The Terrestrial Carbon Group Guyana and Terrestrial Carbon Why and How to Include Carbon Stored in Forests, Vegetation and Soil in Developing Countries in the Overall Climate Change Solution Presentation by Ralph Ashton Convenor and Chair, Terrestrial Carbon Group Senior Policy Fellow and Project Director, The Heinz Center Visiting Scholar, Center for Environment, Economy, and Society, Columbia University [email protected] Georgetown, October 2009 The Terrestrial Carbon Group International Experts in Science, Economics, Public Policy Ralph Ashton Tim Flannery Carlos Nobre Chatib Basri Thomas Lovejoy Hugh Possingham Rizaldi Boer Yadvinder Malhi Bernhard Schlamadinger† Peter Cosier Jacques Marcovitch Hadi Soesastro Ruth DeFries Warwick McKibbin Joseph Stiglitz Mohamed El-­‐Ashry Daniel Nepstad Bernardo Strassburg Please see full paper for more details – available in five languages † RIP 2008 Objective: Terrestrial carbon is effectively included in the international response to climate change The Terrestrial Carbon Group 2 Arithmetic of Terrestrial Carbon Policy: Creating the Opportunity Institutions: Seizing the Opportunity Terrestrial Carbon Group Key Actions Beyond Copenhagen Caribbean Hit Hardest by Climate Change The Terrestrial Carbon Group Climate Change Index on a Country Basis 4 Climate Change Basics Atmosphere Industry Oceans Trees, Peat, Soil, etc Terrestrial System The Terrestrial Carbon Group 5 Problem: Sources of GHG Emissions (2004) 14% 19% Terrestrial Carbon = 15 GtCO2e Agriculture Forestry 8% Total = 49 GtCO2e 17% = 32% Waste / Wastewater Energy Transport Buildings 3% 13% Industry 26% The Terrestrial Carbon Group 6 Solution: Global Mitigation Potential (per annum in 2030 up to €60 / tonne CO2e) 31% 4% 1% 3% 3% Total = 38 GtCO2e 4% Terrestrial Carbon = 12 GtCO2e 32% 3% 13% 37% Energy efficiency Reforestation Cropland management The Terrestrial Carbon Group Low carbon energy supply Forest management Livestock management Avoided deforestation Pastureland management 1% Afforestation Land restoration 7 Solution: Developing Country Mitigation Potential (GtCO2e per annum in 2020 up to €60 / tonne CO2e) 5.5 7.0 Forest ^ Agriculture ** = 50% Industry Total = 14 GtCO2e Excl
from uded K
Prot yoto ocol
* 1.5 The Terrestrial Carbon Group ^ Avoided emissions and new sequestration ** Includes better agricultural practices * Even the Clean Development Mechanism provisions for Afforestation and Reforestation have been ineffective to date 8 Emissions from Deforestation (tonnes CO2e) What is REDD+? REDD+ Incentive Foregone REDD+ Incentive Reference Emission Level Historical Emissions from Deforestation 2009 Actual Emissions from Deforestation 2050 Time A Payment for the Voluntary Long-­‐Term (Capture and) Storage of Carbon in the Terrestrial System The Terrestrial Carbon Group 9 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 Available at www.terrestrialcarbon.org 10 Geographic Distribution of Volatile Terrestrial Carbon* Top 10 Volatile Forest Carbon Brazil Democratic Republic of Congo Indonesia China Peru Angola Colombia Bolivia Mexico Venezuela Total Top 10 Total All Non-­‐Annex I Countries Top 10 as % of all The Terrestrial Carbon Group GtC 86.9 39.2 27.3 18.1 14.8 12.3 11.8 10.0 9.5 8.5 238.3 363.7 66% Top 10 Volatile Non-­‐Forest Carbon Brazil China India Indonesia Argentina Mexico Sudan Kazakhstan Democratic Republic of Congo South Africa Total Top 10 Total All Non-­‐Annex I Countries Top 10 as % of all * Carbon that would be emitted in the event of land use change  100% vegetation & 25% soil GtC 19.3 19.1 10.8 10.4 9.4 7.8 6.8 6.7 4.1 4.1 98.5 207.1 48% 11 “3 Filters” Method to Determine Volatile Carbon At Risk of Emission over Long Term 1. 2. 