32
Presentation by Ralph Ashton Convenor and Chair, Terrestrial Carbon Group Senior Policy Fellow and Project Director, The Heinz Center Visiting Scholar, Columbia University [email protected] 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 Forum on Readiness for REDD: REDD Negotiator Training Workshop Bangkok, 4 October 2009

Tcg osiris bangkok 091004

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

 

Citation preview

Page 1: Tcg osiris bangkok 091004

Presentation  by  Ralph  Ashton  Convenor  and  Chair,  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group  

Senior  Policy  Fellow  and  Project  Director,  The  Heinz  Center  Visiting  Scholar,  Columbia  University  [email protected]  

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  

Forum  on  Readiness  for  REDD:  REDD  Negotiator  Training  Workshop  Bangkok,  4  October  2009  

Page 2: Tcg osiris bangkok 091004

The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group  

The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   2  

Ralph  Ashton    Chatib  Basri    Rizaldi  Boer  Peter  Cosier    Ruth  DeFries    Mohamed  El-­‐Ashry  

Carlos  Nobre    Hugh  Possingham    

Bernhard  Schlamadinger†  Hadi  Soesastro    Joseph  Stiglitz  

Bernardo  Strassburg  

†  RIP  2008  

Science,  Economics,  Public  Policy  

Objective:  Terrestrial  carbon  is  effectively  included  in  the  international  response  to  climate  change  

Tim  Flannery    Thomas  Lovejoy  Yadvinder  Malhi  

Jacques  Marcovitch  Warwick  McKibbin  Daniel  Nepstad  

Please  see  full  paper  for  more  details  –  available  

in  five  languages  

Page 3: Tcg osiris bangkok 091004

Selected  Key  Policy  Considerations  Scale  At  what  scale  should  action  be  measured  and  rewarded?    Project  /  sub-­‐national    National    Aggregate  of  participating  

nations    Global  all  sectors  

Scope  What  scope  of  terrestrial  carbon  and  land  management  activities  should  be  included?      RED    REDD    REDD-­‐plus    AFOLU  

The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   3  

Conceptual  Approach    What  should  action  be  measured  against?      Business  as  usual    Status  quo    Pragmatic    Negotiated  

Sources  of  Incentives  How  should  incentives  be  provided?    Carbon  market    Voluntary  or  performance-­‐based  

funds    Carbon-­‐market  linked  funds    Meeting  national  commitments  

1   2  

4  3  

   

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

Emerging  consensus             Some  support  

Page 4: Tcg osiris bangkok 091004

Different  Circumstances  /  Different  Views?  (IPCC:  mitigation  potential  per  annum  in  2030  up  to  US$100  /  tonne  CO2e)  

The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   4  

0  

2  

4  

Latin  America   South  &  South  East  Asia  

Africa  

Agriculture  

Forest  Sequestration  

Avoided  Deforestation  

GtCO2e  pa  

Page 5: Tcg osiris bangkok 091004

Different  Circumstances  /  Different  Views?  

The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   5  

Page 6: Tcg osiris bangkok 091004

Geographic  Distribution  of    Volatile  Terrestrial  Carbon*  

The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   6  

Top  10  Volatile  Forest  Carbon   GtC  Brazil   86.9  Democratic  Republic  of  Congo   39.2  Indonesia   27.3  China   18.1  Peru   14.8  Angola   12.3  Colombia   11.8  Bolivia   10.0  Mexico   9.5  Venezuela   8.5  Total  Top  10   238.3  Total  All  Non-­‐Annex  I  Countries   363.7  Top  10  as  %  of  all   66%  

Top  10  Volatile  Non-­‐Forest  Carbon   GtC  Brazil   19.3  China   19.1  India   10.8  Indonesia   10.4  Argentina   9.4  Mexico   7.8  Sudan   6.8  Kazakhstan   6.7  Democratic  Republic  of  Congo   4.1  South  Africa   4.1  Total  Top  10   98.5  Total  All  Non-­‐Annex  I  Countries   207.1  Top  10  as  %  of  all   48%  

 *  Carbon  that  would  be  emitted  in  the  event  of  land  use  change  =>  100%  vegetation  &  25%  soil  

Page 7: Tcg osiris bangkok 091004

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  

The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   7  

Collaborative  Modelling  Initiative  

Woods  Hole    Research  Center  

With  the  International  Institute  for  Applied  

Systems  Analysis  (IIASA)  The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group  

Page 8: Tcg osiris bangkok 091004

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)  

