation  International)   9  
  10. 10. OSIRIS:  Designs  Compared   Design  option     Reference   Description   “Without  REDD”   FAO  FRA  (2005)     Counterfactual  business  as  usual  scenario     “National  historical”     Santilli  et  al  (2005)     Reference  rate  is  historical  for  all  countries     “Higher  than  historical   Mollicone  et  al   Reference  deforestation  rate  is  0.15%  for  low-­‐ for  countries  with  low   (2007);  da  Fonseca   deforestation  countries;  Baseline  is  historical   deforestation  rates”     et  al  (2007)     for  high  deforestation  countries     “Weighted  average  of   Strassburg  et  al   Reference  rate  is  0.85*historical  rate  for  all   national  and  global”     (2008)     countries  +  0.15*global  average  rate     Reference  rate  is  historical  for  all  countries;  15%   “Flow  withholding   Cattaneo  et  al   “withholding”  on  flow  payments  to  pay  for   and  stock  payment”     (2008)     stock  payments     “Annualized  fraction   At-­‐risk  forest  stock  in  high-­‐defor  countries   Ashton  et  al   of  forest  stock  at  risk   emitted  by  2050;at-­‐risk  forest  stock  in  low-­‐ (2008)     of  emission”     deforestation  countries  emitted  by  2100     “Cap  and  trade  for   Eliasch  (2008);  For   Cap  is  historical  for  all  countries;  countries   REDD”     comparison  only     above  cap  must  purchase  credits   New  /  other  designs  can  be  added  and  compared  in  the  tool   The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   This  slide  is  modified  from  a  presentation  by  Jonah  Busch  (Conservation  International)   10  
  11. 11. OSIRIS:  Selected  Results   Significant  Emission   Reductions  in  all   Regions  under  all   Compared  Designs   The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   This  slide  is  modified  from  a  presentation  by  Jonah  Busch  (Conservation  International)   11  
  12. 12. OSIRIS:  Key  Messages   Action  more   RED(D+)  can  be  an  effective,  efficient  source  of  emissions   important  than   reductions  under  a  broad  range  of  reference  level  designs   Exact  Design   Design  Impacts   But,  reference  level  design  determines  distribution  of   Who  Gets  What   payments  to  countries   The  most  effective,  efficient  RED(D+)  designs  balance   High  and  Low   incentives  for  reducing  historically  high  rates  of   Deforesters  both   deforestation  with  incentives  for  maintaining  historically  low   Critical   rates  of  deforestation   Extending  RED(D+)  incentives  to  countries  with  historically   Low  Deforesters   low  deforestation  rates  can  prevent  leakage  to  those   Key  to  Avoiding   countries,  making  the  RED(D+)  mechanism  more  effective   Leakage   overall   Agriculture   The  overall  effectiveness  of  RED(D+)  can  be  increased  by   Planning  is  Vital   meeting  agricultural  needs  off  the  tropical  forest  frontier     The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   This  slide  is  modified  from  a  presentation  by  Jonah  Busch  (Conservation  International)   12  
  13. 13. OSIRIS:  Next  Steps  to  Copenhagen     RED(D+)  designs  of     Co-­‐benefits  of  RED(D+)   interest  to  parties   (development,  water,   biodiversity)     Impacts  of  RED(D+)   incentives  to  2050  (with     Phased  implementation  of   IIASA)   RED(D+)  by  countries     Market  vs  fund  vs  quota     Downscaled  analyses  in  key   countries  (Indonesia,  Peru,     Distribution  and  equity   Madagascar,  Liberia,   Guyana,  Suriname,  Brazil)   The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   This  slide  is  modified  from  a  presentation  by  Jonah  Busch  (Conservation  International)   13  
  14. 14. Terrestrial  Carbon  Group  Policy  Briefs   Available  at  terrestrialcarbon.org   We  welcome  suggestions  for  other  topics   With   1.  Distribution  of   2.  Tools  for   3.  Estimating     4.  Legal  and   5.  Measuring  and   Terrestrial  Carbon   Setting  Reference   Tropical  Forest     Institutional   Monitoring   Across  Developing   Emission  Levels   Carbon  at  Risk  of   Foundations  for     Terrestrial  Carbon   Countries   Emission  from   the  National   as  Part  of     Deforestation   Implementation     “REDD+”  MRV   Globally   of  REDD   Systems     (and  Background   (and  Background   Report  with  Case   Report)   Studies)   The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   14  
