1 Questions  Forest related outcomes of the UNFCCC meeting in Cancun (COP16) and EU’s position regarding forest in the ongoing climate change negotiations  Explaining the reference level and its benefits  Role of forest in achieving the EU’s climate change commitments: outcome of the informal expert group work and of the public consultation

2 Cancun outcome UNFCCC COP16  Overall targets:  2°C objective (assess whether 1,5°C possible)  Pledges under Copenhagen Accord anchored (EU: 20-30)  Fate of the Kyoto Protocol?  LULUCF Decision  LULUCF Draft Decision

3 LULUCF Decision  LULUCF will count towards targets under KP  No agreement for accounting method for forest management, but: –Force majeure rules –Submission of draft reference levels by 28 February – review process

4 LULUCF draft Decision  Agreement reached between EU, Umbrella group (non-EU, non-US Annex I), G77&China – resistance from small island states and NGOs  Mandatory accounting for forest management (in addition to afforestation, deforestation, reforestation)  Reference level for forest management (projected, historical)  Review procedure for RL  Natural disturbance (force majeure)  Quantitative limitation of contribution of FM (cap)  Obligatory inclusion of harvested wood products (solid wood, paper) on the basis of standard decay functions or more refined approaches  (no change of voluntary accounting for agricultural soils)

5 Way ahead  Reference level: –Submission by 28 February –Improve analysis of what RLs should be, and associated mitigation potential – needed for final negotiations on commitments  Confirmation of HWP agreement  Force Majeure: –definition (single events vs collective) –trigger level  Nature of forest management cap (exemption from cap if historical RL?)  Status of special rules (compensation rule)

6 Accounting for forests  No comparison with reference year (gross/net)  Forest growth generates credits  Capping of credits to 15%  -> „free credit for most Parties“  -> limited/no incentives for mitigation  Projections of carbon stock developments  Only deviations from baseline count  Force majeure (natural disturbances,compliance risks)  Harvested Wood Products  Cap? OldNew (EU, Umbrella, G77&China)

7 LULUCF trends cropland grassland forests (excluding afforestation and deforestation) reference year 1990 Source: IIASA cap

8 Shift in age class structure

9 Historical data from country ? Elaboration of reference level

10 Problems: reproducing historical trends The original models’ results indicated a total sink for the period in the 16 MS considered which is about 25% less than what reported in the GHG inventories. This is compatible with the high uncertainties typically reported for LULUCF. 1. Models results (sum of 16 MS): for many MS the initial models’ results not so close to inventories

11 “ Calibrated ” results Overall, for the 16 MS, in the period models project a sink 17% lower than the average of , due to ageing forest structure and higher harvest rates. Sensitivity analysis: a +/-20% of harvest would lead to a variation of the sink of about +/-25%, corresponding to +/-1.6% of the total 1990 emissions 16 the MS (but varies a lot among MS!)

12 Impact of different assumptions of future harvest of specific MS (only for those with IIASA/EFI/JRC projections), in % 1990 GHG emissions (without LULUCF) Impact of assumptions

13 Conclusions RL  Broad political agreement, intra-EU & international  Equal accounting for emissions from biomass and fossil sources  Addresses age-class structure  “Net-net” type of accounting creates disincentive for wood mobilisation  Uncertainties of modelling  Cheating possible? AdvantagesDisadvantages

14 Implications for EU climate legislation Targets  -2° Objective: stepping up of 2020 target? Include LULUCF into EU mitigation commitment?  CLIMA report June 2011 –If, how, when? –Coverage (forests, soils)? –Which accounting rules? –Which policy framework (ETS, ESD, new)?

15 Public Consultation 1  153 respondents  Almost 2/3 want LULUCF to become part of EU GHG commitments

16 Public Consultation 2 The majority (82%) considered that existing EU and MS policies are insufficient to ensure that land use activities contribute to climate change mitigation and that all activities need to be addressed via a combination of regional, MS and EU policies (63%)

17 Member States 1  14 MS responded, same questions, similar trends with a few exceptions:

18 Public consultation   Summary:

19 Stakeholder conference 28/1/2011  Follows up from ECCP working group  MS, NGOs, economic sectors, academia   No clearly emerging “simple” solution  LULUCF inclusion desirable in the long run  Policy framework: ESD or stand-alone framework

20 Thank you for further questions: