OPPORTUNITIES AND
CHALLENGES
The technical potential for mitigating climate change through biological carbon manage-
ment, both through storage and sequestration is large. How well that potential can be
realised depends on having a suitable policy framework to enable it. This section consid-
ers how ecosystem carbon is treated within existing climate policy and some of the op-
portunities and challenges for increasing the role it can play.
ECOSYSTEM CARBON MANAGEMENT IN
INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE POLICY
International climate policy only partly addresses emissions from land use change and
does little to support biosequestration activities. The development of a comprehensive
policy framework under UNFCCC for addressing ecosystem carbon management would
be a very significant advance.
The potential of ecosystem carbon management is recognised The current policy framework for the land use sector has sever-
in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate al shortcomings (Cowie et al. 2007; Schlamadinger et al. 2007;
Change (UNFCCC) and its Kyoto Protocol through the LU- Hohne et al. 2007). One of these is the lack of involvement of de-
LUCF (Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry) sector. Un- veloping countries, as described above. Another concern is the in-
der the LULUCF, developed (Annex I) countries must report complete coverage of carbon sources and sinks as Parties are only
on carbon stock changes from afforestation, reforestation and required to account for forestry activities. All other activities are
deforestation (since 1990), and can also elect to report on the voluntary and there is no option for wetland accounting (Schlama-
additional activities of forest management, cropland manage- dinger et al. 2007; Henschel et al. 2008). Other issues include
ment, grazing land management, and revegetation (Robledo the complex monitoring and reporting requirements, the require-
and Blaser 2008). Developing countries have no requirement ment to account for managed lands only, and the difficulties in
or opportunity to account for emissions and sequestration ac- factoring out anthropogenic from natural disturbances (Benndorf
tivities in the land use sector. Although developed countries et al. 2007). Perhaps the biggest criticism is that emissions re-
can gain credit for forestry projects in developing countries ductions from the land use sector were not taken into account in
through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), the rules the formulation of targets for developed countries, but can still be
are restrictive (Dutschke 2007; Schlamadinger et al. 2007) used to meet them. This has led many to see LULUCF as an off-
and at the time of writing only three CDM forestry projects set mechanism, rather than one that achieves overall emissions
had been accepted. reductions (Cowie et al. 2007; Schlamadinger et al. 2007).
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68