  15. 15. A  Solution  at  Copenhagen  COP15   1.  An  overarching  framework  for  terrestrial  carbon  that  includes:     Forestry  immediately,  through  joint  or  separate  mechanisms  for:     Avoided  emissions;  and     New  sequestration  (either  a  reformed  CDM  or  a  new  mechanism,  or   both)     A  detailed  program  of  work  to  fill  scientific,  methodological,  technical,   and  capacity  gaps  to  bring  in  Agriculture  and  Other  Land  Use  by  as  early   as  2013   2.  Establish  a  new  World  Land  Use  Organisation  (or  mandate  an  existing   organisation)  to  coordinate,  support,  and  drive  the  transition  to  a  global   land-­‐use  management  approach  that  provides  sufficient  food,  fiber,  fuel,  and   other  land-­‐based  values  to  a  growing  global  population  in  a  land-­‐  and   carbon-­‐constrained  world   The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   15  
  16. 16. Reference  Emission  Levels:   Background  Material  
  17. 17. Why  Reference  Emission  Levels  (and   Sequestration  Levels)  are  Required     When  creating  a  system  that  incentivizes  avoided  emissions  and   increased  sequestration,  it  is  necessary  to  know:     What  is  being  rewarded     How  to  measure  success     How  to  link  project,  sub-­‐national,  and  national  action  to   international  reporting     Therefore  need  to  agree:     Reference  emission  levels     Reference  sequestration  levels   The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   17  
  18. 18. Avoiding  Emissions  vs  Reducing  Rates   Climate  change  is  a   %  Year  O  Volume  Carbon     120   greenhouse  gas  problem   100   Reducing  rates  of   deforestation  is  an   80   important  near-­‐term  goal,   but  reducing  rates  is  not   60   enough   Goal   Must  also  avoid  emissions   40   Otherwise  same  area  of   forest  will  be  destroyed,   20   and  same  volume  of   greenhouse  gas  will  be   0   emitted,  but  over  a  longer   Year   period   Business  as  Usual   Reduced  Rate   Avoided  Emissions   Total  Emissions   The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   18  
  19. 19. Conceptual  Approach:  Schematic   Reward  performance   Most  important   compared  with  what   Incentivise  only   outcome  is  that  a   would  happen  in  the   countries  with   Use  historical  data   threshold  number  of   future  without  the   emissions  in  the   because  it  is  the  only   countries  agree     incentive  system   immediate  past   “real”  data  available   to  the  RELs   Business     Status  Quo   Pragmatic   Negotiated   as  Usual   Extrapolated   Adjusted     Forward-­‐   Historical   Historical   Looking   History  is  a  good   History  is  a  good  but   The  only  way  to   guide  to  the  future     imperfect  guide,  and   understand  future   (or  its  best   therefore  adjust   emissions  is  to  model   approximation),  and   historical  data  to   the  future,  taking  into   therefore  extrapolate   improve  its  predictive   account  factors  that   historical  data  into  the   capability   drive  and  constrain   future   emissions  from  land   use   The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   19  
  20. 20. Conceptual  Approach:  Evaluation   Data  Required   Potential  Problems   Historical  data   •  Might  require  models  and  assumptions   Business     and  /  or  various   •  Might  have  relatively  high  data  availability     as  Usual   legal,  biophysical   (see  also  next  slide  and  “Tools  for  Setting  RELs”  section)   and  economic  data   •  Ignores  modelling  that  shows  that  an  incentive  system   that  excludes  countries  with  terrestrial  carbon  at  risk   Status  Quo   Only  historical  data   of  emission  will  cause  significant  “leakage”,  thereby   undoing  the  climate  impact  of  the  system   •  Historical  data  is  not  necessarily  accurate,  even  in   terms  of  representing  emissions  in  the  historical   Pragmatic   Only  historical  data   period  in  question   •  Does  not  specifically  address  additionality   Can  be  based  on   •  This  approach  will  be  problematic  if  it  does  not   Negotiated   any  number  of   specifically  address  additionality   methodologies   The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   20  