The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   8  This  slide  is  modified  from  a  presentation  by  Jonah  Busch  (Conservation  International)  

Focused  on  comparing  effectiveness,  efficiency  and  equity  

Page 9: Tcg osiris bangkok 091004

OSIRIS:  Flexible  Inputs    Reference  level  design  

  Carbon  price  ($/ton  CO2)  

  Management  cost  and  transaction  cost  ($/Ha  or  $/ton  CO2)  

  Fraction  of  soil  carbon  eligible  for  RED(D+)  

  Market,  fund,  or  quota  

  Timing  of  payment  

  Suite  of  countries  participating  in  RED(D+)  

  Base  period  (’90-­‐’00  or  ’00-­‐’05)  

  Responsiveness  of  price  of  frontier  land  agricultural  output  to  changes  in  extent  of  deforestation  (“price  elasticity  of  demand”)  

  Weight  of  countries’  preference  for  REDD+  surplus  vs.  agricultural  surplus  

  Design-­‐specific  parameters  

The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   9  This  slide  is  modified  from  a  presentation  by  Jonah  Busch  (Conservation  International)  

Can  be  adapted  to  answer  negotiators’  questions  

Page 10: Tcg osiris bangkok 091004

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  for  countries  with  low  deforestation  rates”    

Mollicone  et  al  (2007);  da  Fonseca  et  al  (2007)    

Reference  deforestation  rate  is  0.15%  for  low-­‐deforestation  countries;  Baseline  is  historical  for  high  deforestation  countries    

“Weighted  average  of  national  and  global”    

Strassburg  et  al  (2008)    

Reference  rate  is  0.85*historical  rate  for  all  countries  +  0.15*global  average  rate    

“Flow  withholding  and  stock  payment”    

Cattaneo  et  al  (2008)    

Reference  rate  is  historical  for  all  countries;  15%  “withholding”  on  flow  payments  to  pay  for  stock  payments    

“Annualized  fraction  of  forest  stock  at  risk  of  emission”    

Ashton  et  al  (2008)    

At-­‐risk  forest  stock  in  high-­‐defor  countries  emitted  by  2050;at-­‐risk  forest  stock  in  low-­‐deforestation  countries  emitted  by  2100    

“Cap  and  trade  for  REDD”    

Eliasch  (2008);  For  comparison  only    

Cap  is  historical  for  all  countries;  countries  above  cap  must  purchase  credits  

The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   10  This  slide  is  modified  from  a  presentation  by  Jonah  Busch  (Conservation  International)  

New  /  other  designs  can  be  added  and  compared  in  the  tool  

Page 11: Tcg osiris bangkok 091004

OSIRIS:  Selected  Results  

The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   11  This  slide  is  modified  from  a  presentation  by  Jonah  Busch  (Conservation  International)  

Significant  Emission  Reductions  in  all  Regions  under  all  Compared  Designs  

Page 12: Tcg osiris bangkok 091004

OSIRIS:  Key  Messages  Action  more  important  than  Exact  Design  

RED(D+)  can  be  an  effective,  efficient  source  of  emissions  reductions  under  a  broad  range  of  reference  level  designs  

Design  Impacts  Who  Gets  What  

But,  reference  level  design  determines  distribution  of  payments  to  countries  

High  and  Low  Deforesters  both  Critical  

The  most  effective,  efficient  RED(D+)  designs  balance  incentives  for  reducing  historically  high  rates  of  deforestation  with  incentives  for  maintaining  historically  low  rates  of  deforestation  

Low  Deforesters  Key  to  Avoiding  Leakage  

Extending  RED(D+)  incentives  to  countries  with  historically  low  deforestation  rates  can  prevent  leakage  to  those  countries,  making  the  RED(D+)  mechanism  more  effective  overall  

Agriculture  Planning  is  Vital  

The  overall  effectiveness  of  RED(D+)  can  be  increased  by  meeting  agricultural  needs  off  the  tropical  forest  frontier    

The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   12  This  slide  is  modified  from  a  presentation  by  Jonah  Busch  (Conservation  International)  

Page 13: Tcg osiris bangkok 091004

OSIRIS:  Next  Steps  to  Copenhagen  

  RED(D+)  designs  of  interest  to  parties  

  Impacts  of  RED(D+)  incentives  to  2050  (with  IIASA)  

  Market  vs  fund  vs  quota  

  Distribution  and  equity  

  Co-­‐benefits  of  RED(D+)  (development,  water,  biodiversity)  

