Potential for LULUCF projects under JI

Zoltan Somogyi*

zoltan.somogyi@jrc.it

Bernhard Schlamadinger

bernhard.schlamadinger@joanneum.at

UNFCCC Technical Workshop on Joint Implementation Bonn, 9-10 March 2006

* “The views expressed are purely those of the author and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission."

LULUCF is more than AR:

• Afforestation (A)

• Reforestation (R)

• Deforestation (D)

• Revegetation (RV)

• Cropland Management (CM)

• Grazing Land Management (GM)

• Forest Management (FM)

1. Some potential types of JI projects

CM:

Switching to no-till

management

Avoiding use

of fertilizers

…

GM

Restoration of grasslands

Reducing CH4 emissions

from livestock

…

timeCP-1

Emissions from till, fertilization (N2O)*, from livestock (CH4)*…

Reduction due to project activity

Projects to reduce emissions

* KP Annex A

CO2 sequestered

time

“Sink” projects

AR: converting marginal land

Improved FM

FM: Fire prevention / forest protection

Avoiding Deforestation

Avoiding “fast out” emissions

timeCP-1

CO2 fixed

Possible reduction due to project activity

2. List of current LULUCF JI projects

•

• Afforestation project / Romania– PCF

– 6 thousand ha - 3.08 million US$ -

1,6 Mt CO2 eq

• Chernobyl Reforestation / Ukraine– BCF

– 15 thousand ha - 0.44 Mt CO2e by 2012

– No project documents yet

2. List of current LULUCF JI projects

The AR in Romania „seeks to rehabilitate degraded forests, and to improve soil fertility, soil stabilization, and ecological integrity“

Source: http://carbonfinance.org/

„The PCF has signed a long-term Emission Reductions Purchase Agreement (ERPA) for the delivery of nearly 900,000 tonnes of tCO2e by the NFA to the PCF at an agreed price of US$ 3.60 per tCO2e”

Source: http://carbonfinance.org/

In the Ukraine Project,

„the land will not be suitable for the production of crops, milk or meat for human consumption for the next 80-100 years“

Source: http://carbonfinance.org/

The Chernobil Reforestation project would

- „also provide an important environmental service”,

- „help protect biodiversity”,

- „also provide social benefits” with

- „leakage very unlikely” &

- „reduced risk of non-permanence”

Source: http://carbonfinance.org/

Potentials are - limited

• Annual CDM potential: – Max: 1% of A-I emissions = ~180 Gt CO2

– Currently contracted (till 2017) + additional projects: ~ 18 Mt CO2 = 0.1 % of A-I emissions

• Hypothetical AR JI projects (during CP-1):10 * 10 thousand ha * 5 tCO2/ha/yr = 0,5 Mt CO2/yr

• Hypothetical JI projects to avoid forest fire

100,000 ha * 50 tCO2/ha/yr = 5 Mt CO2/yr

CO2 sequestered

timeCP-1 Further CPs?

3. Limits to potentials

“slow in

”

Other biophysical factors

• shorter time is left than for CDM projects

• some FM actions may yield few ERUs

• growth rates are lower in temperate/boreal zones than in the tropics

Further notes on AR

• large areas available

• demand for wood is likely to increase

• potential emissions from soil if grassland is converted

• fast growing species may yield earlier and more ERUs

Other forestry issues

• some forestry project types are long-term by nature: investments today are the biomass fuels of tomorrow

• combined with energy projects?

• potentials exist for additional benefits

• potential conflicts in non-carbon issues (species selection, afforesting protected areas…)

Risk of non-permanence

• Specific to some LULUCF projects

• The risk itself may rest:– tCERS and lCERs: with the investor – ERUs: with the host country, unless there is a

contractual rule that changes this

• May occur after CP-1

Non-biophysical issues

• Unlike energy-type JI projects, some LULUCF JI projects may not earn the country a lower emission, and are not likely if, in the host country,

– activity not elected (all 3.4; due by the end of 2006)

– cap applies and removals are higher than cap (FM)

– Art 3.3 is a source

• some FM actions may lead to leakage

• due to lacking sense of urgency, LULUCF has not been a priority

• no experience in JI rules

• AR only tested in CDM, with very few exceptions

Non-biophysical issues (ctd.)

• First focus on likely project types: AR

• Bottom-up approach?

• Inquire with potential host countries to see which project types are contemplated?

4. Some suggestions to the JISC

4. Some suggestions to the JISC

• Consider allowing approved CDM AR meths

• Consider amending the small-scale methodology for CDM AR projects

• Overlap with the CDM WG AR?