Tag: LULUCF

In the fifth edition of the Germanwatch-CAN Europe Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI), Brazil climbed to fourth place, as Sweden slid down its LULUCF projected baseline and landed in fifth. As the top three places were left vacant, Brazil earned the top rank among 57 countries surveyed for the CCPI.

At the other end of the scale, Saudi Arabia and Canada finished last and second last respectively at 58 and 59. Saudi Arabia’s negative rating was for blocking a fair, ambitious and binding treaty to protect the most vulnerable developing countries. Canada earned second last place for its weak domestic climate policy, huge per capita emissions and lack of any kind of constructive engagement in the UN climate talks.

The USA also fared poorly – it was ranked 53 – as President Obama and the Congress have yet to make good on the mandate of renewal (and renewables) which swept him to office.

The Germanwatch CCPI is an independent report, ranking the 57 largest emitters on their efforts to protect the climate. This year, like last year, witnessed blank spaces for the first three ranks. This was because no country was on a path to keep warming as far below 2°C as possible. For details, visit germanwatch.org

A spooky story for the last day of negotiations: Once upon a time, ECO recalls, a list of LULUCF principles was determined and included the following: "That the implementation of land use, land-use change and forestry activities contributes to the conservation of biodiversity and sustainable use of natural resources."

Yet today, under the rules for forests in developed countries, conversion of natural forests to plantations is not accounted.  Indeed, native forests and plantations are not even distinguished, making it impossible to directly track this important indicator of the impacts of LULUCF on biodiversity. The LULUCF principles have become wispy spirits haunting the forests of the North.

Today, forest conversion has become a bone of contention in the REDD discussions. ECO is glad to see that the safeguard against conversion of natural forests is back in the REDD text, although it is bracketed and vague. Inclusion of an improved version of this provision in the final Copenhagen agreement will be an important step towards banishing LULUCF spectres from REDD.

In addition, however, principles alone cannot ensure that REDD lives up to its promises. How will Parties ensure that conversion of natural forests to plantations does not occur under REDD as long as the definition of “forest” encompasses everything from tropical jungle to oil palm plantations?

Conversion of forests to plantations not only has dire consequences for biodiversity, it also increases emissoins.  And so ECO asks, what about the 'E' in REDD?  If you look closely, the definitional gap that exists in LULUCF as an important lesson for REDD.  Natural forests and plantations must be defined separately and emissions from conversion must be accounted for, just as degradation of forests must be defined and accounted for.

Relying on carbon accounting alone to prevent conversion is not enough, warn the ghosts of LULUCF, who whisper that accounting for degradation never became mandatory.  In the real world of tropical forests, proxies may be used to estimate carbon stocks, and if forest cover is one of them, then distinguishing plantations from forests becomes crucial. In addition, defining natural forests and plantations will help clarify what REDD is all about, and ensure confidence in its effectiveness to protect the climate.

ECO knows Parties are hesitant to enter a process of developing definitions akin to a recurring ghost story of the Marrakesh Accords. However, negotiators must use several potions to banish the phantoms of LULUCF loopholes. One of them is carbon accounting strong enough to ensure that emissions caused by conversion are seen by all and not just the atmosphere. Another is definitions. Employing the forest categories suggested by the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (AHTEG) of the Convention on

Biological Diversity would help protect REDD from the grinning spectre of unaccounted-for emissions lurking in the newly converted forests of Annex I.

End of term is nearing for LULUCF and ECO presents the report card for some Parties, indicating their grade based on interesting statements made in Wednesday morning’s contact group on Annex I Parties’ emission reductions.

ECO notes that this subject is a difficult one with several Parties routinely handing in incomplete assignments and struggling to understand the basic concept: account for emissions.

European Union: D

Although the EU’s intervention was fairly focused on the implications of LULUCF for targets, it allowed a glimpse of that most troubling idea of projected baselines (an idea the EU just does not seem able to shake). Surprise, surprise: they estimate that the impact of this approach on EU targets is zero, because it is defined to be so! The EU gets a D for handing in an incomplete assignment with a non-position that points in all directions, some of which are absolutely unacceptable.

New Zealand: D

For continuing to parade its graph showing that their planned harvest of forests creates an unacceptable hit on the national accounts. The graph on page 13 of their submission (not shown during the contact group) shows that these unacceptable forest management debits are balanced by credits from afforestation!

Canada: C

Canada deserves kudos for being the only Annex I Party to explicitly observe that countries need to account for emissions from all management activities. However, the code behind their accounting principles is clear: remove all natural disturbances from the inventory, use projected business-as-usual baselines, and account for carbon stored in wood products.

Japan: C

Japan had a mixed performance: good marks for observing that forest management projections are not a good idea, but demerits for their continued support for the existing rules when what we really need are rules with greater environmental integrity.

Australia: B

ECO considered handing out the only A for an Annex I country to Australia for being the only country to propose that the national emission reductions target apply to LULUCF as for other sectors. Great idea! But then ECO remembered that Australia had very high deforestation emissions in 1990, and that this proposal would (coincidentally?) make it much easier for Australia to meet ambitious targets.

Norway: B

Norway almost got a high grade for being willing to accept a simple accounting approach of measuring changes in emissions since 1990, but slipped behind when it observed that special adjustments may need to be made for some countries.

G77 & China: A

For giving Annex I Parties a wake-up call and proposing the revolutionary concept that the same set of simple rules should apply to all Annex I Parties: account for changes in emissions/removals compared to a base year. Although their proposal to apply a cap to the entire LULUCF sector is difficult to evaluate without more information, it appears that they are interested in using it to ensure that mitigation happens both in LULUCF and in other sectors. Makes sense to ECO! Finally, G77 & China have rightly called for a resolution to these negotiations by Barcelona so that new Annex I targets can be agreed in Copenhagen.

Micronesia: A

As well as supporting the call for simple, transparent accounting and environmental integrity, Micronesia also added some humour to the discussion in describing the data submissions by Annex I Parties: “Whoops, data gaps! Whoops, data uncertainty! Whoops, different rules for everyone!”