  Phased  implementation  of  RED(D+)  by  countries  

  Downscaled  analyses  in  key  countries  (Indonesia,  Peru,  Madagascar,  Liberia,  Guyana,  Suriname,  Brazil)  

The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   13  This  slide  is  modified  from  a  presentation  by  Jonah  Busch  (Conservation  International)  

Page 14: Tcg osiris bangkok 091004

Terrestrial  Carbon  Group  Policy  Briefs  

The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   14  

1.  Distribution  of  Terrestrial  Carbon  Across  Developing  

Countries  

2.  Tools  for  Setting  Reference  Emission  Levels  

3.  Estimating    Tropical  Forest    

Carbon  at  Risk  of  Emission  from  Deforestation  

Globally  

4.  Legal  and  Institutional  

Foundations  for    the  National  

Implementation    of  REDD  

(and  Background  Report  with  Case  

Studies)  

5.  Measuring  and  Monitoring  

Terrestrial  Carbon  as  Part  of    

“REDD+”  MRV  Systems    

(and  Background  Report)  

Available  at  terrestrialcarbon.org  

We  welcome  suggestions  for  other  topics  

With  

Page 15: Tcg osiris bangkok 091004

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  

Page 16: Tcg osiris bangkok 091004

Reference  Emission  Levels:  Background  Material  

Page 17: Tcg osiris bangkok 091004

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  

Page 18: Tcg osiris bangkok 091004

Avoiding  Emissions  vs  Reducing  Rates  

The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   18  

0  

20  

40  

60  

80  

100  

120  

Year  Business  as  Usual   Reduced  Rate  

Climate  change  is  a  greenhouse  gas  problem  

Reducing  rates  of  deforestation  is  an  important  near-­‐term  goal,  but  reducing  rates  is  not  enough  

Must  also  avoid  emissions  

Otherwise  same  area  of  forest  will  be  destroyed,  and  same  volume  of  greenhouse  gas  will  be  emitted,  but  over  a  longer  period  

Total  Emissions  

Goal  

%  Year  O  Volume  Carbon    

Avoided  Emissions  

Page 19: Tcg osiris bangkok 091004

Conceptual  Approach:  Schematic  

The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   19  

Business    as  Usual  

Status  Quo   Pragmatic   Negotiated  

Reward  performance  compared  with  what  would  happen  in  the  future  without  the  incentive  system  

Incentivise  only  countries  with  emissions  in  the  immediate  past  

Use  historical  data  because  it  is  the  only  “real”  data  available  

Most  important  outcome  is  that  a  

threshold  number  of  countries  agree    to  the  RELs  

Extrapolated  Historical  

Adjusted    Historical  

Forward-­‐  Looking  

History  is  a  good  guide  to  the  future    

(or  its  best  approximation),  and  therefore  extrapolate  historical  data  into  the  

future  

History  is  a  good  but  imperfect  guide,  and  

therefore  adjust  historical  data  to  

improve  its  predictive  capability  

The  only  way  to  understand  future  

emissions  is  to  model  the  future,  taking  into  account  factors  that  drive  and  constrain  emissions  from  land  

use  

Page 20: Tcg osiris bangkok 091004

Conceptual  Approach:  Evaluation  Data  Required   Potential  Problems  

Business    as  Usual  

Historical  data  and  /  or  various  legal,  biophysical  and  economic  data  

•  Might  require  models  and  assumptions  •  Might  have  relatively  high  data  availability    (see  also  next  slide  and  “Tools  for  Setting  RELs”  section)  

Status  Quo   Only  historical  data  

•  Ignores  modelling  that  shows  that  an  incentive  system  that  excludes  countries  with  terrestrial  carbon  at  risk  of  emission  will  cause  significant  “leakage”,  thereby  undoing  the  climate  impact  of  the  system  

Pragmatic   Only  historical  data  

•  Historical  data  is  not  necessarily  accurate,  even  in  terms  of  representing  emissions  in  the  historical  period  in  question  

•  Does  not  specifically  address  additionality  

Negotiated  Can  be  based  on  any  number  of  methodologies  

•  This  approach  will  be  problematic  if  it  does  not  specifically  address  additionality  

The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   20  

Page 21: Tcg osiris bangkok 091004

Conceptual  Approach:    Is  History  a  Good  Guide?  

The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   21  

Land  Availability  (especially  after  deforestation)  

Population  (Increase  from  7  to  9  billion  by  2050)  

Demand    for  Food,  Fibre,  Fuel,  Carbon,    and  Land  

Prices  for  Land  &  

Commod-­‐ities  

Possible  Under-­‐Estimation  

What  do  these  dynamics  mean  for  threats  to  vegetated  land  in  

developing  nations?  

