Land Use, Forestry and Climate Change:
Opportunities, Imperatives and Challenges
Chris HenschelCanadian Parks and Wilderness Society
Table of Contents
• Land use (forestry) and climate mitigation• Forest climate mitigation policy• Case studies:– Forest management negotiations for second Kyoto
commitment period– North American Forest Carbon Standard– New Zealand Emission Trading System
• Conclusions
Emissions from forestry and land use?
• Forest harvest = emission• Natural forest managed forest = loss of carbon• Forest non-forest = loss of carbon• Wetland drainage or disturbance = emission• Soil disturbance = emission• Biomass replace fossil fuel emissions = (emission
reduction)?• Wood replaces materials with higher emission
profiles = emission reduction
Forests are important to global mitigation efforts
• 1.3 – 4.2 Gt CO2/yr at $100 US/t CO2
• Canada’s forests and peatlands globally significant: store about 232 900 Mt C
• Examples of human-caused emissions in Canada:– 45 Mt C logging in 2006;– 190 km2 of peatlands disturbed in Canada to date by
extraction (7.7 Mt);– 237 km2 of peatlands disturbed to date in Alberta by
oil sans operations;Sources: IPCC AR4; Carlson et al. 2010.
International commitments to protect and enhance sinks and reservoirs1992: UNFCCC Article 4.1(d)
“All Parties… shall … [p]romote sustainable management, and promote and cooperate in the conservation and enhancement, as appropriate, of sinks and reservoirs of all greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol, including biomass, forests and oceans as well as other terrestrial, coastal and marine ecosystems ….”
1997: Kyoto Protocol Article 2.1(a)(ii)“1. Each Party included in Annex I, in achieving its quantified emission limitation … shall … [i]mplement and/or further elaborate policies and measures … such as … [p]rotection and enhancement of sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases …; promotion of sustainable forest management practices, afforestation and reforestation ….”
What can management activitiescontribute to mitigation?• Forest Area: maintain or increase• Stand-level Carbon Density: maintain
or increase by reducing forest degradation and improving management
• Landscape Carbon Density: maintain or increase through forest conservation
• Off-site Carbon Stocks: enhance material and bioenergy substitution – Bioenergy: 0.4 – 4 Gt CO2e/yr
Source: IPCC AR4
Maintaining the role of Canada’s forests and peatlands in climate regulation
• Reduce deforestation and increase afforestation• Avoid logging of natural forests• Employ forest management practices that
enhance carbon storage:• Employ forest sector practices to enhance carbon
storage and minimize greenhouse gas emissions:• Minimize the extraction of peat soils• Minimize soil disturbance• Reduce the adverse climate impacts of fire and
insect disturbancesCarlson M., J. Chen, S. Elgie, C. Henschel, A. Montenegro, N. Roulet, N. Scott, C. Tarnocai and J. Wells. 2010. Maintaining the role of Canada’s forests and peatlands in climate regulation. Forestry Chronicle: 86(4) 434-443).
Examples of forest and wetland policy initiatives
• Creating a global mechanism to reduce emissions from tropical deforestation, forest degradation (+) (UN and other);
• Including forest and wetland emissions in commitments of developed countries (UN, Kyoto);
• Including deforestation liabilities in Emissions Trading System (New Zealand);
• Including forest projects in carbon offset frameworks (North America);
• Substituting fossil fuels with biomass in energy production (e.g. EU, forest manufacturing sector, Ontario Power Generation);
Barriers to good policy
• Relative permanence of emission reductions;• Additionality problems of offsets;• Treatment of “carbon neutrality”;• Non-carbon effects – e.g. biodiversity;• Politics – expecting forests to make us look
good at expense of accurate accounting;• Forest sector constraints – e.g. long-term
trends and liability;
Key element of negotiations is choice of a baseline to measure changes in emissions• This will determine impact of forestry
emissions on compliance under global climate agreement;
• Could create incentives/pressure for changes in forest management;
• Option with greatest support allows developed countries to propose their own baselines;
• Called “Reference Levels”
Parties’ Proposed Reference Levels (PRLs)
Reference Level Countries Account for growth in emissions?