3. The Terrestrial Carbon Group Effectively protected by law Biophysically unsuitable for agriculture, pasture or logging Economic constraints mean unlikely to fulfil biophysical potential 12 Tropical Forest Carbon at Risk Globally (preliminary results) Yellow = Tropical Forest Carbon at Risk Green = Effectively Protected by Law White = No Tropical Forest Carbon or no data GtC Potentially at Risk Effectively protected Biophysically unsuitable and/or economically unfeasible At Risk % of total potentially at risk The Terrestrial Carbon Group Africa Asia Latin America Total 82.5 46.6 136.2 265.3 (6.9) (5.9) (39.6) (52.4) (18.8) (13.4) (11.2) (43.5) 58.2 29.6 87.8 175.5 71% 64% 64% 66% 13 Tropical Forest Carbon at Risk in Guyana (preliminary results) Yellow = Tropical Forest Carbon at Risk Green = Effectively Protected by Law White = No Tropical Forest Carbon or no data Over the long run, the bulk of Guyana’s forest carbon is at risk The Terrestrial Carbon Group 14 The Inescapable Inter-­‐Connections Terrestrial Carbon essential to Climate Change Solution The Terrestrial Carbon Group Climate Change causes Forest Die-­‐Back Agricultural Expansion is Leading Cause of Deforestation Climate Change impacts on Agricultural Production 15 Arithmetic of Terrestrial Carbon Policy: Creating the Opportunity Institutions: Seizing the Opportunity Terrestrial Carbon Group Key Actions Beyond Copenhagen Global Context Consumption Outstrips Earth’s replenishment capacity Population 7 billion now to peak at 9 billion by 2050 Climate Change Need to decarbonise the global economy: fossil fuels and land use “Limited Time Only” Offer Forests and peatlands are literally going up in smoke (and smoke is carbon) Are we responding to the climate change challenge, or just fiddling? The Terrestrial Carbon Group 17 What is Required? Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in 2007 were 385ppm, 37% above pre-­‐industrial levels Scenario BAU (calibrated to IPCC SRES A1FI) Current commitments 80% reduction in global fossil fuel emissions from 1990 levels by 2050 plus a 90% reduction in land use emissions from 2009 levels by 2050 The Terrestrial Carbon Group ppm CO2 in 2100 950 750 400 18 Selected Key Negotiating Issues 1 Scale (for accounting) At what scale should action be measured and rewarded?    Project / sub-­‐national    National   Global 2 Scope What scope of terrestrial carbon and land management activities should be included? RED = Reduced Emissions from Deforestation   RED REDD = Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation   REDD REDD+ = Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation, conservation, sustainable forest management    REDD+ and enhancement of forest carbon stocks AFOLU = Agriculture, Forestry, and Other    AFOLU Land Use 3 REL* Conceptual Approach What should action be measured against?   Extrapolated historical    Adjusted historical    Forward-­‐looking 4 Sources of Incentives How should incentives be provided?    Funds (no offset)    Carbon market-­‐linked (no offset)    Carbon market (offset)   Meeting national commitments The Terrestrial Carbon Group * REL = reference emissions level  Emerging consensus  Some support 19 Scope: Different Circumstances / Different Views? (IPCC: mitigation potential per annum in 2030 up to US$100 / tonne CO2e) GtCO2e pa 7 6 Agriculture 5 4 Forest Sequestration Skewed towards forest sequestration by India and China 3 2 Avoided Deforestation 1 0 Latin America The Terrestrial Carbon Group Developing Asia Africa Note: Incomplete inclusion of peat and non-­‐forest land use, and data not completely comparable between categories and regions 20 Select Country and NGO Stated Position (Public Positions as at 9 Oct 2009)
Accounting   Scope Project & National National REDD COMIFAC* Malaysia Mexico Tuvulu AOSIS* Brazil Canada New Zealand REDD+ REDD+ with ultimate objective of AFOLU The Terrestrial Carbon Group Colombia China CfRN* EU* Guyana India National & Global Indonesia Japan Panama Suriname Australia COMESA* USA * Submission made on behalf of a number of countries Norway 21 REL: Different Circumstances / Different Views? The Terrestrial Carbon Group 22 REL: Is History a Good Guide? Population (Increase from 7 to 9 billion by 2050) Land Availability (especially after deforestation) 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? Land-­‐Use Decisions and Land Availability Possible Over-­‐Estimation Forests eventually run out… The Terrestrial Carbon Group 23 Select Country and NGO Stated Position (Public Positions as at 9 Oct 2009)
REL  Extrapolated  Incentive Source Historical Adjusted Historical Fund Colombia Brazil Market-­‐Linked EU* Market Mix / Transition (includes all of above) Not Specified The Terrestrial Carbon Group Forward-­‐
