Annex-I Countries Research Articles

Assessment of GHG inventories from the LUCF sector of Annex-I countries

Reporting of CO2 emissions and removals from the landuse change and forestry (LUCF) sector is assessed in this paper based onthe National GHG inventories and the National Communications submittedby the Annex-I countries. LUCF sector is a net sink for 27 countries outof 31 countries and a source for Australia, Estonia, Lithuania and UnitedKingdom. LUCF sector for Annex-I countries, as a group is a net sink of2035 Tg CO2 (555 Tg Carbon). The sink feature is largely due toCO2 removal by the existing forests, plantations and other trees.Forest and grassland conversion (deforestation) is not a major source ofCO2 in the Annex-I countries. Many Annex-I countries have notfully adopted the reporting format of IPCC limiting the comparability andtransparency. Several Annex-I countries have modified the CO2emission/removal estimates for 1990, but have not explained the reasons.Reporting of uncertainty is very limited. The methods adopted andparticularly reporting is inadequate to meet the requirements foroperationalising the Kyoto Protocol articles relevant to LUCF;comparability, transparency and verifiability.

How could emissions trading benefit developing countries

This paper aims to show how an emissions trading system could work if some participating entities are allocated an “emissions budget” or non-binding target. This will allow them to sell allowances if their actual emissions are less than their budget, but will not obligate them to buy allowances if their emissions exceed their budget. Different rules aiming at ensuring the environmental integrity of such a system are considered. Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change may wish to consider building a regime where developing countries are allocated emissions budgets on some provisions of the Kyoto Protocol and in full respect with the principles of the Convention. In any case such system would be complementary to the Clean Development Mechanism. The potential benefits would be • to provide non-Annex-I (developing) countries with substantial capital inflows, and stimulate their economic growth; • to allow Annex-I (Industrialised) Countries achieving their Kyoto commitments at the lowest possible cost; • and to achieve global participation towards the objective of the Convention while reducing the risk of creating “tropical hot air” by giving some developing countries more allowances than they need under a “business-as-usual” scenario.

The Kyoto Negotiations on Climate Change: A Science Perspective

The Kyoto agreement means that the total annual emissions of greenhouse gases by Annex-I (that is, developed) countries during the next 10 to 15 years should stabilize at the level of their emissions in 1995, which represented a decrease since 1990 by 5%. Because any Annex-I Party can acquire reduction units from another such Party, it seems likely that Annex-1 countries that so far have not been able to reduce their emissions, primarily countries in economic transition such as Russia and Ukraine, will wish to buy emission permits from those that have substantially reduced their emissions. Since no emission targets were agreed for Non-Annex-I countries, the rate of increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations during the next 10-15 years will remain at about the same level as during the last decades and concentrations will reach about 380 ppmv by 2010.