Bonn Climate Talks Part 3: No Clarity on Forestry Negotiations

On day one of the Bonn Climate Talks, there is no clarity on what will unfold within the forestry negotiations.

Depending on who you talk to the rules are a done deal, there's time to fix them, there's no time to fix them, there's time to go deeper into the data and assumptions, we can change the text, we can't change the text, there will be a political deal, there will be no deal...!

We are meeting with the Chair of the negotiations under the Kyoto Protocol tomorrow, so we will get straight from him what his strategy is for the meeting.

In the meantime, we have starting meeting with heads of country delegations here and expressing our concern that we need a high-level political fix to the forestry emissions loophole. We are at least getting recognition of the problem. We will have many more meetings throughout the week, including with the heads of the European Union's delegations tomorrow.

Finally, we are breaking into the mainstream media with two great stories today, one at length about the forestry emissions loophole, the other highlighting it as one of many problems that need to be solved.

Bonn Climate Talks Part 2: Arriving in Germany

I arrived yesterday in Bonn, Germany and began working right away, despite the jetlag.

Part of the day was spent in a strategic planning exercise with other environmental groups, but the main focus of the day was to start rolling out a plan to find a country that would propose new text to close the logging loophole in the draft agreement under the Kyoto Protocol, which would allow developed countries to increase their emissions without penalty.

It's not possible that such an agreement could be made here in Bonn, but introducing the text into the draft agreement would be a powerful move that would set-up future lobbying as well as draw important attention to the issue.

Early signs are positive; we'll see where it goes.

Countries forget about forests in their pledges

The UN Climate Change Secretariat reports that 55 countries, representing 78 % of global emissions have made their pledges under the Copenhagen Accord.

The pledges give no indication of the effect that accounting for sinks will have on targets for developed countries. Only Belarus and New Zealand mention that targets are premised on clear (Belarus) and effective (New Zealand) accounting rules for Land Use, Land-use Change and Forestry (LULUCF).

The uncertainty of forest accounting rules creates much uncertainty for what these pledges actually mean. It also creates the same dynamic that existed when countries negotiated the current flawed rules: countries are now making pledges before finalizing the rules. This creates an incentive for weak rules that make it easier to reach overall targets.

So much for learning from our mistakes!

There is still no clarity on how negotiations will unfold this year. The Secretariat has just formally invited views from countries on 'the need' for additional meeting time and the timing, duration and number of such meetings. Submissions are requested by February 16.

Environmental Integrity Pushed Further Out of Reach from Copenhagen?

The UN Barcelona Climate Talks have changed the whole game of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations on land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) for the worse - in particular the rules on whether and how developed countries will have to account for emissions from forest management.

The session started with a draft text from Bangkok that is very far from agreement. I think it is fair to say that there are four major areas that are most central to a new set of rules:

• The basic form of accounting: it seems almost certain now to be going towards the use of some kind of reference level to measure changes in emissions - this is one of the two biggest issues: how do you set the reference level?
• A limit on the amount of credits (from reducing emissions / increasing removals) that can be used towards meeting a country's national target - this is the other big issue;
• Whether and how emissions from natural disturbances can be excluded from accounting - this is a prerequisite to several countries agreeing to account for forest management, principally Canada, Australia, and Russia;
• Whether 'activities' such as 'forest management,' 'deforestation,' and 'cropland management' remain the basis for accounting or whether there is a switch to account for emissions/removals from all managed lands - this is seen as all as the proper goal of accounting but seems to still be largely on the table at this point as a negotiating tool (most believe it is too early to make this transition due to data limitations);

It's the negotiations on the first point that took a wild turn at these talks - there weren't really any. Countries had been saying that these major issues would need to be resolved at Barcelona so they could bring their estimates of emissions and credits/debits to the Copenhagen talks. Instead of settling the crucial issue of how to set a reference level, all countries have been invited to use whatever approach they like and bring the number in December!

The details can be found on page 9 of the new draft text (paragraph 11). Whether the reference level is based on just historical data, or also on a suite of other considerations (including 'projected forest management activities,' which everyone understands can mean an increase in harvest levels). Also an option is creating a big 'band' of non-accounting where countries can hide emissions (paragraph 11 ter). Also an option is jigging the reference level so it delivers the same amount of credits as the existing rules, which all regard as flawed. It's a mess.

The bigger mess is still to come in Copenhagen when every developed country brings a reference level based on any combination of these considerations, using different methodologies and providing whatever data they like to support them. The negotiation has now deteriorated from a discussion of principles to a haggling over opaque numbers.