Looking India Not Specified Tuvulu Mexico Guyana CfRN* COMIFAC* Norway Panama USA Australia Indonesia AOSIS* Canada Japan Malaysia * Submission made on behalf of a number of countries COMESA* New Zealand Suriname China 24 Outcome at Copenhagen COP15 1.  An overarching framework for terrestrial carbon that includes:   Forestry immediately, through joint or separate mechanisms: -  Avoided emissions; and -  New sequestration (either a reformed Clean Development Mechanism 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 Terrestrial Carbon Capture Storage Institute (or mandate an existing organisation) The Terrestrial Carbon Group 25 Perceived Barriers and their Solutions Additionality Set reference levels that reflect forward-­‐looking business as usual emissions (recognizing future pressures and patterns of development) Leakage Intranational: Use national-­‐level accounting International: Provide incentives to all countries with terrestrial carbon at risk of emission (inc those with historically low deforestation) Permanence Various workable solutions have been proposed, inc:   Buffers   Insurance   Cumulative accounting Flooding the Market Solution includes a mix of market / fund, offset / non-­‐offset, combined with robust industrial reductions – eg:   Current version of USA legislation demands international action equal to reducing carbon emissions from at-­‐risk tropical forests by 25%   Norway committed US$3 billion as non-­‐offset fund Measurement and Monitoring   Possible for emissions from deforestation and sequestration from new forests (at project to national scales), and possible but difficult at-­‐scale for forest degradation, agriculture, peat, and other land use   Discount for uncertainty   Commit to science to fill the gaps The Terrestrial Carbon Group 26 The Need for Transition Pathways ULTIMATELY NECESSARY IMMEDIATELY POSSIBLE “Upward Compatibility”: Nest the Immediately Possible in a of the Ultimately Necessary The Terrestrial Carbon Group 27 “Cutting Through the Chaos” Transition Pathway from F to AFOLU Comprehensive AFOLU Framework 2009 2013 2013 F (=RED and A/R) Include in Copenhagen Agreement Early Action Compliance A & OLU Pathway in Copenhagen Agreement Early Action and Fill Gaps (inc MRV, RELs) Early Action AFOLU = Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use RED = Reduced Emissions from Deforestation A/R = Afforesation / Reforestation The Terrestrial Carbon Group REL = Reference Emission Level MRV = Measurement, Reporting and Verification 28 Key Issues for Guyana: An Outsider’s View 1.  REL: getting agreement from the world on how to set a credible Reference Emission Level for a High Forest / Low Deforestation country 2.  MRV: Establishing robust measurement, monitoring, reporting and verification systems linked to national carbon accounting systems 3.  Distributing the Benefits: Demonstrating the ability to efficiently and transparently distribute benefits from REDD+ 4.  Public Consultation: Effectively engaging the national population, including minorities, in the decision-­‐making process The Terrestrial Carbon Group 29 Arithmetic of Terrestrial Carbon Policy: Creating the Opportunity Institutions: Seizing the Opportunity Terrestrial Carbon Group Key Actions Beyond Copenhagen Global Context Non-­‐Linear Changes  Global financial crisis  Amazon collapse  Gulfstream shutdown Crisis Response  Limited information and time  Unintended consequences Implementation Challenges Data and Computer-­‐Power Explosion Technical and human capacity Can we turn it into information to support wise crisis response and implementation Are our institutions equipped and mandated for success? The Terrestrial Carbon Group 31 From a Committed but Ad Hoc & Fragmented Reaction to a Comprehensive Response Country Initiatives World Bank FCPF, BCF Terrestrial Carbon Capture Storage Institute with campuses in Africa, Asia, Latin America •  Science, economics, regulatory, social •  MRV Bilateral Partnerships •  Finance (markets and funds) ICRAF, CIFOR •  Technology and technology transfer •  Advice on demonstration activities, early action, and long-­‐term implementation African Bio Carbon Initiative Universities NGOs The Terrestrial Carbon Group •  Facilitate agreement between parties •  Technical capacity hub and transfer 32 Coordinating the Response Countries Regional Initiatives Terrestrial Carbon Capture Storage Institute Civil Society Inter-­‐
