These shortcomings mean that ecosystem carbon manage- importance of complete carbon accounting in the land use sec-
ment is not currently supported by international policy. This tor (Cowie et al. 2007; Schlamadinger et al. 2007; Benndorf et
could change in the future, as the next climate agreement is al. 2007; Hohne et al. 2007).
currently under discussion. Whether or not a more effective
policy framework is created will depend on issues such as Although it is generally agreed that any future climate change
whether ‘all lands’ are included, and whether the perception of agreement should aim to reduce all anthropogenic emissions
LULUCF can be changed from an offset mechanism to a sector from the land use sector (through a combination of LULUCF
capable of bringing about real reductions in emissions (Cowie and REDD activities), it is not yet clear if this will be achieved.
et al. 2007; Schlamadinger et al. 2007; Benndorf et al. 2007; Improvements in the coverage of land use activities under the
Hohne et al. 2007). The development of new policy is not likely LULUCF are under discussion for the next climate agreement,
to be simple. LULUCF was developed from a complex political to the extent that there is the option to include reporting on
process under considerable scientific uncertainty, and there are peatlands and wetlands (FCCC/KP/AWG/2009/L.3), and the
a number of factors that make accounting for emissions from carbon accounting framework is likely to be made more rig-
land use difficult, such as the issues of permanence, leakage orous. However, most of the additional activities are likely to
and additionality (see glossary) that will need to be addressed. remain voluntary, as mandatory accounting across all ecosys-
tems appears neither politically or technically feasible. In ad-
Much of the discussion on future land-use based commitments dition, the relationship between LULUCF and REDD is still to
to date has been focussed on forest. The Bali Action Plan, ad- be determined. It does not currently look likely that developing
opted by the UNFCCC at the thirteenth session of its Confer- countries will be required to account for emissions from any
ence of the Parties (COP-13) held in Bali in December 2007, ecosystem other than forest.
mandates Parties to negotiate a post-2012 instrument for re-
duced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in Since any land-based carbon management policy must consider
developing countries (REDD) (Decision 1/CP.13). The Parties land tenure and enforcement issues, several international hu-
specified that the development of such an instrument should man rights instruments become relevant, such as the Interna-
take into consideration ‘the role of conservation, sustainable tional Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and
management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
stocks in developing countries.’ The inclusion of REDD in the People (Brown et al. 2008). In the context of multilateral envi-
next climate agreement would partly address emissions from ronmental agreements, the need to explore synergies between
the land use sector in developing countries. The scope of REDD the UNFCCC and the CBD alongside links with national devel-
is still to be determined, but could significantly increase the opment plans has been recognised (Reid and Huq 2005; Blak-
potential for carbon management if it includes carbon stock ers 2008), as well as necessary overlaps with the UNCCD, as
enhancement (Eliasch 2008). desertification, biodiversity and climate change are also closely
linked (Lal 2007). However, differences between the conven-
Although reducing emissions from the forest sector is clearly tions in constituencies and administrative arrangements con-
important, this report has also emphasised the need to reduce tinue to present challenges.
emissions through activities in non-forest ecosystems, particu-
larly peatlands and agriculture. This will require the mobilisa- The extent to which climate policy adequately covers land based
tion of investment in appropriate land use activities (Hohne et emissions and removals and achieves real emissions reduc-
al. 2007), and there have been some suggestions that non-for- tions is likely to influence the extent to which countries adopt
est carbon should be included in any successor to the Kyoto ecosystem carbon management in practice. Current land use
Protocol. The Terrestrial Carbon Group advocates the inclu- based mitigation policies do not provide the kind of framework
sion of all biomass and soil carbon (TCG 2008), the FAO has that is required to deliver the incentive mechanisms recom-
proposed that agriculture be included on the grounds that its mended in this report. The development of a comprehensive
mitigation potential is high relative to the sector’s emissions policy framework under UNFCCC for addressing ecosystem
(FAO 2009), and a number of authors have emphasised the carbon management would be a very significant advance.
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