  21. 21. Conceptual  Approach:     Is  History  a  Good  Guide?   Demand     for  Food,   Prices  for   Population   Fibre,  Fuel,   Land  &   (Increase  from  7  to   Carbon,     Commod-­‐ 9  billion  by  2050)   and  Land   ities   Land   Land-­‐Use   Availability   Possible  Under-­‐Estimation   Decisions   (especially  after   What  do  these  dynamics  mean  for   and  Land   deforestation)   threats  to  vegetated  land  in   Availability   developing  nations?   Possible  Over-­‐Estimation   The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   Forests  eventually  run  out…   21  
  22. 22. TCG  Analysis  on  Tools  for  RELs   1.  Outlines  policy  considerations  facing  decision-­‐makers   when  setting  an  REL  including  on  scale,  scope,  and   conceptual  approach  (see  previous  section)   2.  Analyses  9  existing  tools  that  can  be  used  to  set   reference  emission  levels   3.  Draws  conclusions  about:     Ability  of  these  tools  to  meet  policy  needs     Data  that  are  required  regardless  of  the  detailed   rules     How  easily  can  the  reference  emission  level  be  set   Available  at   based  on  cost,  data  requirements  and  availability,   www.terrestrialcarbon.org   and  complexity   The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   22  
  23. 23. d   Tool  Comparison    Update Being FAC GCOMAP GEOMOD GTM Guyana EVN IIASA G4M & GLOBIOM LUCS Sim-Amazonia 1 TCG 3 Filters Scale Project / Sub-National        National         Regional        Aggregate of Participating Nations      Scope RED          REDD REDD-plus (without degradation)        AFOLU     Emissions (not just area change)          Conceptual Approach: Business as Usual Perspective Extrapolated Historical  Adjusted Historical   Forward-Looking       Feasibility Feasibility High Medium Low Medium Medium Low Medium Low Medium Spatially explicit data used     Major Drivers and Constraints Considered Legal    Biophysical        Economic          Other Developing Original Geographic Focus Not specific Not specific Costa Rica Not specific Guyana Not specific Not specific Amazon Basin Countries Timeframe 20 years 100 years 20 years 100 years 30 years 100 years 20 years 30-40 years Long Run Dynamic      The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   Key:  = Possible with Current Tool;  = Possible with Adaptations to Current Tool or More Data 23  
  24. 24. Key  Data  for  Tools  for  RELs     The  following  data  was  used  by  four  or  more  of  the  tools  reviewed:     Forest  (carbon  stock,  net  primary  productivity,  type)     Land  use  data     Soil  /  suitability  of  land  for  agriculture     Timber  (species,  age,  increment,  yield)     Commodity  prices  (agriculture  and  forestry)     Cost  /  investment  (land,  governance  and  monitoring,  harvest,  herd   establishment,  planting,  transport)     Population  (change,  density,  growth  rate)     Carbon  density  information  is  also  essential   The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   24  
  25. 25. REL  Tools:  Implications     The  more  a  REL  reflects  a  reasonable  business  as  usual  scenario,  the   more  it  guarantees  additionality     RELs  are  a  policy  choice  and  might  or  might  not  correspond  exactly   with  a  business  as  usual  scenario     Tools  can  provide  a  yardstick  to  measure  the  credibility  of  RELs     Further  policy  work  should  focus  on  making  tools  for  setting  RELs   more  feasible  across  a  range  of  scopes,  countries,  and  policy   considerations  rather  than  on  making  existing  tools  more  accurate     Aggregate  of  country  RELs  (including  the  volume  of  potential   international  offsets)  must  be  reflected  in  the  overall  global  carbon   budget   The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   25  
