Upload
quin-elliott
View
37
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Bio Carbon Fund. Harnessing the carbon market to sustain ecosystems and alleviate poverty. Atmosphere. 3.2. Why Sinks Matter Global Carbon Cycle (1990s) Units Gt C or Gt C y -1. 750. 63.0. 6.3. 1.6. Fossil Deposits. 60. Plants. About 4,100. 91.7. 500. Soil. 90. 2000. 0.7. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
1
BioCarbon Fund
Harnessing the carbon market to sustain ecosystems and alleviate poverty
Atmosphere
Fossil Deposits
6.363.0
91.7
60
90
3.2
Plants
Soil
Oceans
750
500
2000
38,400
About 4,100
1.6
Why Why Sinks Sinks MatteMatte
rr
Global Global Carbon Carbon
Cycle Cycle (1990s)(1990s)
Units Units Gt CGt C or or Gt C y Gt C y -1-1
0.7
3 Gt/y net uptake
20% of current emissions & 40% of historic emissions
3
History of emissionsHistory of emissions
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
1850 1900 1950 2000
Mt
C /
ye
ar
LULUCF Annex 1 LULUCF Non Annex 1
Fossil C Annex 1 Fossil C Non Annex 1
!
4
Multiple Goals of the BioCarbonFund
5
AtmosphericAtmospheric
Atmospheric benefit The project must contribute
to reducing GHG in atmosphere
Additionality - The project would not have gone ahead without the stimulus of the CDM (i.e. it cannot be BAU) and net emissions must be “reduced below those that would have occurred in the absence of the registered CDM project activity”
6
Environmental GoalEnvironmental Goal
A project must make a positive contribution to improving the quality of the environment, e.g.
Conserve biodiversity Reduce soil losses Rehabilitate degraded
lands
Such benefits are an integral component of well chosen projects – not an add on
7
Social GoalSocial Goal
A project must make a positive contribution to improving the livelihoods of local people and especially the poorest and indigenous peoples, e.g.
Additional income Income stability Education, capacity building,
technology transfer Health benefits
Projects with high social value are much more likely to be maintained – ie permanence
8
BioCarbon Fund and BioCarbon Fund and AdaptationAdaptation
Adaptation challenge: to increase the biological and social resilience of communities reliant on agricultural and forest ecosystems
Fund can act as a catalyst for changing land-use practices
Source of funding
Demonstration of new practices/crops
Conservation of buffers, genetic resources etc
9
Seeking synergies between the Seeking synergies between the major environmental conventionsmajor environmental conventions
Climate, environmental and livelihood goals
Compatibility with national sustainable development goals
Local participation: communities, NGOs, private and public sectors
Actions that assist adaptation to climate change
Emphasis on managing the whole landscape
UNCCD
10
Types of Projects
11
Landscape approachLandscape approach
Multiple asset types distributed across the landscape
Risk spreading within project
Gives local communities multiple reasons for maintaining sequestration
Social benefits through resilience and adaptability
12
Restoration PlantingsRestoration Plantings – First – First WindowWindow
Examples: Stabilization of dunes through tree planting Reconstructing corridors to connect forest fragments
Primary role of the plantings is long term environmental protection
May have other local uses such as wood, fruits etc
13
Community Forestry Community Forestry – First – First
WindowWindow
Community Forestry – First Window
Plantings usually carried out by grower cooperatives or community groups
Plantings have high community value including biodiversity
Individual plots often only a few hectares
Trees are used for fruit, wood products, fuel wood, shelter etc
14
Agroforestry Agroforestry – First window– First window
Establish trees over cropping and/or gardening activities as additional crop or wood suppliers
Establish trees within grazed pastures or rangelands either for drought fodder, shelter or additional products
Often linked with improved agricultural practice
Usually community based
15
TIST TanzaniaTIST Tanzania
BioCarbon Fund project proposal
Planting started in 1999
>2,000 small groups in 4 regions, growing fast (self-selection into program)
> 9 million trees planted (80 species); 4 million seedlings in nurseries
2,000 mature trees = 1,000 t CO2e
2 US¢ paid per live tree per year
Mostly compatible with CDM rules (full-scale or small-scale afforestation/reforestation)
16
TIST Tanzania: without projectTIST Tanzania: without project
Abandoned land
Damaging practices
Fuelwood shortage
Decreasing fertility
17
TIST Tanzania: with projectTIST Tanzania: with project
Village nurseries Groups with a purpose
Grass growth under treesTrees line up houses, paths
18
Commercial PlantationsCommercial Plantations
We see only a small role for commercial plantations in the CDM
Most will not pass an appropriately applied additionality test
Some would fail sustainability tests
19
A Second WindowA Second Window
Activities in the CDM in the first Commitment Period are limited to afforestation and reforestation
This leaves many activities that are allowed in Annex 1 countries and which would be very useful in meeting all
three goals of the BioCF, excluded to developing countries Within landscape projects there will usually be a mixture of
activities, including carbon sequestering activities other than A&R
Most projects will be measuring the changes in carbon stocks across the whole landscape (ie all activities) as part of baseline and leakage estimates
20
Avoided DeforestationAvoided Deforestation
A major concern during negotiations
Strong support from many NGOs and Host countries to explore this issue
Not the wholesale “preservation” of major tracts of forest
Protection of forest fragments within the wider landscape
Often links with forest restoration, corridor creation etc
21
Role of the BioCarbon FundRole of the BioCarbon Fund
Learning by doing
Real life testing of the most stringent standards Additionality, Measurement, PermanenceAdditionality, Measurement, Permanence
Providing the poorest people with resources and a stake in climate change
Development and adaptation opportunities for those with the greatest exposure to climate change and the fewest possibilities to take an active role
Must start NOW
22
Can ‘Kyoto’ credit be gained for Can ‘Kyoto’ credit be gained for forest conservation?forest conservation?
