Abstract
Annex I Parties may receive credits or debits from Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) activities, contributing to achieving individual emission reduction targets. In the Durban climate negotiations, Parties agreed new LULUCF accounting rules for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (CP2). By using these new rules, this paper presents key differences among Parties at the minimum (assuming no additional action) and potential (assuming additional actions) contribution of the forest-related LULUCF activities in achieving the pledges for 2020. Overall, the potential contribution of LULUCF is relatively modest (up to about 2 % of 1990 emissions) for the EU, the Annex I Parties likely joining the CP2, and for the Annex I Parties that joined the CP1 as a whole. However, for specific Parties, LULUCF can make a substantial contribution to achieving the pledges. For New Zealand, for instance, the potential contribution of future LULUCF credits may equal 33 % of its 1990 emission level. For Australia, the pledges are expressed relative to 2000 emission levels including LULUCF emissions. Given that LULUCF emissions have strongly declined between 1990 and 2000, and a further decline in foreseen by 2020 (based on Australia’s projections), the minimum contribution of LULUCF to meet the Australian pledges appears to be about 19 % and 7 % relative to its 1990 and 2000 emission level, respectively. A further 3 % potential contribution is estimated from additional actions.
Highlights
Throughout the paper, the “likely CP2 Parties” indicate the CP1 Parties, excluding Canada, Japan and Russia. 3 7th Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP7) 4 In this study, with base year emissions we refer to the aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the greenhouse gas (GHG) listed in Annex A sources, taken from 2012 GHG inventories, and we further considered the provisions of Art. 3.7 of the Kyoto Protocol where relevant
This paper presents some key differences among Parties in the minimum and potential contribution by the main LULUCF activities (AR, D and forest management (FM)) to achieving the pledges submitted by the Parties in the Cancún Agreements
Despite this analysis being based on a number of, in some cases, quite crude and uncertain assumptions, we believe that the main differences highlighted are robust and reflect different characteristics of the LULUCF sectors
Summary
In the United Nations climate negotiations urgent action was called for to limit global warming below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. 42 Annex I Parties (developed countries) have submitted quantified economy-wide emission targets for the year 2020.1 These pledges have subsequently been included in the 2010 Cancún Agreements (UNFCCC 2010). During the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (CP1), a series of complex accounting rules determine the amount of credits or debits from LULUCF activities. Credits contribute to achieving individual reduction targets, while debits increase the reduction required outside the LULUCF sector in order to meet commitments. Under these rules, the accounting is mandatory for afforestation/reforestation (AR) and deforestation (D) since 1990 and is voluntary (though mandatory if elected) for forest management (FM), cropland and grazing land management, and revegetation. Given the complexity and the uncertainty of the LULUCF sector, the aim of the paper is not to estimate accurately the expected credits for each Party, but rather to highlight the likely major differences in the contribution of LULUCF to achieving reduction pledges among Annex I Parties
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