Possible  Over-­‐Estimation  

Forests  eventually  run  out…  

Land-­‐Use  Decisions  and  Land  Availability  

Page 22: Tcg osiris bangkok 091004

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  based  on  cost,  data  requirements  and  availability,  and  complexity  

The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   22  

Available  at  www.terrestrialcarbon.org  

Page 23: Tcg osiris bangkok 091004

Tool  Comparison  

The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   23  

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

Original Geographic Focus Not specific Not specific Costa Rica Not specific Guyana Not specific Not specific Amazon Basin Developing Countries

Timeframe 20 years 100 years 20 years 100 years 30 years 100 years 20 years 30-40 years Long Run Dynamic

Key: = Possible with Current Tool; = Possible with Adaptations to Current Tool or More Data

Being  Upda

ted  

Page 24: Tcg osiris bangkok 091004

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  

Page 25: Tcg osiris bangkok 091004

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  

Page 26: Tcg osiris bangkok 091004

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  

The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   26  

Available  at  www.terrestrialcarbon.org  

Page 27: Tcg osiris bangkok 091004

Geographic  Distribution  of    Volatile  Terrestrial  Carbon*  

The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   27  

Top  10  Volatile  Forest  Carbon   GtC  Brazil   86.9  Democratic  Republic  of  Congo   39.2  Indonesia   27.3  China   18.1  Peru   14.8  Angola   12.3  Colombia   11.8  Bolivia   10.0  Mexico   9.5  Venezuela   8.5  Total  Top  10   238.3  Total  All  Non-­‐Annex  I  Countries   363.7  Top  10  as  %  of  all   66%  

Top  10  Volatile  Non-­‐Forest  Carbon   GtC  Brazil   19.3  China   19.1  India   10.8  Indonesia   10.4  Argentina   9.4  Mexico   7.8  Sudan   6.8  Kazakhstan   6.7  Democratic  Republic  of  Congo   4.1  South  Africa   4.1  Total  Top  10   98.5  Total  All  Non-­‐Annex  I  Countries   207.1  Top  10  as  %  of  all   48%  

 *  Carbon  that  would  be  emitted  in  the  event  of  land  use  change  =>  100%  vegetation  &  25%  soil  

Page 28: Tcg osiris bangkok 091004

“3  Filters”  Method  to  Determine  Volatile  Carbon  At  Risk  of  Emission  over  Long  Term  

The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   28  

 Economic  constraints  mean  unlikely    

to  fulfil  biophysical  potential  

Biophysically  unsuitable  for  agriculture,  pasture  

[or  logging]  

Effectively  Protected    by  Law  

1.  

2.  

3.  

Note:  Square  brackets  indicate  not  yet  incorporated  in  tool    

• Legally  protected  • Effective  governance  

• Climate,  soil  and  terrain  conditions  • Input  levels  &  management  conditions  

• Level  of  agricultural  development  • Access  to  markets:  local,  national,  [international]  • [Level  of  demand  for  food,  fibre,  fuel]  • [Extent  of  population  pressures]  • [Proximity  to  current  deforestation  frontier]  

Page 29: Tcg osiris bangkok 091004

Tropical  Forest  Carbon  at  Risk  Globally  (preliminary  results)  

The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   29  

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  economically  unfeasible   (18.8)   (13.4)   (11.2)   (43.5)  

At  Risk   58.2   29.6   87.8   175.5  

%  of  total  potentially  at  risk   71%   64%   64%   66%  

Yellow  =  Tropical  Forest  Carbon  at  Risk  

Green  =  Effectively  

Protected  by  Law  White  =    

No  Tropical  Forest  Carbon  or  

no  data  

Page 30: Tcg osiris bangkok 091004

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  

Page 31: Tcg osiris bangkok 091004

Key  Actions  Required  for  RELs  International  

Remote  Sensing   Ensure  longevity  of  earth  observation  infrastructure:  satellites,  receiving  stations,  analysis  capacity  (human  and  computing)  

Science  Improve  field  measurement  capabilities  and  expand  coverage  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  

Data  Gather  and  analyse  key  data  at  local,  provincial  /  island,  and  national  levels  for  RELs  and  ongoing  measuring  and  monitoring  (remote  sensing  and  field  measurements)  

Science   As  for  International,  but  focused  on  local  conditions  

Institutions  Establish  national  institutions  to  link  project,  sub-­‐national  and  national  RELs  to  each  other  and  to  international  reporting  requirements  