  26. 26. Determining  Terrestrial  Carbon     At  Risk  of  Emission   1.  Total  Terrestrial  Carbon:      Estimate  total  volume  of  terrestrial  carbon  in   vegetation  and  soil   2.  Volatile  Terrestrial  Carbon:    Calculate  carbon  that  would  be  emitted  in  the   event  of  land  use  change    100%  carbon  in   vegetation  and  25%  carbon  in  soil   3.  At-­‐Risk  Terrestrial  Carbon:    Use  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group  “3  Filters”   methodology  to  estimate  volatile  carbon  at  risk   of  emission  over  the  long  run   Available  at   www.terrestrialcarbon.org   The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   26  
  27. 27. Geographic  Distribution  of     Volatile  Terrestrial  Carbon*   Top  10  Volatile  Forest  Carbon   GtC   Top  10  Volatile  Non-­‐Forest  Carbon   GtC   Brazil   86.9   Brazil   19.3   Democratic  Republic  of  Congo   39.2   China   19.1   Indonesia   27.3   India   10.8   China   18.1   Indonesia   10.4   Peru   14.8   Argentina   9.4   Angola   12.3   Mexico   7.8   Colombia   11.8   Sudan   6.8   Bolivia   10.0   Kazakhstan   6.7   Mexico   9.5   Democratic  Republic  of  Congo   4.1   Venezuela   8.5   South  Africa   4.1   Total  Top  10   238.3   Total  Top  10   98.5   Total  All  Non-­‐Annex  I  Countries   363.7   Total  All  Non-­‐Annex  I  Countries   207.1   Top  10  as  %  of  all   66%   Top  10  as  %  of  all   48%    *  Carbon  that  would  be  emitted  in  the  event  of  land   The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   use  change  =>  100%  vegetation  &  25%  soil   27  
  28. 28. “3  Filters”  Method  to  Determine  Volatile   Carbon  At  Risk  of  Emission  over  Long  Term   Effectively  Protected     • Legally  protected   1.   by  Law   • Effective  governance   2.   Biophysically  unsuitable   • Climate,  soil  and  terrain  conditions   for  agriculture,  pasture   • Input  levels  &  management  conditions   [or  logging]    Economic  constraints   • Level  of  agricultural  development   3.   • Access  to  markets:  local,  national,  [international]   mean  unlikely     • [Level  of  demand  for  food,  fibre,  fuel]   to  fulfil  biophysical   • [Extent  of  population  pressures]   potential   • [Proximity  to  current  deforestation  frontier]   The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   Note:  Square  brackets  indicate  not  yet  incorporated  in  tool     28  
  29. 29. Tropical  Forest  Carbon  at  Risk  Globally   (preliminary  results)   Yellow  =   Tropical  Forest   Carbon  at  Risk   Green  =   Effectively   Protected  by  Law   White  =     No  Tropical   Forest  Carbon  or   no  data   GtC   Africa   Asia   Latin  America   Total   Potentially  at  Risk   82.5   46.6   136.2   265.3   Effectively  protected   (6.9)   (5.9)   (39.6)   (52.4)   Biophysically  unsuitable  and/or   (18.8)   (13.4)   (11.2)   (43.5)   economically  unfeasible   At  Risk   58.2   29.6   87.8   175.5   %  of  total  potentially  at  risk   71%   64%   64%   66%   The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   29  
  30. 30. TCG  Modeling:  Next  Steps  to  Copenhagen   Terrestrial  Carbon  Group  is  working  independently  and  collaboratively  on:     Refining  existing  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group  modeling  to:     Capture  the  dynamic  future  (biophysical  and  economic)       Capture  ‘at  risk’  profile  over  time  (not  just  aggregate  over  long  run)     Update  the  global  carbon  map  (completed  with  Holly  Gibbs)     Widen  the  scope  of  existing  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group  modeling  to:     Include  deforestation  of  all  forest  types  (not  just  tropical)     Include  afforestation  /  reforestation  potential     Include  degradation     Include  agricultural  carbon  emissions   The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   30  
  31. 31. Key  Actions  Required  for  RELs   International   Ensure  longevity  of  earth  observation  infrastructure:  satellites,   Remote  Sensing   receiving  stations,  analysis  capacity  (human  and  computing)   Improve  field  measurement  capabilities  and  expand  coverage   Science   of  conversion  factors  (land  use  types,  species,  regions),   especially  for  forest  degradation  and  peatlands   Negotiations   Agree  to  each  country’s  REL,  including  RELs  for  early  action   National   Gather  and  analyse  key  data  at  local,  provincial  /  island,  and   Data   national  levels  for  RELs  and  ongoing  measuring  and   monitoring  (remote  sensing  and  field  measurements)   Science   As  for  International,  but  focused  on  local  conditions   Establish  national  institutions  to  link  project,  sub-­‐national  and   Institutions   national  RELs  to  each  other  and  to  international  reporting   requirements   The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   31  
