Advertisement

Land-based carbon storage and the European union emissions trading scheme: the science underlying the policy

  • Jonathan Haskett
  • Bernhard Schlamadinger
  • Sandra Brown
Original Article

Abstract

Climate change is occurring with greater speed and intensity that previously anticipated. All effective environmentally and socially sound mitigation efforts need to be employed to effectively address this global crisis. Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) projects can provide significant climate change mitigation benefits as well as poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservation benefits. The policies of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU-ETS), the world’s largest carbon market exclude LULUCF. Scientific support for this exclusion was presented in a briefing paper published by the Climate Action Network—Europe (CAN) that puts forward the proposition that land based storage of carbon is ineffective. A careful review of the scientific papers cited in support of CAN’s position indicates that, while the papers themselves are scientifically sound, they do not support the continued exclusion of LULUCF projects from the EU-ETS. At the same time some important recent research papers that describe the carbon storage and social benefit potential of such projects are not included in the analysis. An in-depth consideration of the scientific evidence is necessary in evaluating this policy option. Based on this evidence a case can be made for the inclusion of LULUCF projects in the EU-ETS.

Keywords

Climate change Carbon market Land use land-use change and forestry European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Environmental and social benefits 

References

  1. Anderson K, Bows A (2009) Reframing the climate challenge in light of Post-2000 emission trends. Phil Trans R Soc A 366:3863–3882Google Scholar
  2. Bellamy PH, Loveland PJ, Bradley RI, Lark RM, Kirk GJD (2005) Carbon losses from all soils across England and Wales 1978–2003. Nature 437:245–248 cited in: New Scientist, 7 September, 2005 ‘Soil may spoil UK’s climate effortsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biocap Canada Foundation (2006) ‘Clear-cuts in a changing climate: the long-term implications of forest disturbance on carbon cycling’, Biocap Canada Brief, January 2006 http://www.biocap.ca/files/Briefs/Issue_12_Black_Brief.pdf, info@biocap.ca
  4. BioCarbon Fund (2008) Proposed methodology for estimating reductions of GHG emissions from mosaic deforestation. RED-NM-001/Version 01, Draft for public comments, World Bank Carbon Finance, http://wbcarbonfinance.org/docs/REDD_mosaic_methodology_15_Dec_2008.pdf
  5. Brown S, Masera O, Sathaye J (2000) Project-based activities. In: Watson RT, Noble IR, Bolin B, Ravindranath NH, Verardo DJ, Dokken DJ (eds) Land use, land -use change, and forestry, A special report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, UK, pp 283–338 Ch. 5Google Scholar
  6. CAN-Europe (Climate Action Network—Europe) (2009) Membership types and list of members. Available at: http://www.climnet.org/memberslist_final.pdf
  7. Ciais Ph, Reichstein M, Viovy N, Granier A, Oge’e J, Allard V, Aubinet M, Buchmann N, Chr B, Carrara A, Chevallier F, De Noblet N, Friend AD, Friedlingstein P, Grünwald T, Heinesch B, Keronen P, Knohl A, Krinner G, Loustau D, Manca G, Matteucci G, Miglietta F, Ourcival JM, Papale D, Pilegaard K, Rambal S, Seufert G, Soussana JF, Sanz MJ, Schulze ED, Vesala T, Valentini R (2005) Europe-wide reduction in primary productivity caused by the heat and drought in 2003. Nature 437:529–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DeLucia EH, Moore DJ, Norby RJ (2005) Contrasting responses of forest ecosystems to rising atmospheric CO2: Implications for the global C cycle. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 19, GB3006, doi: 10.1029/2004GB002346
  9. Emanuel KA (2005) Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature 436:686–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. European Environment Agency (2005) Greenhouse gas emission trends and projections in Europe 2005. EEA Report No 8/2005 ISSN 1725-9177Google Scholar