Governmental Institutions Academia Coordinate, support, and drive the transition to a new global land-­‐use management approach The Terrestrial Carbon Group 33 Flexible Regional Support Country Type 2 Country Type 1 Voluntarily “Outsource” (esp MRV) “Outsource” with Training, Technical Exchanges, and Capacity Transfer Country Type 3 Run Completely with Domestic Institutions and Capacity, and Assist Others Terrestrial Carbon Capture Storage Institute The Terrestrial Carbon Group 34 Linking Decisions to Knowledge Politicians Negotiators Terrestrial Carbon Capture Storage Institute Knowledge •  “Translating” information Implementation The Terrestrial Carbon Group •  Making connections •  Filling gaps 35 Sharing Knowledge and Lessons Africa Terrestrial Carbon Capture Storage Institute Asia The Terrestrial Carbon Group Latin America 36 Guyana’s World-­‐Leading Role: Effective Advocacy and Credible Action 1.  President as Advocate 2.  Office of Climate Change: A coordinated multi-­‐sector approach 3.  Low Carbon Development Strategy: Demonstrating that there is a plan to make REDD+ work over the long-­‐term 4.  MRV: Developing robust measurement, monitoring, reporting and verification systems linked to national carbon accounting systems 5.  Distributing the Benefits: Developing the infrastructure to efficiently and transparently distribute benefits from REDD+ 6.  Public Consultation: Ongoing efforts to include the national population in the decision-­‐making process The Terrestrial Carbon Group 37 Arithmetic of Terrestrial Carbon Policy: Creating the Opportunity Institutions: Seizing the Opportunity Terrestrial Carbon Group Key Actions Beyond Copenhagen Key Partners / Engagement Suriname* Indonesia* Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa* * As invited World Bank CGIAR Network Woods Hole Research Center The Terrestrial Carbon Group IIASA 39 From “Hows” to “Shoulds”: Policy Paper (2008)   Provides guiding principles for terrestrial carbon to be effectively included in the international response to climate change, in support of:   Ongoing global negotiations   Emerging national, bi-­‐lateral, and multi-­‐national efforts to maintain and enhance terrestrial carbon   Both market and non-­‐market approaches to terrestrial carbon and climate change are necessary   Within that context, proposes a system to credibly include terrestrial carbon in developing nations in the international response to climate change using carbon markets The Terrestrial Carbon Group 40 Negotiators’ Dinner Negotiators’ Dinner Scope, Reference Emission Levels, and Transition Pathways (i) Linking Project, Sub-­‐National, and National Action to International Reporting, and (ii) Phasing to a Comprehensive AFOLU Scope Bonn, March 2009 Bonn, June 2009 Outcome TCG Input Event Providing a Safe Place and Ideas to Explore and Remove Roadblocks Africa-­‐USA Dinner DC, July 2009 Letter to participants from Ghana’s Minister for Environment, Science and Technology “We now realise we actually all agree” The Terrestrial Carbon Group “Need Regional Capacity Hubs” “Need Long-­‐term Partnership” 41 New Needs-­‐Driven Research (2009) 1. Distribution of Terrestrial Carbon Across Developing Countries Forest and Non-­‐Forest; Vegetation and Soil 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 The Terrestrial Carbon Group 3. Estimating Tropical Forest Carbon at Risk of Emission from Deforestation Globally Applying the Terrestrial Carbon Group Reference Emission Level Approach 4. Legal and Institutional Foundations for the National Implementation of REDD Lessons from Early Experience in Developing and Developed Countries 5. Measurement and Monitoring as part of MRV (and Background Report with Case Studies) (and Background Report with Case Studies) 42 Work Plan Issue Policy 2009 2010 onwards   Holistic system design Supporting detailed rule-­‐setting (UNFCCC, USA, and others)   Transition pathways   Modelling for reference levels Implement-­‐
ation Tools Country Support Connecting The Terrestrial Carbon Group   Science needs roadmap (with UN-­‐