Long-term average historical 0Base period: 2001 - 2005
Switzerland ~
Base year 1990 Norway, Russia
Zero sink Japan
Projected reference levels
36 Parties
Projected reference levels hide increased emissions in the baseline;• Choosing a baseline from the future rather than the past• A projected reference level is designed to measure deviation
from planned growth, and does not accurately reflect changes in emissions relative to the current state of the atmosphere
• Deviation from planned growth is for mitigation in developing countries, where projected growth in emissions is envisioned as part of sustainable development
• Forest management accounting rules would undermine economy-wide ambition if they fail to account for increasing emissions from forest management relative to historic levels
Proposed reference levels will hide significant increase in annual emissions (460 Mt)
Annex I
-1,400,000
-1,200,000
-1,000,000
-800,000
-600,000
-400,000
-200,000
0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Fore
st m
anag
emen
t (Kt
CO
2e)
Net emissions/removals 1990-2008 average Proposed reference level
Source: Climate Action Network
Developed Parties are failing to conserve and enhance sinks and reservoirs• Proposed Reference Levels do not
incentivize activities to reduce forest emissions using mitigation activities identified by IPCC
• Parties are demonstrating the intention to increase harvest rates and emissions from forest management– These emissions would not be
reflected in accounts using the PRL mechanism
Parties proposing increased harvest rates:
• Australia
• EU27
• Japan
• New Zealand
• Norway
• Russian Federation
• Switzerland
Flawed policies and difficult circumstances are driving this flawed approach
• Policy choices about carbon neutrality• National circumstances of forestry sectors– Logging primary forests– Multi-year trends and cycles in harvest rates
• Belief in the societal/climate benefits of ‘sustainable’ forest management
• A blindspot for biodiversity
Voluntary standard designed for uptake by regulators
• Lead by forestry and forester associations in United Stands and Canada; American Forest & Paper Association is secretariat
• ANSI/CSA accredited standard• Multi-stakeholder in design by dominated by
prospective producers and traders of forest carbon credits
• In third draft
Current draft fundamentally undermines key offset principles
• “Permanence” of emission reduction defined as 50 years
• Proponents can terminate at any time and only partially replace credits
• No explicit additionality tests• Flexibility with baseline setting• No baselines required for manufacturers of
harvested wood products (any new wood is good)
Interests are driving this flawed approach
• Fundamental tension between lack of permanence and aversion to liability
• Desire to reward good behaviour rather than additional emission reductions
• Belief in the societal/climate benefits of ‘sustainable’ forest management
Deforestation liabilities included in ETS
• Landowners responsible for deforestation of any land in forest as of January 1 1990
• All planted production forests• Not responsible for harvest emissions if trees
are replanted• Credits for growth and liability for emissions
voluntary for forests planted after 1990
Policy will reduce deforestation and provide handsome reward
• Deforestation emissions projected to decrease• Profits of $343 million to landowners from
gifting of emission allowances
The downsides and inconveniences of including land use emission liabilities• Credits from forest growth will only delay
emissions from plantation forests (expected harvest in 2020s)
• Voluntary participation of post-1990 forests could create big cost to New Zealand government in 2020s
• New Zealand seeking flexibility in Kyoto rules to allow deforestation of productive lands to allow dairying (shift to less productive lands)
Key considerations for policy choices
• Accountability must exist at the national level (e.g. included in national targets and global compliance)
• Emissions from bioenergy must be counted• Offsets would undermine a regulatory cap
(solution: limits/adjust the cap)• National policies can be designed to fit – does not
need to be carbon market• National policies must consider other values
including biodiversity
Possible national / provincial policy approaches
• Government purchase of offsets• Cap-and-trade auction revenue spending • Payment for Ecosystem Services• Tax credits• Information / Labelling• Protected Areas/Reserves• Tradable permits• Conservation Banking • Zoning and land-use planning• Sustainable Forest Management PoliciesFrom Forest Carbon and Climate Policy in Canada: A Review of Forest Carbon Offset Opportunities, Issues and Alternatives. Mike Kennedy, Chris Henschel. The Pembina Institute / CPAWS