Integrating agriculture forestry and other land use in future climate regimes
The current agreement under the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol takes a fragmented approach to emissions and removals from Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU): not all activities, not all gases and not all countries are included. Overmore, net removals can be used to offset emissions from other sectors as the sector "Land-Use Change and Forestry (LUCF) is not an integral part of the "quantified emission limitations or reductions commitments" or targets to which Parties included in Annex I to the UNFCCC have committed themselves. This report presents five policy options that can be employed by non-Annex I Parties on a voluntary basis, at a moment of their choice, that will lead to a broader and deeper participation under a possible post 2012 climate regime without hindering but rather promoting their development, whilst at the same time enabling Annex I parties to take on commitments that lead to deeper cuts in emissions.
Summary
The current agreement under the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol takes a fragmented approach to emissions and removals from Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU): not all activities, not all gases and not all lands are included. Overmore, net removals can be used to offset emissions from other sectors as the sector “Land-Use Change and Forestry” (LUCF) is not an integral part of the “quantified emission limitations or reduction commitments” or targets to which Parties included in Annex I to the UNFCCC have committed themselves.
The emissions in the AFOLU sector are significant and are predominantly located in non-Annex I countries. Having a large amount of emissions means there is also a significant mitigation potential in those countries. On the other side of the equation, if nations want to keep the option open to achieve the ultimate objective of the UNFCCC within a reasonable timeframe, the cut in emissions required under a possible post 2012 climate change mitigation regime needs to be significantly deeper compared to what has been agreed for the first commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol. Adding up these two aspects means that AFOLU needs to be brought into the equation. This could only ever be acceptable to non-Annex I Parties if this would not hinder their development but would rather propel it. Therefore, it should not lead to commitments for non-Annex I countries but be a tempting opportunity to improve national circumstances and to access (economic) benefits that result from an engagement in such an agreement.
This WAB report presents five policy options that can be employed by non-Annex I Parties on a voluntary basis, at a moment of their choice, that will lead to a broader and deeper participation under a possible post 2012 climate regime without hindering but rather promoting their development, whilst at the same time enabling Annex I parties to take on commitments that lead to deeper cuts in emissions.
Authors
Specifications
- Publication title
- Integrating agriculture forestry and other land use in future climate regimes
- Publication date
- 5 December 2006
- Publication type
- Publication
- Publication language
- English
- Product number
- 91913