1 / 18

Workshop on Forestry & Climate Change: Sequestration Options in the Context of U.S. Climate Policy

Workshop on Forestry & Climate Change: Sequestration Options in the Context of U.S. Climate Policy. Ken Andrasko Office of Atmospheric Programs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA at

shaquana-young
Download Presentation

Workshop on Forestry & Climate Change: Sequestration Options in the Context of U.S. Climate Policy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Workshop on Forestry & Climate Change:Sequestration Options in the Context of U.S. Climate Policy Ken Andrasko Office of Atmospheric Programs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA at Workshop on Forestry & Climate Change: Assessing Mitigation Potential--Lessons Learned, New Delhi, India, Sept. 23-24, 2002

  2. Bush Administration’s New Approach to Climate Change: Emissions Intensity Target • President’s 6/14/02 plan commits U.S. to slow, stop, and then, as science justifies, reverse GHG emissions growth. • Commits U.S. to cut GHG emissions per Gross Domestic Product (million $/year), a unit of economic activity: by 18%, by 2012. • President’s goal would lower emissions 4.5% below business as usual projections. • Review progress in 2012; take additional action if necessary.

  3. President Announced Global Climate Change Initiatives • Business engagement: EPA Climate Leaders: ~ 20 companies commit to corporate inventories & emission reduction targets. • Revise U.S. GHG registry (1605b) to enhance accuracy, verifiability, & provide transferable credits • $700 million increase in FY03 budget for climate change science and technology-- to $4.5 billion total. • $4.6 billion proposed tax credits for renewable energy sources (5 yrs). • Enhanced support for climate observation and mitigation in developing world. • Incentives for sequestration.

  4. Enhanced Support in Developing Countries & for International Cooperation • $155 million for US AID climate programs • ~$68 million for Global Environment Facility climate change work • $50 million for tropical forest conservation (inc. $40 million for debt-for-nature swaps) • $25 million for climate observation systems in developing countries

  5. Developing Countries & International Cooperation: Bilaterals • Bilateral discussions underway, emphasizing cooperation on science & technology, with: • India, China, Korea • Brazil, Mexico • CONCAUSA (7 Central American countries) • South Africa • Japan, Australia, Canada, Italy, New Zealand • EU • Russian Federation, Ukraine

  6. U.S. EPA Forest and Agriculture Climate Change Activities • EPA compiles official U.S. GHG inventory for all sectors: agriculture and forest emissions (w/USDA) • Mitigation analysis of agriculture and forests: • modeling project-level, U.S., and international options, • economics, and policy options. • Improve sinks in major integrated assessment models for policy analysis • EPA voluntary programs: • methane reduction (livestock) • Climate Leaders: private sector companies, launched in 2002

  7. Top 10 emitters without LULUCF China 670 India 240 S. Korea 110 Brazil 100 Mexico 100 S. Africa 100 Iran 80 Saudi Arabia 70 Indonesia 60 Nigeria 20 Top 10 emitters with LULUCF (MMTC/y) China 650 Brazil 400 India 240 Indonesia 210 Sudan 160 Mexico 150 S. Africa 100 Congo 80 Iran 80 Nigeria 70 Land Use is Major Source of Developing Country Emissions & Mitigation Potential

  8. Assessing Feasibility of Sinks Options: Example:Conceptual impact of barriers on costs and carbon mitigation potential F7 Estimate – Socioeconomic Potential Economic Potential Market or Achievable Potential Cost of carbon ($/t C) ?? ?? Market Failures: Examples Ill-defined property rights Lack of information Absence of markets Poor capital markets Barriers: Examples Carbon leakage Class structure Gender Issues Attitudes and habits Carbon sequestered or emissions avoided (t C) Source: Sathaye et al, 2001

