Ken Andrasko Office of Atmospheric Programs

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