  11. FAO Regional Wood Energy Development Programme in Asia (1998/99) ‘Carbon dioxide offset investment in the Asia-Pacific forestry sector’, FAO, ISBN: 974-86407-2-8Google Scholar
  12. FAO Interdepartmental Working Group on Climate Change (2007) Adaptation to climate change in agriculture, forestry and fisheries: perspective, framework and priorities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  13. Fung IY, Doney SC, Lindsay K, John J (2005) Evolution of carbon sinks in a changing climate. Proc Natl Acad Sci 102(32):11201–11206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heath J, Ayres E, Possell M, Bardgett RD, Black HIJ, Grant H, Ineson P, Kerstiens G (2005) Rising atmospheric CO2 reduces sequestration of root-derived soil carbon. Science 309:1711–1713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, Noguer M, van der Linden PJ, Dai X, Maskell K, Johnson CA (2001) Climate change 2001: synthesis report. Cambridge Univ. Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2001) Chapter 2: Observed climate variability and change. In: Climate change 2001: The scientific basis, contribution of working group I to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  17. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2003) Good practice guidance for land use, land-use change and forestry: Chapter 4. Supplementary methods and good practice guidance arising from the Kyoto Protocol IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme Technical Support Unit C/o Institute for Global Environmental Strategies 2108 -11, Kamiyamaguchi Hayama, Kanagawa Japan,http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gpglulucf/gpglulucf_contents.html
  18. Janssens IA, Freibauer A, Ciais Ph, Smith P, Nabuurs G-J, Folberth G, Schlamadinger B, Hutjes RWA, Ceulemans R, Detlef Schulze E, Valentini R, Dolman AJ (2003) ‘Europe’s terrestrial biosphere absorbs 7 to 12% of European Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions. Science 300(5625):1538–1542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jonas M, Gusti M, Nilsson S (2008) Assessing uncertainty in bottom-up full carbon accounting for Russia. Brief Project Report (revised and expanded after acceptance by the Austrian Science Fund), International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, pp. 8. Available at: http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/FOR/unc_bottomup.html
  20. Korner C et al (2005) Carbon flux and growth in mature deciduous forest trees exposed to elevated CO2. Science 309(5739):1360–1362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lempinen EW (2009) Ominous report on climate generates worldwide coverage from AAAS annual meeting. AAAS Annual Meeting News Blog Februrary 15, 2009: http://news.aaas.org/2009/0215climate-worse-than-expected.shtml
  22. Magha M (2005) The impact of NRM investments on food crisis prevention and management. FRAMEweb is an online portal for the natural resources management community, www.frameweb.org/ev.php?ID=12814_201&ID2=DO_TOPIC
  23. McGuire AD, Chapin FS III, Walsh JE, Wirth C (2006) Integrated regional changes in Arctic climate feedbacks: Implications for the Global Climate System. Annu Rev Environ Resour 31:61–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Meier W, Stroeve J, Fetterer F, Knowles K (2005) Reductions in Arctic sea ice cover no longer limited to summer. EOS 86:326–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nakicenovic N, Alcamo J, Davis G, de Vries B, Fenhann J, Gaffin S, Gregory K, Grubler A, Yong Jung T, Kram T et al (2000) Special report on emission scenarios. Cambridge Univ. Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Nemani RR, Keeling CD, Hasimoto H, Jolly WM, Piper SC, Tucker CJ, Muneni RB, Running SW (2003) Climate driven increases in global terrestrial net primary production from 1982 to 1999. Science 300:1560–1563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. New Scientist (2005) ‘Drought bumps up global thermostat’, http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg18725116.200. cited on 11 November 2005
