Forests and climate: Reports
The 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change was a landmark, which put the use of land-based sinks such as forests at the heart of the global blueprint for stemming global warming.
This raises two problems.
1. It may encourage the growth of sinks as an alternative to cutting emissions (offsetting). The difference from offsets is that negative emissions encourage emission reductions as well as (not instead of) fossil fuel reduction.
2. It may encourage the false idea that achieving a “balance” between the current emissions and sinks will prevent overshooting the declared temperature target. To limit global warming to “well below 2 degrees Celsius – and preferable 1.5 degrees,” we need to actively reduce the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, hence – “negative emissions.”
The scale needed to engineer a stable climate through carbon sequestration by trees requires significant areas of land, putting pressure on poor-world land to lock up rich-world emissions and could compete with other world priorities such as food security, biodiversity protection, human rights and ending poverty.
But it doesn’t have to.
Done right, through systems such as community forestry agro-ecological farming, the promotion of forests and agricultural soils as carbon stores could also promote biodiversity and benefit communities. Carbon sinks and sustainable development could go together.
Going beyond 40% - options to ensure LULUCF maintains high environmental integrity of the EU climate and energy package
As the ratification process for the Paris Climate Agreement begins, a new study produced by the Oeko-Institut for Fern has shown how the EU’s new policy on land and forests could help it to be more ambitious on its climate change targets, and set a positive precedent globally by developing a separate pillar - with its own target - for the so-called LULUCF sector.
The European Union (EU) has a target to reduce emissions by at least 40 per cent by 2030. This is an economy-wide target and therefore includes the Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) sector. During the first half of 2016, the European Commission will make a legislative proposal for how to link LULUCF to the EU’s climate and energy framework. The Commission has outlined three possible ways for integration in the impact assessment prepared for the 2030 Climate and Energy Framework:
- Option 1: LULUCF pillar: maintain non-CO2 agriculture sector emissions in the Effort Sharing Decision (ESD), and further develop a LULUCF sector policy approach separately
- Option 2: Land sector pillar: merge the LULUCF and non-CO2 agriculture sector emissions into one new independent pillar of the EU’s climate policy
- Option 3: include LULUCF in the Effort Sharing Decision (ESD)
Böttcher and Graichen (2015) showed that if all LULUCF credits were included in the Effort Sharing Decision (Option 3), depending on accounting rules used, the effort needed to reach the 40 per cent target would be reduced by between 7.5 and 16 per cent of total emissions. This means a 2030 target for sectors in the ESD and EU ETS of between 37 per cent and 33.6 per cent (instead of an at least 40 per cent target). The study highlighted that implications of the different options depend to a large degree on the design of accounting rules for different land use activities. The scientists concluded that the LULUCF sector should be accounted for separately to not harm ambition in other sectors.
Independent of the question which option will be chosen and what level of flexibility will be allowed between different sectors, there is the need to develop a target for LULUCF. This target can either be a separate target without any flexibility between sectors or an integrated target allowing for a certain exchange between sectors. In any case criteria and rules for accounting are needed that ensure environmental integrity as required by the Paris Agreement. Such a target would be a prerequisite for exploiting the term ‘at least’ and increasing the EU’s overall target beyond 40%.
The aim of the study is to develop options to identify LULUCF credits with high environmental integrity that could help the EU to formulate a target for the sector. These options are developed by applying criteria and indicators that ensure environmental integrity of potential LULUCF credits. Where possible the volume of credits resulting from the sector is determined. The options are evaluated regarding how they reflect data availability, how robust the metrics are (low uncertainty when measured/collected, low inter-annual variability), whether they follow a transparent approach, and how relevant they are to the LULUCF sector. Also the question how suitable metrics are to set incentives to improve management in the LULUCF sector is of relevance.
Based on available data and assumptions on future development of GHG emissions and removals from the LULUCF sector, we find that options exist to allow the EU to increase its level of ambition by including LULUCF in its 40% target and ensuring environmental integrity. Current rules are not sufficient to fulfil principles of environmental integrity such as those defined in the Marrakech Accords. A number of basic changes are proposed, such as moving towards land-based accounting, changing base years for cropland and grazing land management, changing accounting for afforestation and forest management.
The level of ambition could be increased further if accounting was made conditional to environmental performance, e.g. the maintenance or increase of carbon stocks. The additionality of mitigation in LULUCF can only guaranteed if the target is set after such rules have been formulated.
Despite the fact that challenges of data availability exist for some MS (e.g. regarding data on emissions and removals from cropland and grazing land management) most options can be implemented without additional efforts. Data gaps need to be identified and addressed by research and the development of guidance. In order to develop accounting rules further and increase coherence and consistency of the generation and use of rules, especially regarding FMRLs, an oversight body would help to provide independent guidance and supervision.
Coal is the single biggest contributor to man-made climate change, while deforestation accounts for up to one-sixth of CO2 emissions. So when forests are torn down to make way for coal mines the danger to the planet intensifies.
Fern has launched a new report - Double Jeopardy: coal's threat to forests - which shows that at least 11.9 million hectares of forest across the world are at risk from coal mining.
A crucial element of the report is an interactive website, which, for the first time, uses GIS mapping technology to give a global picture of where forests are being threatened by new coal-mining concessions.
Beyond the ‘double whammy’ that razing forests to burn coal poses to the climate, there is its devastating impact on forest-dependent communities. The solution, in part, lies with them. Protecting their tenure rights should be a key part of the strategy to keep forests standing and, where coal lies beneath them, keeping it in the ground.
This report by the Institute for European Environmental Policy was commissioned by Fern to develop proposals for how best to include the Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) sector's emissions and removals in the EU’s climate target framework. Our underlying objective is to bring LULUCF into the framework in ways which genuinely add to the EU’s mitigation contribution to tackling climate change.
Impacts on the EU 2030 climate target of including LULUCF in the climate and energy policy framework
The European Union (EU) has a target to reduce emissions by at least 40 per cent by 2030. This is an economy-wide target and therefore includes the Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) sector. This study looks at how to integrate LULUCF into the EU’s 2030 Climate and Energy Framework. It concludes that depending on accounting rules used, including LULUCF would change the effort needed to reach the 40 per cent target by between 7.5 and 16 per cent of total emissions. This means a 2030 target of between 37 per cent and 33.6 per cent, way below the level needed to avert catastrophic climate change.
This study refocuses attention on the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions domestically, without offloading responsibilities onto other countries through offsets. It explores why forests cannot offset fossil fuel emissions; and recommends reorienting EU finance currently earmarked for forests more effectively on factors that drive deforestation - improved governance and enhanced tenure rights.