tcg osiris bangkok 091004
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Presentation by Ralph Ashton Convenor and Chair, Terrestrial Carbon Group
Senior Policy Fellow and Project Director, The Heinz Center Visiting Scholar, Columbia University [email protected]
The Terrestrial Carbon Group
Reference Emission Levels Using the Collaborative Modeling Initiative’s OSIRIS Tool to Compare Various
Designs for RED(D+) Reference Emission Levels and Incentive Systems
Forum on Readiness for REDD: REDD Negotiator Training Workshop Bangkok, 4 October 2009
The Terrestrial Carbon Group
The Terrestrial Carbon Group 2
Ralph Ashton Chatib Basri Rizaldi Boer Peter Cosier Ruth DeFries Mohamed El-‐Ashry
Carlos Nobre Hugh Possingham
Bernhard Schlamadinger† Hadi Soesastro Joseph Stiglitz
Bernardo Strassburg
† RIP 2008
Science, Economics, Public Policy
Objective: Terrestrial carbon is effectively included in the international response to climate change
Tim Flannery Thomas Lovejoy Yadvinder Malhi
Jacques Marcovitch Warwick McKibbin Daniel Nepstad
Please see full paper for more details – available
in five languages
Selected Key Policy Considerations Scale At what scale should action be measured and rewarded? Project / sub-‐national National Aggregate of participating
nations Global all sectors
Scope What scope of terrestrial carbon and land management activities should be included? RED REDD REDD-‐plus AFOLU
The Terrestrial Carbon Group 3
Conceptual Approach What should action be measured against? Business as usual Status quo Pragmatic Negotiated
Sources of Incentives How should incentives be provided? Carbon market Voluntary or performance-‐based
funds Carbon-‐market linked funds Meeting national commitments
1 2
4 3
Emerging consensus Some support
Different Circumstances / Different Views? (IPCC: mitigation potential per annum in 2030 up to US$100 / tonne CO2e)
The Terrestrial Carbon Group 4
0
2
4
Latin America South & South East Asia
Africa
Agriculture
Forest Sequestration
Avoided Deforestation
GtCO2e pa
Different Circumstances / Different Views?
The Terrestrial Carbon Group 5
Geographic Distribution of Volatile Terrestrial Carbon*
The Terrestrial Carbon Group 6
Top 10 Volatile Forest Carbon GtC Brazil 86.9 Democratic Republic of Congo 39.2 Indonesia 27.3 China 18.1 Peru 14.8 Angola 12.3 Colombia 11.8 Bolivia 10.0 Mexico 9.5 Venezuela 8.5 Total Top 10 238.3 Total All Non-‐Annex I Countries 363.7 Top 10 as % of all 66%
Top 10 Volatile Non-‐Forest Carbon GtC Brazil 19.3 China 19.1 India 10.8 Indonesia 10.4 Argentina 9.4 Mexico 7.8 Sudan 6.8 Kazakhstan 6.7 Democratic Republic of Congo 4.1 South Africa 4.1 Total Top 10 98.5 Total All Non-‐Annex I Countries 207.1 Top 10 as % of all 48%
* Carbon that would be emitted in the event of land use change => 100% vegetation & 25% soil
The OSIRIS Tool OSIRIS is a free, transparent, accessible and open source decision support spreadsheet tool designed to support UNFCCC negotiations on REDD+
www.conservation.org/osiris
The Terrestrial Carbon Group 7
Collaborative Modelling Initiative
Woods Hole Research Center
With the International Institute for Applied
Systems Analysis (IIASA) The Terrestrial Carbon Group
OSIRIS: Policy-‐Relevant Outputs
OSIRIS country-‐by-‐country outputs:
Decrease or increase in deforestation (Ha/yr)
Decrease or increase in emissions from deforestation (ton CO2 e/yr)
Distribution of revenue ($/yr)
Cost-‐efficiency of emissions reductions ($/ton CO2 e)
Currently limited to RED (rather than REDD, REDD+ or AFOLU)
The Terrestrial Carbon Group 8 This slide is modified from a presentation by Jonah Busch (Conservation International)
Focused on comparing effectiveness, efficiency and equity
OSIRIS: Flexible Inputs Reference level design
Carbon price ($/ton CO2)
Management cost and transaction cost ($/Ha or $/ton CO2)
Fraction of soil carbon eligible for RED(D+)
Market, fund, or quota
Timing of payment
Suite of countries participating in RED(D+)
Base period (’90-‐’00 or ’00-‐’05)
Responsiveness of price of frontier land agricultural output to changes in extent of deforestation (“price elasticity of demand”)
Weight of countries’ preference for REDD+ surplus vs. agricultural surplus
Design-‐specific parameters
The Terrestrial Carbon Group 9 This slide is modified from a presentation by Jonah Busch (Conservation International)
Can be adapted to answer negotiators’ questions
OSIRIS: Designs Compared Design option Reference Description
“Without REDD” FAO FRA (2005) Counterfactual business as usual scenario
“National historical” Santilli et al (2005) Reference rate is historical for all countries “Higher than historical for countries with low deforestation rates”
Mollicone et al (2007); da Fonseca et al (2007)
Reference deforestation rate is 0.15% for low-‐deforestation countries; Baseline is historical for high deforestation countries
“Weighted average of national and global”
Strassburg et al (2008)
Reference rate is 0.85*historical rate for all countries + 0.15*global average rate
“Flow withholding and stock payment”
Cattaneo et al (2008)
Reference rate is historical for all countries; 15% “withholding” on flow payments to pay for stock payments
“Annualized fraction of forest stock at risk of emission”
Ashton et al (2008)
At-‐risk forest stock in high-‐defor countries emitted by 2050;at-‐risk forest stock in low-‐deforestation countries emitted by 2100
“Cap and trade for REDD”
Eliasch (2008); For comparison only
Cap is historical for all countries; countries above cap must purchase credits
The Terrestrial Carbon Group 10 This slide is modified from a presentation by Jonah Busch (Conservation International)
New / other designs can be added and compared in the tool
OSIRIS: Selected Results
The Terrestrial Carbon Group 11 This slide is modified from a presentation by Jonah Busch (Conservation International)
Significant Emission Reductions in all Regions under all Compared Designs
OSIRIS: Key Messages Action more important than Exact Design
RED(D+) can be an effective, efficient source of emissions reductions under a broad range of reference level designs
Design Impacts Who Gets What
But, reference level design determines distribution of payments to countries
High and Low Deforesters both Critical
The most effective, efficient RED(D+) designs balance incentives for reducing historically high rates of deforestation with incentives for maintaining historically low rates of deforestation
Low Deforesters Key to Avoiding Leakage
Extending RED(D+) incentives to countries with historically low deforestation rates can prevent leakage to those countries, making the RED(D+) mechanism more effective overall
Agriculture Planning is Vital
The overall effectiveness of RED(D+) can be increased by meeting agricultural needs off the tropical forest frontier
The Terrestrial Carbon Group 12 This slide is modified from a presentation by Jonah Busch (Conservation International)
OSIRIS: Next Steps to Copenhagen
RED(D+) designs of interest to parties
Impacts of RED(D+) incentives to 2050 (with IIASA)
Market vs fund vs quota
Distribution and equity
Co-‐benefits of RED(D+) (development, water, biodiversity)
Phased implementation of RED(D+) by countries
Downscaled analyses in key countries (Indonesia, Peru, Madagascar, Liberia, Guyana, Suriname, Brazil)
The Terrestrial Carbon Group 13 This slide is modified from a presentation by Jonah Busch (Conservation International)
Terrestrial Carbon Group Policy Briefs
The Terrestrial Carbon Group 14
1. Distribution of Terrestrial Carbon Across Developing
Countries
2. Tools for Setting Reference Emission Levels
3. Estimating Tropical Forest
Carbon at Risk of Emission from Deforestation
Globally
4. Legal and Institutional
Foundations for the National
Implementation of REDD
(and Background Report with Case
Studies)
5. Measuring and Monitoring
Terrestrial Carbon as Part of
“REDD+” MRV Systems
(and Background Report)
Available at terrestrialcarbon.org
We welcome suggestions for other topics
With
A Solution at Copenhagen COP15 1. An overarching framework for terrestrial carbon that includes:
Forestry immediately, through joint or separate mechanisms for:
Avoided emissions; and
New sequestration (either a reformed CDM 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 World Land Use Organisation (or mandate an existing organisation) to coordinate, support, and drive the transition to a global land-‐use management approach that provides sufficient food, fiber, fuel, and other land-‐based values to a growing global population in a land-‐ and carbon-‐constrained world
The Terrestrial Carbon Group 15
Reference Emission Levels: Background Material
Why Reference Emission Levels (and Sequestration Levels) are Required
When creating a system that incentivizes avoided emissions and increased sequestration, it is necessary to know: What is being rewarded How to measure success How to link project, sub-‐national, and national action to
international reporting
Therefore need to agree: Reference emission levels Reference sequestration levels
The Terrestrial Carbon Group 17
Avoiding Emissions vs Reducing Rates
The Terrestrial Carbon Group 18
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Year Business as Usual Reduced Rate
Climate change is a greenhouse gas problem
Reducing rates of deforestation is an important near-‐term goal, but reducing rates is not enough
Must also avoid emissions
Otherwise same area of forest will be destroyed, and same volume of greenhouse gas will be emitted, but over a longer period
Total Emissions
Goal
% Year O Volume Carbon
Avoided Emissions
Conceptual Approach: Schematic
The Terrestrial Carbon Group 19
Business as Usual
Status Quo Pragmatic Negotiated
Reward performance compared with what would happen in the future without the incentive system
Incentivise only countries with emissions in the immediate past
Use historical data because it is the only “real” data available
Most important outcome is that a
threshold number of countries agree to the RELs
Extrapolated Historical
Adjusted Historical
Forward-‐ Looking
History is a good guide to the future
(or its best approximation), and therefore extrapolate historical data into the
future
History is a good but imperfect guide, and
therefore adjust historical data to
improve its predictive capability
