Ken Andrasko Office of Atmospheric Programs
Post on 02-Jan-2016
21 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Transcript
Workshop on Climate Change Workshop on Climate Change Mitigation Forestry Projects in IndiaMitigation Forestry Projects in India
Sequestration Options in the Context Sequestration Options in the Context of U.S. Climate Policyof U.S. Climate Policy
Ken AndraskoKen AndraskoOffice of Atmospheric ProgramsOffice of Atmospheric Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USADC, USA
atat
Workshop on Climate Change Mitigation Forestry Workshop on Climate Change Mitigation Forestry Projects in India, Bangalore, July 10-12, 2003Projects in India, Bangalore, July 10-12, 2003
Technical Cooperation with Experts and Via Bilateral Relationships is
Critical• FORCLIMIT: Forestry and Climate Change Mitigation
Network, EPA & LBNL with in-country institutes & government
• 2000-02: Indonesia, Philippines, and Malaysia:
– Tech transfer & training in LBNL sinks models: COMAP.
– Mitigation cost curves, by in-country experts
– 2-3 stakeholder dialogs on policy & project issues: govt., private industry, NGOs, academics. Foreign experts.
– Publication of results.
• 2002-03: FORCLIMIT-India
• Proposal: FORCLIMIT-Mexico– Same activities as above, or as agreed with country.
Emerging Analytic Issues: SummaryHow Can We Identify and Mobilize Cost-
Effective, Credible Sequestration Activities in the US and Internationally?
• Assess data availability and needs• Identify promising options and regions• Assess co-benefits and co-effects of options:
How do they affect farmers? Water quality? Wildlife?
• Assess methods to address technical issues: additionality, baseline setting, leakage, monitoring, duration.
• Assess policy and program options to deliver the best options.
We Need to Evaluate Options Using Multiple Criteria, beyond Biophysical Potential
Criterion1: Biophysical Potential
- Saturation of C in pools
Criterion 2: Economic Potential
Criterion 3: Competitive Potential
Criterion 4: Adjustment for leakage, duration
Criterion 5: Limited no. of co-effects (water Q)
Consider competitive mix of options, by region, by C price
Summary of Draft EPA Analysis for U.S.:
Forest/Ag Option Mix Changes as Carbon Prices Rise, Over Time
C Price<$50/metric ton C >$50/metric ton C
Tim
e fr
ame
20
05-3
5
2035
-50
• Ag soils
• Limited forest mgt &
affor
• Non CO2
• Limited forest mgmt. & affor.
• Non CO2
• Bio fuels
• Non CO2
• Limited Ag soils
• For. mgmt & affor.
• Biofuels
• Non CO2
Source: B. McCarl 2002, Forest/Ag Modeling Forum
The FORCLIMIT-India Network
• “Workshop on Forestry and Climate Change—Assessing Mitigation Potential and Cost” in New Delhi, Sept. 23-34, 2002.
• Sponsored: MoEF; by ICFRE, IISc., LBNL and EPA
• Created workplan: Forest Climate Mitigation Network (FORCLIMIT-India)
• Network Website:
http://ces.iisc.ernet.in/climatechange/
FORCLMIT-India Network: Objectives6/03 EPA
• Improve national-level assessment of forestry mitigation opportunities and potential for India.
• State-level assessment of mitigation opportunities, costs, issues, 2 states: Karnataka & Uttaranchal.
• Develop 2 village-level case studies of mitigation projects: Karnataka, and Uttaranchal
• Dialog by government, private, NGO, academic, and local stakeholders on technical & institutional issues
• Publish results: peer-reviewed international & Indian journals.
# Activity Schedule Responsible Entities 1 Develop work plan Done EPA & MoEF 2 Training on methods &
modeling.July 2003NL IISc
3 Create FORCLIMIT-Indiawebsite
Done IISc
4 Select case studies in 2states, and begin datacollection
July IISc, CFRE, LBNL
5 National assessment Sept.? LBNL & IISc 6 State level assessment July –
Oct.?IISc: Karnataka;ICFRE: Uttaranchal
7 Technical meeting todiscuss analytic issues andfindings
Dec.? IISc
8 Coordinated Case Studies July –Oct.?
IISc: Karnataka ;ICFRE; Uttaranchal
9 National Workshop:present results, dialog w/stakeholders
Dec.? MoEF & EPA
11 Publication & Reports Dec 2003 LBNL, IISc, ICFRE 12 Steering Committee
Meeting: decide oncontinuing activities forFY04
Dec 2003 MoEF & EPA
Draft Activities Under FORCLMIT-India Network: 6/03 EPA
Assessing Feasibility of Sinks Options: Example:Conceptual impact of barriers on costs and
carbon mitigation potential
Carbon sequestered or emissions avoided (t C)
Cost of carbon ($/t C)
F7 Estimate – Socioeconomic
PotentialMarket or Achievable
Potential
Economic Potential
Barriers: ExamplesCarbon leakageClass structureGender IssuesAttitudes and habits
Market Failures: ExamplesIll-defined property rightsLack of informationAbsence of marketsPoor capital markets
??
??
Source: Sathaye et al, 2001
Forestry Mitigation Options With and Without Barriers, India: Preliminary COMAP Results
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Cumulative Carbon Mitigation Potential (Mt C) 2000-2030
Co
st (
$/ t
C) Spcioeconomic potential
Market potential
Short-rotation Plantation
Regeneration
Long-rotation Plantation
Forest Protection
Socioeconomic PotentialMarket Potential
Key Barriers: Absence of organized markets, long distance to market, lack of access to credit, long gestation period, poor seed quality and inadequate fertilizer inputs,
Issue 5: Can We Identify Co-Benefits and Co-Effects of Mitigation Options, and Design Policies to
Promote them?
Case study: Lower Mississippi River Basin: Water Quality Changes due to Sequestration Activities
Change in WQIfrom Baseline
-40 to -101 to 56 to 100
• Initial analysis by RTI/Texas A&M for EPA.
• Delta states show largest water quality improvement per unit GHG reduced.
• ~9% reductions in N loadings entering Gulf at $25 & $50/tC incentive prices. Source: Pattanayak et al. 2002
Summary: Mobilizing Credible Sinks
• Sinks have big mitigation impact 20-30 yrs in US, then diminish-- due to saturation.
• Seq. project mix will vary by region & C price. • Co-benefits (biodiversity, jobs) affect offset
feasibility & location. • Pilot projects are critical learning tools:
improve modeling, data, co-benefits, instit’l issues.
• Guidance needed: baselines,leakage, duration.
• Stakeholder dialog & Bilateral cooperation.More Information: Forestry and Agriculture Greenhouse Gas Modeling ForumCo-sponsors: EPA, USDA, Agriculture Canada
http://foragforum.rti.org/index
top related