  28. Nilsson S, Jonas M, Stolbovoi V, Shvidenko A, Obersteiner M, McCallum I (2003) The missing “missing sink”. For Chron 79(6):1071–1074Google Scholar
  29. Norby RJ, DeLucia EH, Gielen B, Calfapietra C, Giardina CP, King JS, Ledford J, McCarthy HR, Moore DJP, Ceulemans R, De Angelis P, Finzi AC, Karnosky DF, Kubiske ME, Lukac M, Pregitzer KS, Scarascia-Mugnozza GE, Schlesinger WH, Oren R (2005) Forest response to elevated CO2 is conserved across a broad range of productivity. Proc Natl Acad Sci 102(50):18052–18056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ramanathan V, Feng Y (2008) On avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system: formidable challenges ahead. PNAS 105(38):14245–14250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Richardson K, Steffen W, Schellnhuber HJ, Alcamo J, Barker T, Kammen DM, Leemans R, Liverman D, Munasinghe M, Osman-Elasha B, Stern N, Wæver O (2009) “Synthesis report”, from climate change: global risks, challenges & decisions copenhangen 2009, 10–12 March 2009: www.climategongress.ku.dk
  32. Rinaudo A (2005) ‘Uncovering the underground forest: A short history and description of farmer managed natural regeneration. FRAMEweb is an online portal for the natural resources management community http://www.frameweb.org/ev.php?ID=13091_201&ID2=DO_TOPIC
  33. Roshetko JM, Delaney M, Hairiah K, Purnomosidhi P (2002) Carbon stocks in Indonesian homegarden systems: can smallholder systems be targeted for increased carbon storage? Am J Altern Agric 17(2):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Roshetko JM, Lasco RD, Delos Angeles MS (2006) Smallholder agroforestry systems for carbon storage. Mitig Adapt Strategies Glob Chang 12(2):1381–2386Google Scholar
  35. Scherr SJ, Sthapit S (2009) Mitigating climate change through food and land use. World Watch Report 179, Worldwatch Institute, Washington D.CGoogle Scholar
  36. Schlamadinger B, Bird N, Johns T, Brown S, Canadell J, Ciccarese L, Dutschke M, Fiedler J, Fischlin A, Fearnside P, Forner C, Freibauer A, Frumhoff P, Hoehne N, Kirschbaum MUF, Labat A, Marland G, Michaelowa A, Montanarella L, Moutinho P, Murdiyarso D, Pena N, Pingoud K, Rakonczay Z, Rametsteiner E, Rock J, Sanz MJ, Schneider UA, Shvidenko A, Skutsch M, Smith P, Somogyi Z, Trines E, Ward M, Yamagata Y (2007) A synopsis of land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) under the Kyoto Protocol and Marrakech Accords. Environ Sci Policy 10:271–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Silver WL, Kueppers LM, Lugo AE, Ostertag R, Matzek V (2004) Carbon seqeustration and plant community dynamics following reforestation of tropical pasture. Ecol Appl 14(4):1115–1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stewart RB, Birdsey R, Nilsson S, Shvidenko A, Lehtonen A (2008) Carbon accounting issues and challenges in the circumpolar boreal forest. Discussion Paper no 2, International Model Forest Network Secretariat, Natural Resources Canada–Canadian Forest Service, http://www.imfn.net/?q=system/files/Discussion%20Paper%2002%20%28Carbon%29.pdf
  39. Thomson AM, Izaurralede RC, Smith SJ, Clarke LE (2008) Integrated estimates of global terrestrial carbon sequestration. Glob Environ Chang 18:192–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. UNFCCC (1992) United Nations framework convention on climate change, Article 2. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf
  41. Voluntary Carbon Standard (2008) Voluntary carbon standard: guidance for agriculture, forestry and other land use projects. VCS Association, www.v-c-s.org
  42. Webster PJ, Holland GJ, Curry JA, Chang H-R (2005) Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration and intensity in a warming environment. Science 309(5742):1844–1846CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan Haskett
    • 1
  • Bernhard Schlamadinger
    • 2
  • Sandra Brown
    • 3
  1. 1.World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)GPO NairobiKenya
  2. 2.Joanneum ResearchInstitute of Energy ResearchGrazAustria
  3. 3.Winrock InternationalArlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations