Submission
The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) is pleased to present its initial views on the relevant questions and issues for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to consider in their preparations for a special report on land-use change and forestry. In general, AOSIS is in favour of very strict considerations to be met if land use change and forestry activities are to be included in the mitigation efforts of the industrialised countries. The involvement of the IPCC in seeking to resolve the numerous scientific, technical and economic uncertainties and problems associated with land-use change and forestry and their subsequent implications on how to operationalize the Kyoto Protocol is therefore most welcome. In order to assist the Secretariat in their work, AOSIS has based this submission on the original Annex A presented by the Secretariat in the discussions of this matter at SBSTA-8. It is the view of AOSIS that the IPCC in its special report should examine the technical and scientific issues related to forests, other land uses, and land-use change, including implications of forest and land-use change activities, and sequestration strategies and practices on water (including freshwater, surface water and ground water), soils, biodiversity, and other environmental and socio-economic effects; and the overall contribution of forests, land-use, and land-use change to global emissions by sources and removals by sinks. The special report should also consider the issues of direct human induced activities in the most comprehensive sense, for example to cover issues such as forest fires being set early in the dry season to avoid much larger fires later in the dry season, how to differentiate such activities from the purely accidental, as well as issues relating to the establishment of baselines for these activities. The IPCC special report should address the implications of the use of carbon stock changes from the land-use change and forestry activities to offset fossil fuel emissions on the ultimate objective of the Convention of stabilizing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere so as to prevent dangerous climate change, on long and short time scales. Article 3.3: 1. Forests How could forests be defined? 2. Afforestation, reforestation and deforestation How could afforestation be defined? How could reforestation be defined? How could reforestation be distinguished from other forest management practices? How long must an area exist as another land-use type prior to reforestation in order to assist in the definition of reforestation? What are the implications for the first and subsequent commitment periods? What methodologies are required for assessing species succession as carbon sinks after forest fires? Will this be considered as reforestation? What time period is appropriate to establish that reforestation is taking place vis-à-vis species succession? How should the term "planting of forests” be defined? How would different definitions of the term “historical” affect accounting during the first commitment period? How could deforestation be defined? How long must an area exist as another land use type prior to deforestation? What are the implications of having the first and subsequent commitment periods not conjunct? How could forest degradation be included in the definition of deforestation? Could reforestation and deforestation be defined in a symmetrical fashion between 1990 and the first commitment period? What are the implications of different definitions for the protection of primary forests and other natural carbon reservoirs such as wetlands? What are the potential perverse incentives resulting from different definitions in combination with the accounting of carbon stock changes during commitment periods? 3. Direct human-induced activities What data, information and methodologies are available to estimate changes in carbon stock from direct human-induced activities? What data, information and methodologies are available to estimate non-anthropogenic changes in carbon stock? How can one distinguish between the changes in carbon stock due to non-anthropogenic phenomena and direct-human-induced activities? How does one define and categorise direct human-induced activities? How can one distinguish between unintended and deliberate human-induced activity on changes in carbon stock, including indirect human effects such as changes in fire frequency, pest and disease outbreaks, air pollution and effects of anthropogenic climate change? 4. Carbon stocks What are the implications of the different time-scales governing the terrestrial biosphere, carbon stocks and changes in relation to: a) the different timescales of fossil fuel emissions; and b) the accounting during commitment periods and possible gaps between commitment periods, and the period before the first commitment period? What is the present emphasis given by Parties, and what emphasis should be given to the protection of important national carbon or ecological stocks, such as wetlands, coral reefs, coastal and marine areas, peatlands, mangroves and mangrove forests, primary forests and other forest ecosystems? What are the implications of feedbacks between the terrestrial biosphere and climate change for the use of land-use change and forestry activities to meet permanent emission reduction objectives? Article 3.4: What are the implications of adding a range of additional activities under Article 3.4? What framework could be used to guide the inclusion of additional activities? How could the "additional activities" referred to in Article 3.4 be determined? What definitions, data, information and methodologies are needed to estimate changes in carbon stock of such activities? What is the range of uncertainty associated with each activity? Which institutions are likely to be engaged in additional 3.4 activities? Are the accounting approaches discussed for Article 3.3 valid for additional activities under Article 3.4? What information is available to assist the SBSTA in its consideration of which additional activities should be included? Questions related to both Article 3.3 and 3.4 What methods and data are available for realistically estimating changes in carbon stock for each activity identified by the IPCC? Which methods or combinations of methods have to be applied to account for the long term carbon flux of ecosystems, including disturbances like fires? Are complete carbon balances necessary to assess the real carbon stock changes due to activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4? How many carbon pools, such as above-ground and below-ground biomass, soils, landfill, products and fossil-fuel substitutes, should be included in the definition of carbon stocks, and under what circumstances? What are the methodologies for estimating or measuring changes in these respective carbon pools? What are the implications of including/excluding different pools for the initial and possible subsequent periods. What are the potential impacts of land-use change and forestry activities on indigenous peoples and local communities? What are the implications to biological diversity of additional and current land-use change and forestry activities? Are adjustments required to the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for estimating green house gas removals and sinks for land-use change and forestry or for estimating changes in carbon stocks? If needed, how should the IPCC Guidelines be adjusted in a manner consistent with their application by the UNFCCC? What are the implications of using (or not using) the revised 1996 guidelines in the first commitment period? What methods are available to quantify uncertainties? How could uncertainties be reported? What approaches could be used to “discount” estimated values? What are the implications of uncertainties to the verifiability of compliance with the commitments under Article 3? What options and methodologies exist to monitor and verify changes in carbon stocks for each specific activity under Articles 3.3 and 3.4? Are they sufficient? What institutional or technical needs would be required for such monitoring and verification? What options and methodologies exist to provide transparency in reporting under Article 3.3 and 3.4? How can the responses to this question be linked to the first item in this paper? What are the economic implications of the previous two questions? Should the type of data required for projects be different from, or consistent with, the type of data received for national green house gas inventories? What could be the format for reporting each type of data? What are the potential perverse incentives resulting from different definitions and methodological approaches and application of the 1996 revised guidelines? What types of supplementary information and/or new regimes (i.e. reporting, enforcement, verification, etc.) for land-use change and forestry activities might be required under Article 7.1 for the purposes of demonstrating compliance? Full-accounting approach Is it possible to develop a full accounting approach rather than an activity-specific approach as described in Article 3.4? What would be the implication for assigned amounts? Are methods available and if not when could they be available?