The only way to understand future
emissions is to model the future, taking into account factors that drive and constrain emissions from land
use
Conceptual Approach: Evaluation Data Required Potential Problems
Business as Usual
Historical data and / or various legal, biophysical and economic data
• Might require models and assumptions • Might have relatively high data availability (see also next slide and “Tools for Setting RELs” section)
Status Quo Only historical data
• Ignores modelling that shows that an incentive system that excludes countries with terrestrial carbon at risk of emission will cause significant “leakage”, thereby undoing the climate impact of the system
Pragmatic Only historical data
• Historical data is not necessarily accurate, even in terms of representing emissions in the historical period in question
• Does not specifically address additionality
Negotiated Can be based on any number of methodologies
• This approach will be problematic if it does not specifically address additionality
The Terrestrial Carbon Group 20
Conceptual Approach: Is History a Good Guide?
The Terrestrial Carbon Group 21
Land Availability (especially after deforestation)
Population (Increase from 7 to 9 billion by 2050)
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?
Possible Over-‐Estimation
Forests eventually run out…
Land-‐Use Decisions and Land Availability
TCG Analysis on Tools for RELs 1. Outlines policy considerations facing decision-‐makers
when setting an REL including on scale, scope, and conceptual approach (see previous section)
2. Analyses 9 existing tools that can be used to set reference emission levels
3. Draws conclusions about:
Ability of these tools to meet policy needs
Data that are required regardless of the detailed rules
How easily can the reference emission level be set based on cost, data requirements and availability, and complexity
The Terrestrial Carbon Group 22
Available at www.terrestrialcarbon.org
Tool Comparison
The Terrestrial Carbon Group 23
FAC GCOMAP GEOMOD GTM Guyana EVN IIASA G4M &
GLOBIOM LUCS
Sim-Amazonia 1
TCG 3 Filters
Scale Project / Sub-National National Regional Aggregate of Participating Nations Scope RED REDD REDD-plus (without degradation) AFOLU Emissions (not just area change) Conceptual Approach: Business as Usual Perspective Extrapolated Historical Adjusted Historical Forward-Looking Feasibility Feasibility High Medium Low Medium Medium Low Medium Low Medium Spatially explicit data used
Major Drivers and Constraints Considered
Legal
Biophysical Economic Other
Original Geographic Focus Not specific Not specific Costa Rica Not specific Guyana Not specific Not specific Amazon Basin Developing Countries
Timeframe 20 years 100 years 20 years 100 years 30 years 100 years 20 years 30-40 years Long Run Dynamic
Key: = Possible with Current Tool; = Possible with Adaptations to Current Tool or More Data
Being Upda
ted
Key Data for Tools for RELs
The following data was used by four or more of the tools reviewed:
Forest (carbon stock, net primary productivity, type)
Land use data
Soil / suitability of land for agriculture
Timber (species, age, increment, yield)
Commodity prices (agriculture and forestry)
Cost / investment (land, governance and monitoring, harvest, herd establishment, planting, transport)
Population (change, density, growth rate)
Carbon density information is also essential
The Terrestrial Carbon Group 24
REL Tools: Implications
The more a REL reflects a reasonable business as usual scenario, the more it guarantees additionality
RELs are a policy choice and might or might not correspond exactly with a business as usual scenario
Tools can provide a yardstick to measure the credibility of RELs
Further policy work should focus on making tools for setting RELs more feasible across a range of scopes, countries, and policy considerations rather than on making existing tools more accurate
Aggregate of country RELs (including the volume of potential international offsets) must be reflected in the overall global carbon budget
The Terrestrial Carbon Group 25
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 26
Available at www.terrestrialcarbon.org
Geographic Distribution of Volatile Terrestrial Carbon*
The Terrestrial Carbon Group 27
Top 10 Volatile Forest Carbon GtC Brazil 86.9 Democratic Republic of Congo 39.2 Indonesia 27.3 China 18.1 Peru 14.8 Angola 12.3 Colombia 11.8 Bolivia 10.0 Mexico 9.5 Venezuela 8.5 Total Top 10 238.3 Total All Non-‐Annex I Countries 363.7 Top 10 as % of all 66%
Top 10 Volatile Non-‐Forest Carbon GtC Brazil 19.3 China 19.1 India 10.8 Indonesia 10.4 Argentina 9.4 Mexico 7.8 Sudan 6.8 Kazakhstan 6.7 Democratic Republic of Congo 4.1 South Africa 4.1 Total Top 10 98.5 Total All Non-‐Annex I Countries 207.1 Top 10 as % of all 48%
* Carbon that would be emitted in the event of land use change => 100% vegetation & 25% soil
“3 Filters” Method to Determine Volatile Carbon At Risk of Emission over Long Term
The Terrestrial Carbon Group 28
Economic constraints mean unlikely
to fulfil biophysical potential
Biophysically unsuitable for agriculture, pasture
[or logging]
Effectively Protected by Law
1.