REDD, World Bank, CGIAR network)   Generic Legislation for implementation Continued   eg, Africa, Indonesia, Suriname   International supporting institutions (eg, Terrestrial Carbon Capture Storage Institute)   Informal negotiators’ dialogues   Technical workshops Continued Continued 43 Arithmetic of Terrestrial Carbon Policy: Creating the Opportunity Institutions: Seizing the Opportunity Terrestrial Carbon Group Key Actions Beyond Copenhagen Key Actions Beyond Copenhagen Continue after Copenhagen   Detailed negotiations   Domestic capacity building and implementation   Enhance the science Link Global and Local  UNFCCC  US Legislation  Action in forest countries REDD+ a Path to Sustainable Development   The final goal is integrated natural resource management as a path to sustainable development Long-­‐Term Capacity Building   The impacts of climate change are here to stay   Need domestic capacity to plan for and act on mitigation and adaptation   Share lessons and experiences among forest countries The Terrestrial Carbon Group 45 Notes and Sources Slide: “Caribbean Hit Hardest by Climate Change” Baettig, Michele B., Martin Wild, and Dieter M. Imbode, "A climate change index: Where climate change may be most prominent in the 21st century,” Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 34, L01705, 2007 Slide: “Problem: Sources of GHG Emissions” 4th assessment report of the IPCCC. Slide: “Solution: Global Mitigation Potential” McKinsey & Company’s Cost Curve 2 (2009). Slide: “Solution: Developing Country Mitigation Potential” McKinsey & Company analysis for Project catalyst (2009) Slide: “Geographic Distribution of Volatile Terrestrial Carbon” Terrestrial Carbon Group Project Policy Brief Number 1 “Distribution of Terrestrial Carbon Across Developing Countries: Forest and Non-­‐Forest; Vegetation and Soil” (available at www.terrestrialcarbon.org). Slides: “Tropical Forest Carbon at Risk Globally” and “Tropical Forest Carbon at Risk in Guyana” Terrestrial Carbon Group Project Policy Brief Number 1 “Distribution of Terrestrial Carbon Across Developing Countries: Forest and Non-­‐Forest; Vegetation and Soil” and Terrestrial Carbon Group 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 Slide: “The Inescapable Inter-­‐Connections” McKinsey & Company analysis for Project Catalyst (2009) based on interviews; Houghton; Houghton and Hackler; Geist and Lambin; FAO FAOSTAT. Slide: “What is Required?” C-­‐ROADS (Climate Rapid Overview And Decision Support) simulation tool developed by MIT Sloan School of Management, Sustainability Institute, Ventana Systems, and The H. John Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the Environment (2009). See climateinteractive.org. Slide: “Scope: 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. 46 Notes and Sources Slide: “REL: 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: Flooding the Market Analysis of US legislation in “Perceived Barriers and their Solutions” Tropical forest carbon (in developing countries) at risk of emission under business as usual (BAU) scenario = 176GT C over long term (= 644GT CO2e)^ Assume long term = 100 years BAU = 1.76GT C per annum (= 6.44GT CO2e) US climate change legislation calls for up to 0.47 GT C (1.72GT CO2e) of international mitigation per annum in 2020* Assuming all is from forestry, US demand alone incentivises avoiding 25% of tropical deforestation CAVEATS: -­‐ US legislation has not been passed by the Senate and therefore could have very different provisions from the version that was passed by the House of Representatives earlier this year -­‐ The analysis applies only to tropical forests (in developing countries) and therefore excludes carbon in peatlands that do not fall under the definition of tropical forest NOTES ^ Source: Terrestrial Carbon Group 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) * Made up of 1 billion tonnes of offsets and 0.72 billion tonnes from set-­‐aside allowance auction proceeds. (1. Under some circumstances, the 1 billion tonnes of offsets can increase to 1.5 billion tonnes. 2. This analysis excludes any demand for forest carbon mitigation to replenish the Strategic Reserve under the US legislation) The Terrestrial Carbon Group 47