Brazilian proposal (“soft caps”) For a particular region (all of a nation’s rainforest?) Set a target for a rate of decline in clearing Credits gained for clearing rates even lower than this
target Some credit must be “banked” against possible later
increases in clearing Rest can be sold through a CDM type mechanism Target re-set every commitment period based on previous
period (as in fossil emission targets)
23
Avoided deforestation – “soft cap”Avoided deforestation – “soft cap”
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1988 1998 2008 2018 2028
Em
issi
on
s/sa
les
(MtC
/y)
an
d/o
r cl
ea
ring
(km
2/y
)
Clearing Aver Target Credits Sales 1 Total sales Bank
-50
-25
0
25
50
75
100
2012 2017 2022 2027 2032
Net
ben
efit
ove
r ta
rget
s
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
CO
2 re
mis
sio
ns
avo
ided
aft
er 2
008
24
What impact would such a system What impact would such a system have?have?
Encourage developing countries to engage in mitigation actions
Source of income for avoided deforestation
Financially viable? PNG example 30 m3/ha forest – prob c. 50 tC/ha Timber value c. $2400 Carbon value c. $500 to $1000 Other values ??
Keeps options open
25
Fire managementFire management
26
Emissions from fireEmissions from fire
27
Summary
Temperate forests 0.4 Gt C / y
Tropical forests 0.7 Gt C / y
Savanna & grassland
2.8 Gt C / y
Van der Werf et al Science 2004
Total annual emissionsTotal annual emissions
28
The goal is to reduce fire frequency, thus leading to greater sequestered carbon
Year to year variability
Non Europe Russia under fire management
c. 100 M ha
USA
29
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
C (
t/h
a)
an
d a
ge
(y
r)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
El Nino
management
Biom
Age
SD Age
50
55
60
65
70
460 470 480 490 500 510 520 530
-10
-5
0
5
10
Stored carbon Average storage Credits
Fire probabilities reduced from 0.020 to 0.012 at year 500.
Measurement error ±5% of stored carbon
In 12% of commitment periods proponents would report a carbon loss
30
Fire management projectsFire management projects
An increasing source of emissions as climate changes
A feasible deal for very brave investors with very large budgets
Or
As a component of national reporting that includes all forms of land-use
31
Land based emissions/uptakes Land based emissions/uptakes and compliance regimesand compliance regimes
Should a revised compliance systems more fully Should a revised compliance systems more fully incorporate land based emissions/uptakes?incorporate land based emissions/uptakes?
Pros Ensures monitoring of fluxes/sequestered carbon
Targets to reduce emissions can be set as for fossil emissions
May offer incentives for reduced clearing and better land-management practices
The system need not reward bad practice
But …
32
A fully included land-use sector would A fully included land-use sector would show annual fluctuations in sequestered show annual fluctuations in sequestered
carbon of ±1.5 Gt Ccarbon of ±1.5 Gt C
33
What does this mean for (eg) the What does this mean for (eg) the USA?USA?
USA emissions reduction target were 115 Mt C/y below 1990 or about 300 to 500 Mt C/y below BAU projections
USA terrestrial ecosystems are a net sink of 300 to 700 Mt C / y
The USA would have to incorporate an average figure in its baseline
Any mistake would be expensive or profitable (c. $4B / y per 100 MtC)
34
What does this mean for (eg) the What does this mean for (eg) the USA?USA?
But sequestration will vary by several hundreds of Mt C year by year
i.e. by about the same amount as its Kyoto target would have been
Most sink capacity appears to come from changes in age structures, fire reduction etc
Also 80 Mt C / y (+200 to –100) from CO2 fertilisation Is this a free ride? And, should the effects of reforestation in mid to high latitudes be
discounted?
35
Modelling and the BioCFModelling and the BioCF
Simplicity and transparency
Simple spreadsheet modelling of Financing Carbon pools Landscape dynamics
Avoid “crackpot rigour” – i.e. the detailed analysis of an idea that should never have been contemplated in the first place, or is so ill defined as to be misleading
Models should be as simple as possible – but no simpler