2.
3.
Note: Square brackets indicate not yet incorporated in tool
• Legally protected • Effective governance
• Climate, soil and terrain conditions • Input levels & management conditions
• Level of agricultural development • Access to markets: local, national, [international] • [Level of demand for food, fibre, fuel] • [Extent of population pressures] • [Proximity to current deforestation frontier]
Tropical Forest Carbon at Risk Globally (preliminary results)
The Terrestrial Carbon Group 29
GtC Africa Asia Latin America Total
Potentially at Risk 82.5 46.6 136.2 265.3
Effectively protected (6.9) (5.9) (39.6) (52.4)
Biophysically unsuitable and/or economically unfeasible (18.8) (13.4) (11.2) (43.5)
At Risk 58.2 29.6 87.8 175.5
% of total potentially at risk 71% 64% 64% 66%
Yellow = Tropical Forest Carbon at Risk
Green = Effectively
Protected by Law White =
No Tropical Forest Carbon or
no data
TCG Modeling: Next Steps to Copenhagen
Terrestrial Carbon Group is working independently and collaboratively on:
Refining existing Terrestrial Carbon Group modeling to:
Capture the dynamic future (biophysical and economic)
Capture ‘at risk’ profile over time (not just aggregate over long run)
Update the global carbon map (completed with Holly Gibbs)
Widen the scope of existing Terrestrial Carbon Group modeling to:
Include deforestation of all forest types (not just tropical)
Include afforestation / reforestation potential
Include degradation
Include agricultural carbon emissions
The Terrestrial Carbon Group 30
Key Actions Required for RELs International
Remote Sensing Ensure longevity of earth observation infrastructure: satellites, receiving stations, analysis capacity (human and computing)
Science Improve field measurement capabilities and expand coverage of conversion factors (land use types, species, regions), especially for forest degradation and peatlands
Negotiations Agree to each country’s REL, including RELs for early action
National
Data Gather and analyse key data at local, provincial / island, and national levels for RELs and ongoing measuring and monitoring (remote sensing and field measurements)
Science As for International, but focused on local conditions
Institutions Establish national institutions to link project, sub-‐national and national RELs to each other and to international reporting requirements
The Terrestrial Carbon Group 31
Notes and Sources Slide: “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. Slide: “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: “Geographic Distribution of Volatile Terrestrial Carbon” Terrestrial Carbon Group Project. 2009. Policy Brief Number 1 “Distribution of Terrestrial Carbon Across Developing Countries: Forest and Non-‐Forest; Vegetation and Soil” (available at www.terrestrialcarbon.org).
Slide: “OSIRIS: Selected Results” Busch, J. et al in press. 2009. OSIRIS v2.6 Parameter values: C02 price=$5/ton CO2 ; Permanence scale=1.00; Elasticity of demand=1.0; Social preference for REDD surplus = 1.00; Mgmt cost=$3.50/Ha/yr; Soil carbon eligible=0.25; Baseline for low defor=0.0015; Weight on historical=0.85; Stock-‐flow withholding=0.15; Low defor emitted by: 2100; High defor emitted by: 2050 Slides: “Conceptual Approach: Schematic” to “REL Tools: Implications” Terrestrial Carbon Group Project. 2009. Policy Brief Number 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”, available at www.terrestrialcarbon.org. Slides: “Determining Terrestrial Carbon At Risk of Emission” to “Tropical Forest Carbon at Risk Globally” Terrestrial Carbon Group Project. 2009. Policy Brief Number 1 “Distribution of Terrestrial Carbon Across Developing Countries: Forest and Non-‐Forest; Vegetation and Soil” and 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 32