  32. 32. Notes  and  Sources   Slide:  “Different  Circumstances  /  Different  Views?”   Slide:  “OSIRIS:  Selected  Results”   Mitigation  potential  by  sector:  Avoided  Deforestation,  Forest   Busch,  J.  et  al  in  press.  2009.  OSIRIS  v2.6  Parameter  values:    C02  price=$5/ Sequestration  and  Agriculture  show  annual  mitigation  potential  at   ton  CO2  ;  Permanence  scale=1.00;  Elasticity  of  demand=1.0;  Social   less  than  US$100  /  tCO2  in  2030  based  on  forest  carbon;   preference  for  REDD  surplus  =  1.00;  Mgmt  cost=$3.50/Ha/yr;  Soil  carbon   agricultural  sequestration;  and  avoidance  of  N2O  and  CH4   eligible=0.25;  Baseline  for  low  defor=0.0015;  Weight  on  historical=0.85;   emissions,  mainly  from  livestock  (<  0.1  Gt).  Developing  countries  =   Stock-­‐flow  withholding=0.15;  Low  defor  emitted  by:  2100;  High  defor   Non-­‐OECD  /  Non-­‐EIT.  Smith  et  al.,  2007  (Figure  8.5:  Total  technical   emitted  by:  2050   mitigation  potentials  (all  practices,  all  GHGs:  MtCO2-­‐eq/yr)  for   Slides:  “Conceptual  Approach:  Schematic”  to  “REL  Tools:  Implications”   each  region  by  2030,  showing  mean  estimates);  Nabuurs  et  al,   Terrestrial  Carbon  Group  Project.  2009.  Policy  Brief  Number  2  “Tools  for   2007  (Table  9.3:  Potential  of  mitigation  measures  of  global   Setting  Reference  Emission  Levels:  A  review  of  existing  tools  that  can  be   forestry  activities.  Global  model  results  indicate  annual  amount   used  to  set  a  benchmark  for  rewarding  reduced  emissions  and  increased   sequestered  or  emissions  avoided,  above  business  as  usual,  in     sequestration  of  greenhouse  gasses  in  the  terrestrial  system”,  available  at   2030  for  carbon  prices  100  US$/tCO2  and  less);  both  from  Climate   www.terrestrialcarbon.org.     Change  2007:  Mitigation.  Contribution  of  working  group  III  to  the   4th  assessment  report  of  the  IPCCC.   Slides:  “Determining  Terrestrial  Carbon  At  Risk  of  Emission”  to  “Tropical   Forest  Carbon  at  Risk  Globally”   Slide:  “Different  Circumstances  /  Different  Views?”   Terrestrial  Carbon  Group  Project.  2009.  Policy  Brief  Number  1  “Distribution   Griscom,  B.  et  al.  (2009)  Sensitivity  of  amounts  and  distribution  of   of  Terrestrial  Carbon  Across  Developing  Countries:  Forest  and  Non-­‐Forest;   tropical  forest  carbon  credits  depending  on  baseline  rules.   Vegetation  and  Soil”  and  Project  Policy  Brief  Number  3  “Estimating  Tropical   Environmental  Science  and  Policy,  in  press.  Based  on  remaining   Forest  Carbon  at  Risk  of  Emission  from  Deforestation  Globally:  Applying  the   forest  in  1996  compared  with  original  forest  cover,  and  mean   Terrestrial  Carbon  Group  Reference  Emission  Level  Approach”  (available  at   annual  rate  of  forest  cover  loss  1990-­‐2005  as  a  percentage  of   www.terrestrialcarbon.org),  and  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group  analysis.   original  forest  cover.   Slide:  “Geographic  Distribution  of  Volatile  Terrestrial  Carbon”   Data  sources:  Filters:  UNEP-­‐WCMC,  WRI,  IIASA  /  FAO;  Carbon:  Gibbs,  IGBP.   Methodology  is  similar  to  that  used  in  Eliasch  Review.  Filter  3  is  currently   Terrestrial  Carbon  Group  Project.  2009.  Policy  Brief  Number  1   the  least  developed.  Ideally,  will  take  into  account  projections  of  local,   “Distribution  of  Terrestrial  Carbon  Across  Developing  Countries:   national  and  global  market  conditions,  which  will  depend  on  numerous   Forest  and  Non-­‐Forest;  Vegetation  and  Soil”  (available  at   factors,  including  availability  of  alternative  agricultural  land,  yield   www.terrestrialcarbon.org).   improvements,  infrastructure,  population  growth  and  density.   The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   32  
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×