Step two of this process will likely be negotiating country-specific limits to accompany each reference level. The talk from both developed and developing countries seems to be converging on the idea that developed countries tell the world how many credits they hope to get from forest management and get capped there - that way there are no surprises.

Let me translate that for you in a scary way: Each developed country tells you what its baseline will be; and each developed country tells you how many credits it's going to get. You should see that defining both of these things makes whatever outcome you desire a certainty. No debits and credits for everyone!! The fears of developing countries are assuaged because they know exactly what to expect and can adjust their demands for overall reduction targets accordingly.

...but environmental integrity in accounting for emissions from forest management will have been lost.

Backroom LULUCF Negotiations Continue

We woke up in Bangkok this morning to oppressive heat and the expectation of a new draft text agreement on the rules for forestry and land use under a revised Kyoto Protocol...but that didn't happen!

Parties continue behind closed doors to come up with the next version. We've been hearing that there is convergence around a number of the key issues but the most important question remains: what are the baselines against which performance is judged. Some developed countries are still trying to create what I think amounts to a meaningless accounting framework: they will tell the world what they expect their emissions to be from forest management in the future and only be punished if they perform worse than this. Countries should take responsibility for any increase in emissions from past levels. What is this whole process about if not about reducing emissions from the past?

Forest Negotiations Begin at Bangkok Climate Change Talks

The first closed-door session on accounting rules for forests and land use is now underway at Bangkok. There will be six negotiating sessions here over the next couple of weeks. It is widely felt that negotiators will be under pressure to make real progress here - without clear rules for how forest emissions affect the compliance of developed countries with emission reduction commitments, there can be no agreement.

At the opening session yesterday, the Chair of the negotiating process under the Kyoto Protocol cited three main issues of consequence:

• How emissions from natural disturbances are dealt with;
• The overall accounting approach for forest management and whether limits need to be placed on what countries can claim;
• How carbon stored in harvested wood products are dealt with.

I have other questions: will there be a commitment to protecting reservoirs of GHGs in intact forests? Will the new rules make countries accountable or a will they create a new slush fund of credits that suit particular national circumstances?

A few parties have started posting their submissions for this session (Canada, Japan and New Zealand so far). These submissions are starting to be heavier on data, so people can see the possible implications of rule changes.

Breaking story - watch this footage on bioenergy clearcuts

Perhaps not good form to do two blog posts in a day, but you should watch this news story before it comes down this evening: this is the first publicized example of the impact that a bioenergy market will have on Canadian forests, this time in Nova Scotia. Watch the CBC news for July 8 2009 starting at 34:09.

U.S. Defines Forest and Agriculture Carbon Offset Projects

The American Clean Energy and Secrurity Act recently approved by the U.S. House of Representatives provides an initial list of offset project types that would be eligible to sell credits into the cap-and-trade system.

It seems a rather broad list designed to encompass all activities. Rules are to be set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Section 503. List of Eligible Domestic Agricultural and Forestry Offset Practice Types.

“…(b) INITIAL LIST.—At a minimum, the list prepared under this section shall include those practices that avoid or reduce greenhouse gas emissions or sequester greenhouse gases, such as—

1. agricultural, grassland, and rangeland sequestration and management practices, including

a) altered tillage practices;

b) winter cover cropping, continuous cropping, and other means to increase biomass returned to soil in lieu of planting followed by fallowing;

c) reduction of nitrogen fertilizer use or increase in nitrogen use efficiency;

d) reduction in the frequency and duration of flooding of rice paddies;

e) reduction in carbon emissions from organic soils;

f) reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from manure and effluent; and

g) reduction in greenhouse gas emissions due to changes in animal management practices, including dietary modifications;

2. (2) changes in carbon stocks attributed to land-use change and forestry activities, including—

a) afforestation or reforestation of acreage that is not forested;

b) forest management resulting in an increase in forest carbon stores including but not limited to harvested wood products;

c) management of peatland or wetland;

d) conservation of grassland and forested land;

e) improved forest management, including accounting for carbon stored in wood products;

f) reduced deforestation or avoided forest conversion;

g) urban tree-planting and maintenance;

h) agroforestry; and

i) adaptation of plant traits or new technologies that increase sequestration by forests; and

1. (3) manure management and disposal, including—

a) waste aeration;

b) biogas capture and combustion; and

c) application to fields as a substitute for commercial fertilizer.”

