Background of the BD in CC Think Tank
The initiative to integrate biodiversity in the Kyoto mechanism was brought forward during the Green Week 2006, where it was received with enthusiasm by several speakers and participants (professors, international environmental organisations and European Commission).
Content of this section:
Forests in the Kyoto Protocol
Initiatives to include biodiversity in the Kyoto Protocol
Initiatives to integrate biodiversity in climate change
Advice on the integration of biodiversity considerations into the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol
Forests in the Kyoto Protocol
The Kyoto Protocol (1997) has provided a way to for Annex 1 Parties under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to meet their emission reduction commitments by taking into account net changes in greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by so-called 'sinks', "resulting from direct human-induced land-use change and forestry activities, limited to afforestation, reforestation and deforestation since 1990, measured as verifiable changes in carbon stocks in each commitment period" (article 3.3 and 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol). The inclusion of LULUCF (land use, land-use change and forestry) in the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol has been a difficult process, "typified by confusion, manipulated science, obfuscation and poor decision making" (Fry, 2002). The main areas of discussion among the negotiating countries in this seemingly chaotic process concerned the types of LULUCF activities to be included, the definitions of these activities including the periods over which they should be counted, limitations on the amount of sinks to be allowed and the amount of carbon stored or released by such activities (see also Ian FRY, "Twists and Turns in the Jungle: Exploring the Evolution of Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry Decisions within the Kyoto Protocol", RECIEL 11 (2) 2002).
Afforestation and reforestation are currently eligible LULUCF activities under the Protocol. Through the Clean Development Mechanism (which has the purpose to assist non-Annex 1 Parties in achieving sustainable development and in contributing to the ultimate objective of the UNFCCC and to assist Annex 1 Parties in achieving compliance with their quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments (Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol) Annex I Parties to the UNFCCC (industrialised countries) can reduce their greenhouse gasses by undertaking projects in developing countries, through which they can be rewarded Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs). A CER can be sold or counted toward Annex I countries' emissions commitments. Reductions must be additional to any that would otherwise occur. A/R CDM projects. However, LULUCF activities do not necessarily benefiting biodiversity...
Besides that, LULUCF is explicitely excluded from the EU Emmissions Trading Scheme over the first and second trading period (= until 2012). A review of the ETS is currently being prepared, a report of which will be ready in the next couple of weeks on DG Environment's ETS website.
Review on LULUCF: The need for simplicity is emphasised in the Commission's Communication on further guidance on allocation plans for the 2008 to 2012 trading period of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, COM(2005)703 final. This simplicity would be diminished by expanding the credits used in the scheme to 'lCERs' and 'tCERs' issued to projects begun until 2012 under the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism. The treatment of land-use and forestry from 2013 will only be decided as part of negotiations on the second commitment period. This review concerns the EU emissions trading scheme from 2013, and the Commission does not wish to pre-empt agreement in the context of the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol on the treatment of land use and forestry. The EU is engaged in discussions on a number of approaches to land-use, land-use change and forestry from 2013 under the UNFCCC.
On March 29th, 2006, the World Bank convened a group of policymakers to review options for including forestry credits in the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS). A number of European Member States requested the meeting because they felt it was time to revisit this topic since much had changed since the first EU ETS Linking Directive was negotiated almost three years ago. We, at the Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA), could not agree more. The purpose of the workshop, held at the British Council in Brussels, was to bring together key European climate policymakers to candidly discuss this issue and identify possible ways forward. A diverse team of organizations, the CCBA among them, worked to dispel misinformation and report recent developments. The day ended with a lively discussion about solutions for addressing the technical and legal barriers currently preventing Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) projects from being included in the ETS. http://ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/article.opinion.php?component_id=4271&component_version_id=6141&language_id=12
Initiatives to include biodiversity in the Kyoto Protocol
The integration of biodiversity in the Kyoto Protocol has been addressed in 2003 in a paper prepared by the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Biodiversity and Climate Change of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Interlinkages between biological diversity and climate change and advice on the integration of biodiversity considerations into the implementation of the Untied Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol (CBD Technical Series no. 10 [2003]) was prepared in response to a request of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. The paper examines the interlinkages between climate change and biodiversity, the impacts of climate change on biodiversity, the potential effects of activities for the mitigation and adaptation to climate change on biodiversity, and the role of biodiversity in mitigating climate change and contributing to adaptation options for climate change. The paper also reviews the approaches and tools such as criteria and indicators, environmental impact assessment, and decision analytic frameworks, that can facilitate the application of scientific advice for the integration of biodiversity considerations into the implementation of measures that might be taken under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol to mitigate or adapt to climate change. The paper concludes with a review of lessons learned from country experiences on harmonisation of climate-change-mitigation and adaptation activities and their biodiversity considerations. (The paper extends the IPPC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -'s Technical Paper on Climate Change and Biodiversity produced in 2002 in response to a request from the SBSTTA - Subsidiary Body for Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice - of the CBD).
The Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on biodiversity and climate change is no longer in existence. (Its work has been published as CBD Technical Series No. 25 Guidance for promoting synergy among activities addressing biological diversity, desertification, land degradation and climate change, which will be launched during the "high-level segment" of the UNFCCC CoP in November 2006).
Initiatives to integrate biodiversity in climate change
The CBD's latest Decision VIII/30: Biodiversity and climate change: guidance to promote synergy among activities for biodiversity conservation, mitigating or adapting to climate change and combating land degradation was adopted during CoP 8 in March, 2006. This decision requests amongst others the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice, while respecting the mandate of the UNFCCC, to develop draft guidance on how to integrate relevant climate change impacts and response activities into the programmes of work of the Convention and invites Parties, other Governments, relevant organizations and research institutions to develop, support, and review, as appropriate, pilot and/or ongoing projects involving joint actions within the objectives of the three Rio conventions (the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, the World Heritage Convention, the Convention on Migratory Species) and other relevant multilateral environmental agreements in order to promote better understanding and functioning of synergy among these.
The Joint Liaison Group (JLG) of the Rio Conventions was established in August 2001 as an informal forum for exchanging information, exploring opportunities for synergistic activities and increasing co-ordination between the three Rio Conventions (the CBD, United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification and the UNFCCC). It comprises the officers of the Conventions’ scientific subsidiary bodies, the Executive Secretaries, and members of the secretariats. The UNEP has recently developed the Issue based Modules for coherent implementation of biodiversity-related conventions (Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, World Heritage Convention, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, Convention on Migratory Species and Convention on Biological Diversity), which has Climate Change as one of the four priority cross-cutting issues (identified as 'of common concern to all five conventions').
Furthermore, international organisations have been playing a key role in the biodiversity and climate change debate, like the IUCN's Climate Change Programme, which facilitates linkages between environmental conventions and sectors by providing them clear and authoritative information and analysis of technical issues of biodiversity, wetlands and climate change. "A strong IUCN Climate Change Programme is essential for this linkage work to be successful, and to provide Parties with guidance on tackling the overarching issue of climate change in delivering their future wise use of wetlands" (Speech Ramsar Convention on IUCN World Conservation Congress).
Advice on the integration of biodiversity considerations into the implementation of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol
Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Biodiversity and Climate Change (CBD Technical Series no. 10 [2003]) Approaches for supporting planning, decision making and public discussions recommendations:
There is a clear opportunity to implement mutually beneficial activities (policies and projects) that take advantage of the synergies between the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol, the Convention on Biological Diversity and broader national development objectives. These opportunities are rarely being realized due to a lack of national coordination among sectoral agencies to design policy measures that exploit potential synergies between national economic development objectives and environmentally focused projects and policies. In addition, there is a lack of coordination among the multilateral environmental agreements, specifically among the mitigation and adaptation activities undertaken by Parties to the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol, and activities to conserve and sustainably manage ecosystems undertaken by Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Experience shows that transparent and participatory decision-making processes involving all relevant stakeholders, integrated into project or policy design from the beginning, can enhance the probability of long-term success. Decisions are value-laden and combine political and technocratic elements. Ideally, they should combine problem identification and analysis, policy-option identification, policy choice, policy implementation, and monitoring and evaluation in an iterative fashion. Decision-making processes and institutions operate at a range of spatial scales from the village community to the global level.
Private Forest Owners and Climate Change
The private forest owners (CEPF, Confederation of European Forest Owners) see a clear potential for integration of Sustainable Forest Management in climate change policy Climate Change Strategy of the CEPF. In particular the last page "discussions - further development" is important.
The efforts to incorporate biodiversity aspects in climate change policies have not yet led to concrete policy proposals. However as earlier mentioned by the UNEP/CBD Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Biodiversity, the European Commission Director-General of Environment, a number of professors, the ENGOs and natural resource owners and managers, there is a clear potential for a more efficient and effective integration of policies.
Go To: Aim of the BD in CC Thinktank