Article 3.4 and CDM outcomes: implications for wood based industries / bioenergy

Seit

e 1

Sta

nd

: 04/1

9/2

3Article 3.4 and CDM outcomes: implications for

wood based industries / bioenergy

Bernhard Schlamadinger

IEA Bioenergy Task 38, Canberra

29 March 2001

Seit

e 2

Sta

nd

: 04/1

9/2

3

Questions

— Art 3.3, 3.4 and CDM: How could this affect wood-based industries and bioenergy?

— How could negative impacts on bioenergy be minimized?

— How could sinks crediting be synergetic with bioenergy?

Seit

e 3

Sta

nd

: 04/1

9/2

3

Special role of the forest-based industries

— Raw material from a renewable source (forests)

— Can be energy intensive

— Access to biomass fuels

— Main product contains carbon

Seit

e 4

Sta

nd

: 04/1

9/2

3

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Time [years]

Cum

ulat

ive

C s

eque

str.

[tC

ha

-1]

Credit for energy substitution

TreesLitter

Soil

Fossil fuel input isgenerally a negative

value and brings the topline of the pattern down

to the ultimate total(thick black line)

Model results: fuelwood plantation on agricultural land

Seit

e 5

Sta

nd

: 04/1

9/2

3

Article 3.3 --> Bioenergy?

— Incentive to establish new biomass plantations (“forest”)

— Disincentive for harvest on Kyoto lands?

— Proposed “fix” could remove incentives for some countries

— Compatible with “JI” biomass projects

Seit

e 6

Sta

nd

: 04/1

9/2

3

Article 3.3 --> Bioenergy?

— 5000 ha deforestation / yr, 10 000 ha reforestation / yr

— growth rate 1 tC/ha/yr

— C stock deforestation: average 50 tC/ha

— C debits: 5 000 ha x 5 years x 50 tC = 1 250 000 tC.

— C credits: 20 yr x 10 000 ha/yr x 1tC/ha/yr x 5 yr = 1 000 000 tC,

— Overall debit: 250 000 tC; Credit Article 3.4: 250 000 tC

— No incentive for increasing reforestation or decreasing deforestation

Seit

e 7

Sta

nd

: 04/1

9/2

3

Article 3.4

The COP shall ... decide ... how, and which, additional human-induced activities related to changes in greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks in the agricultural soils and the land-use change and forestry categories shall be added to, or subtracted from, the assigned amounts for Parties included in Annex I, ....taking into account uncertainties, transparency in reporting, verifiability, ..... Such a decision shall apply in the second and subsequent commitment periods. A Party may choose to apply such a decision on these additional human-induced activities for its first commitment period, provided that these activities have taken place since 1990.

Seit

e 8

Sta

nd

: 04/1

9/2

3

Article 3.4

— Broad vs. narrow activities

— Land based vs. activity-based accounting

— Current mainstream: land-based accounting for • Forest management

• Cropland management

• Grazing land managent

Caveats:

— Significant portion of “residual sink” may be accounted

— Since 1990?

Seit

e 9

Sta

nd

: 04/1

9/2

3

Article 3.4 proposal

— 15% credit: forest management (1990-2010 proxy)

— 70% credit: cropland and grazing land management

Seit

e 1

0S

tan

d:

04/1

9/2

3

Article 3.4 --> Bioenergy?

— Biomass energy increases C stocks (e.g., croplands, pasturelands):

• Incentive for biomass production for energy

• If scale is a concern: could use narrow activities with biofuel component

— Biomass energy decreases C stocks (e.g., forest management):

• 15% credit: modest disincentive for bioenergy

• Carbon competes with production of bioenergy and forest-based materials (CP1; but synergies beyond CP1).

• Matthews UK (1995): longer rotat. (20 yr) --> 0.6 MtC sequ

Seit

e 1

1S

tan

d:

04/1

9/2

3

Trade-offs and market impacts

Competition:management vs. conservation

Pulpwood

Biofuels

Carbonsequestration

Now

Timber

EXISTING MANAGED FORESTS

Competition:biofuels vs. pulpwood

?

?

Seit

e 1

2S

tan

d:

04/1

9/2

3

Avoiding disincentives for bioenergy

— Discounting (10%), discount factor increases according to changes in bioenergy use (indicator). Little incentive for 3.4 and JI.

— Narrow activities with additionality. If leakage can be addressed --> little impact on bioenergy and wood industries. Full incentive for 3.4 and JI.

— Combination: 5-10% for 1990-2000 activity level, then „project-based“ activities since 200.

— IIASA proposal (cap and auction)

Seit

e 1

3S

tan

d:

04/1

9/2

3

How national rules can differ from intl. agreements

— Example: 15% of 100 MtC = 15 MtC credit.

— Project-based approach (auctioning for 15 MtC)

— Unlimited project-based accounting, cross-sectoral transfers.

Seit

e 1

4S

tan

d:

04/1

9/2

3

Sinks in CDM / Bioenergy

— Can sinks crediting be tied to bioenergy use?

• No inclusion of sinks

• Only afforestation and reforestation

• Requirement of a significant biofuel component (P. Read). Significant export opportunity (but HWP discussion).

• Liability: Shortfall in biofuels is „seller liability“

• Permanence: non-permanent carbon is converted into permanent carbon

Seit

e 1

5S

tan

d:

04/1

9/2

3

Impact on forest-based industries

— Risks:

• Dependence on fossil fuels

• Market price impacts through

- carbon credits (managed forests vs. new forests), depending on ownership

- increased demand for biofuels

— Opportunities:

• Emission reductions (e.g., gasification c. cycle ; bioenergy)

• Emissions trading, joint implementation

• New a/reforestation

Seit

e 1

6S

tan

d:

04/1

9/2

3

The scale issue

— Worry about diminished incentive to reduce fossil fuels

— Country-specific caps

— Mechanism that adjusts country-targets according to CO2 market price --> Reduced risk for mitigation projects

— Could include a ceiling for CO2 market price to address uncertainties (costs of Kyoto implementation).

— Provide bandwidth for CO2 market price

Seit

e 1

7S

tan

d:

04/1

9/2

3

Summary

— Careful considerations of side-effects of sinks crediting is needed.

— Sequestration activities now can provide biomass resource in the future

— but can also compete against bioenergy in the short term

— Articles 3.3, 3.4 forests, 3.4 cropland and pasture land, and CDM to be addressed separately.

— Should keep UNFCCC objective in mind

Seit

e 1

8S

tan

d:

04/1

9/2

3

Seit

e 1

9S

tan

d:

04/1

9/2

3

Seit

e 2

0S

tan

d:

04/1

9/2

3

Categories

Seit

e 2

1S

tan

d:

04/1

9/2

3

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Time (years)

Cum

ula

tive c

arb

on s

tock

changes

(ton

s C

/ha)

Carbon in trees

Cumulative credits

Simplified methodologies