  9. F7 and FORCLIMIT Participating Research Groups (F7 since 1990) • ASIA: • CHINA -- Xu, Deying (IPCC Lead Author, LULUCF Report), Forest Ecology and Environment Institute, Beijing • INDIA -- Dr. N.H. Ravindranath (IPCC Coordinator, LULUCF Report, CLA for Tech Transfer, and LA for WGIII Report, Consultant to UNFCCC), Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore • INDONESIA -- Prof. Rizaldi Boer (UNFCCC Consultant), Bogor Agriculture University, Bogor (co-funding with EAP) • MALAYSIA -- Dr. Roslan Ismail (ITTO Board, IPCC LA), SustechAsia.com Sdn Bhd., and Prof. Azman Abidin, UPM, Malaysia (via EAP funding) • PHILIPPINES -- Prof. Rodel Lasco (IPCC Lead Author, LULUCF Report), University of the Philippines, Los Banos (via EAP funding) • AFRICA: • TANZANIA -- (Yonika Ngaga, CEEST, Dar es Salam, and Dr.Willy Makundi, LBNL, LULUCF and WGIII Lead Author) • LATIN AMERICA: • MEXICO -- Prof. Omar Masera, IPCC CLA LULUCF and LA Tech Transfer and WG III reports, National University of Mexico • BRAZIL -- Dr. Philip Fearnside, IPCC, CLA LULUCF and LA WGII, National Institute for Research in the Amazon (INPA), Manaus

  10. Technical Cooperation with Experts and Via Bilateral Relationships is Critical • FORCLIMIT: Forestry and Climate Change Mitigation Network, EPA & LBNL (with State Dept. support) with in-country institutes & government • 2000-02: Indonesia, Philippines, and Malaysia: • Tech transfer & training in LBNL sinks models: COMAP. • Mitigation cost curves, by in-country experts • 2-3 stakeholder workshops in each country: Dialog on policy & project issues w/ government, private industry, NGOs, academics. Foreign experts brought in. • Publication of results. • 2002-03: Proposal: work with India?, and Mexico? • Same activities as above, or as agreed with country.

  11. FORCLIMIT Network: 2 • FORCLIMIT partners: Indonesia: IBP Bogor (Bogor Agric. Univ,). Malaysia: Regional Centre for Forest Management. Philippines: Univ. of Philippines, Los Banos • Activities 2000-02: Performed national and case study analyses of forest mitigation. Held 3 workshops each country. Publications in major journals. • Dialog with private sector, NGOs, academics led to new cooperation, informed government policy positions.

  12. FORCLIMIT: Lessons Learned • Exchange methods, tools: US, plus experts from peer countries: in region; India, Brazil, etc. • Analysis by in-country institutions, to build capacity • Cooperation w/ government, but technical process: freer participationby private, NGOs. 2-year process. • Include all stakeholders: regional, private, NGO, academic • Share how US, other countries addressing same issues • Explain IPCC, UNFCCC technical issues, results. • Assess projects as tangible examples to avoid endless debate, and force real study of technical issues.

  13. Workshop Goals • Identify potential forestry mitigation options for India • Discuss methods for sequestration accounting, and project technical issues • Share analyses from other countries • Identify research needs and discuss potential areas of research cooperation • Listen to perspectives of stakeholders: priority areas for work, issues to address • Identify next steps for cooperation and schedule

  14. Incentives for Carbon Sequestration in the President’s Plan • Farm Bill of 2002 passed Congress, and includes: • Conservation Reserve Program set-aside acreage expands from 34 to 40 million acres (16 million ha): cropland into grass or trees. • Enhanced Environmental Quality Incentives Program (e.g., fertilizer and waste management plans). • Wetlands Reserve Program: doubled. • Potential pilot sequestration projects and methods development. • President directed Departments of Energy, Commerce, Agriculture, and EPA, to propose improvements to current voluntary emissions reduction registry program (1605b).

  15. Summary: Areas of Potential Cooperation to Realize Sinks Potential • Performpilot project analyses: issues. • Stimulate development of standard methods & guidance for US and developing country offsets. • Improve models to handle socioeconomic and technical issues. • Dialog on potential activities & issues with stakeholders. • Assess rural livelihood, biodiversity effects. • Assist key countries in assessing international offsets opportunities, barriers, institutional arrangements.

  16. EPA-LBNL FORCLIMIT Network: Capacity Building • FORCLIMIT = Forestry and Climate Change Mitigation Network: Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines. Objectives: • Assist LUCF inventory improvement: data, methods • Assess options for forest maintenance, expansion, & improved management, & GHG benefits. • Dialog among government, private, NGO, experts. • Assess 1-3 case studies: technical, financial, rural livelihood, sustainable development aspects.

  17. The FORCLIMIT Network Experience: Potential Cooperation in India? • Identify priority areas for research cooperation • Establish working groups or relationships • Schedule set of activities over 1-2 years: say, workshops in May or June, and in December, 2003?? • Seek stakeholder input, especially from private sector in India and U.S.: identify their needs, questions, polaicy concerns, technical issues • Select 1-2 case studies for intensive analysis of technical issues? • Schedule for outreach and publishing results

More Related