The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   31  

Page 32: Tcg osiris bangkok 091004

Notes  and  Sources  Slide:  “Different  Circumstances  /  Different  Views?”  Mitigation  potential  by  sector:  Avoided  Deforestation,  Forest  Sequestration  and  Agriculture  show  annual  mitigation  potential  at  less  than  US$100  /  tCO2  in  2030  based  on  forest  carbon;  agricultural  sequestration;  and  avoidance  of  N2O  and  CH4  emissions,  mainly  from  livestock  (<  0.1  Gt).  Developing  countries  =  Non-­‐OECD  /  Non-­‐EIT.  Smith  et  al.,  2007  (Figure  8.5:  Total  technical  mitigation  potentials  (all  practices,  all  GHGs:  MtCO2-­‐eq/yr)  for  each  region  by  2030,  showing  mean  estimates);  Nabuurs  et  al,  2007  (Table  9.3:  Potential  of  mitigation  measures  of  global  forestry  activities.  Global  model  results  indicate  annual  amount  sequestered  or  emissions  avoided,  above  business  as  usual,  in    2030  for  carbon  prices  100  US$/tCO2  and  less);  both  from  Climate  Change  2007:  Mitigation.  Contribution  of  working  group  III  to  the  4th  assessment  report  of  the  IPCCC.  Slide:  “Different  Circumstances  /  Different  Views?”  Griscom,  B.  et  al.  (2009)  Sensitivity  of  amounts  and  distribution  of  tropical  forest  carbon  credits  depending  on  baseline  rules.  Environmental  Science  and  Policy,  in  press.  Based  on  remaining  forest  in  1996  compared  with  original  forest  cover,  and  mean  annual  rate  of  forest  cover  loss  1990-­‐2005  as  a  percentage  of  original  forest  cover.  Slide:  “Geographic  Distribution  of  Volatile  Terrestrial  Carbon”  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group  Project.  2009.  Policy  Brief  Number  1  “Distribution  of  Terrestrial  Carbon  Across  Developing  Countries:  Forest  and  Non-­‐Forest;  Vegetation  and  Soil”  (available  at  www.terrestrialcarbon.org).  

Slide:  “OSIRIS:  Selected  Results”  Busch,  J.  et  al  in  press.  2009.  OSIRIS  v2.6  Parameter  values:    C02  price=$5/ton  CO2  ;  Permanence  scale=1.00;  Elasticity  of  demand=1.0;  Social  preference  for  REDD  surplus  =  1.00;  Mgmt  cost=$3.50/Ha/yr;  Soil  carbon  eligible=0.25;  Baseline  for  low  defor=0.0015;  Weight  on  historical=0.85;  Stock-­‐flow  withholding=0.15;  Low  defor  emitted  by:  2100;  High  defor  emitted  by:  2050  Slides:  “Conceptual  Approach:  Schematic”  to  “REL  Tools:  Implications”  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group  Project.  2009.  Policy  Brief  Number  2  “Tools  for  Setting  Reference  Emission  Levels:  A  review  of  existing  tools  that  can  be  used  to  set  a  benchmark  for  rewarding  reduced  emissions  and  increased  sequestration  of  greenhouse  gasses  in  the  terrestrial  system”,  available  at  www.terrestrialcarbon.org.    Slides:  “Determining  Terrestrial  Carbon  At  Risk  of  Emission”  to  “Tropical  Forest  Carbon  at  Risk  Globally”  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group  Project.  2009.  Policy  Brief  Number  1  “Distribution  of  Terrestrial  Carbon  Across  Developing  Countries:  Forest  and  Non-­‐Forest;  Vegetation  and  Soil”  and  Project  Policy  Brief  Number  3  “Estimating  Tropical  Forest  Carbon  at  Risk  of  Emission  from  Deforestation  Globally:  Applying  the  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group  Reference  Emission  Level  Approach”  (available  at  www.terrestrialcarbon.org),  and  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group  analysis.  

Data  sources:  Filters:  UNEP-­‐WCMC,  WRI,  IIASA  /  FAO;  Carbon:  Gibbs,  IGBP.  Methodology  is  similar  to  that  used  in  Eliasch  Review.  Filter  3  is  currently  the  least  developed.  Ideally,  will  take  into  account  projections  of  local,  national  and  global  market  conditions,  which  will  depend  on  numerous  factors,  including  availability  of  alternative  agricultural  land,  yield  improvements,  infrastructure,  population  growth  and  density.  

The  Terrestrial  Carbon  Group   32