American Clean Energy And Security Act of 2009. AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2454, AS REPORTED OFFERED BY MR. PETERSON OF MINNESOTA (Page and line numbers refer to the file ACESFLl001 (HR 2998) on the Rules Committee website). Pages 15 – 17.

Dealing with impermanence of forest carbon offsets

The Canadian government released new draft details about the proposed federal offset system a couple of weeks ago. The guide includes the government's current thinking on how to deal with the impermanence of forest carbon offsets. Here it is:

"Biological sink projects carry a risk of carbon reversals, in which the sequestered carbon is released back into the atmosphere; for example, through forest fires or intentionally changing farm management practices. Since an offset credit must represent a permanent removal of carbon from the atmosphere, there must be a mechanism in place to address this risk of reversals.

The permanence of biological sink offset credits is ensured in the Offset System by requiring the replacement of credits in the event of a reversal anytime throughout the project’s registration periods and for a further 25-year liability period after the project’s final reporting period in its final registration period.

Furthermore, to address the risk that a Project Proponent may not be able to replace the credits when a reversal occurs, the Project Proponent is required to apply a discount factor to offset credits claimed for biological sink projects. The discount factor will be specified in the Offset System Quantification Protocol and will reflect the risk of defaulting on a replacement obligation for different project types. The Project Proponent will be required to replace credits if a reversal occurs any time during a 25-year liability period. Project Proponents are required to provide evidence to the Minister on a regular basis during the liability period and provide a certification statement that the sink has been maintained. However, verifications will not be necessary during the liability period." Page 27

My understanding is that the current draft of the Waxman-Markey Bill in the U.S. proposes instead to deal with impermanence through a 'buffer reserve' approach, which would set aside a percentage of each forest carbon offset...if the carbon is reversal is unintentionally, 50% could be covered by this reserve. I'm not sure what the liability period is.

Both these approaches differ from that used for afforestation projects within the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which only issues temporary credits for forest projects. This seems the most robust approach, but it doesn't appear to be taken very seriously in any of the offset regimes that are under development... apparently because people doubt the market demand for temporary offsets.

Anybody know of any other approaches being considered out there?

Using cap-and-trade auction revenue to finance forest and peatland protection

I posted a few days ago about a piece of legislation in the U.S. that aims to use government funds (from cap-and-trade auction revenues?) to finance the protection of forest carbon stocks.

What are other jurisdictions thinking about this? I'm reminded that the Western Climate Initiative Partners actually made a very concrete recommendation about using auction revenue set asides for 'forestry':

8.2. The WCI Partner jurisdictions agree that a portion of the value represented by each WCI Partner jurisdiction’s allowance budget (for example, through set-asides of allowances, a distribution of revenues from the auctioning of allowances, or other means) will be dedicated to one or more of the following public purposes which are expected to provide benefits region wide:

• Energy efficiency and renewable energy incentives and achievement;
• Research, development, demonstrations, and deployment (RDD&D) with particular reference to carbon capture & sequestration (CCS); renewable energy generation, transmission and storage; and energy efficiency;
• Promoting emission reductions and sequestration in agriculture, forestry and other uncapped sources; and
• Human and natural community adaptation to climate change impacts.

A couple of other examples...

1. The Province of Ontario's discussion paper on cap-and-trade references WCI's recommendation to use set asides to reduce emissions in uncapped sectors.
2. The EU Emission Trading Directive very strongly supports the use of at least 50% of auction revenues (and they intend auctioning to be the rule for distribution of allowances) for various uses aimed at reducing the impacts of climate change and funding adaptation. It also specifically mentions reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation in developing countries, but does not specifically mention domestic forest programs.

It strikes me that the forest sector, especially forest protection, is an especially good fit for the use of set-asides:

• The sector is not covered by the cap;
• There are adaptation benefits as well as mitigation benefits (helping communities and biodiversity adapt to climate change through ecosystem protection);
• Forest offsets present problems, like permanence, that other sectors don't present - so it should be a priority to get at this mitigation in another way.

What do others think? Does anyone have examples from other jurisdictions?

Party Submissions on LULUCF Revealed

Think of this post as a public service announcement: the submissions from Parties on land use, land-use change and forestry are up on the Climate Change Secretariat's website: Australia, Belarus, Canada, Chile, China, EU, Iceland, Japan, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland. I have not yet read these submissions so I cannot yet offer any perspective or response.

The Chair of the negotiations has also released a note on possible text related to these negotiations. See page 6 and pages 14-15.

And post your comments here!