Land Use, Forestry and Climate Change: Opportunities, Imperatives and Challenges Chris Henschel Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society.

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

LAND USE (FORESTRY) AND CLIMATE MITIGATION

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).

FOREST CLIMATE MITIGATION POLICY

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;

CASE STUDY 1: NEGOTIATION OF NEW FOREST MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING RULES UNDER KYOTO PROTOCOL

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

CASE STUDY 2: “NORTH AMERICAN FOREST CARBON STANDARD”

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

CASE STUDY 3: NEW ZEALAND EMISSION TRADING SYSTEM

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)

CONCLUSIONS

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