|
Reporting on LULUCF activities under the Kyoto Protocol
|
|
|
|
A. Definitions, modalities, rules and guidelines for LULUCF activities under Articles 3.3 and
3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol
COP 4 (November 1998) considered the report (FCCC/CP/1998/INF.4) on a
SBSTA workshop on data availability based on definitions used by Parties and international organizations in
relation to Article 3.3 and the submissions by Parties (FCCC/CP/1998/MISC.1 and
Add.1 and Add.2 and FCCC/CP/1998/MISC.9 and
Add.1 and Add.2). The COP
decided to recommend draft decisions, for adoption by COP/MOP at its first session, on definitions related to
activities under Article 3.3 and modalities, rules and guidelines as to how, and which additional
human-induced activities might be included under Article 3.4, and to do so after the IPCC Special Report on LULUCF had been completed and considered by
the SBSTA (see decision 9/CP.4).
COP 5 (October/November 1999) endorsed a work programme and a decision-making framework on LULUCF to enable
these draft decisions (recommended at COP 4) to be adopted by COP 6 (November 2000) (see decision 16/CP.5). As part of the negotiations, SBSTA
invited Parties to submit country-specific data and information on the LULUCF sector according to a standard
format agreed at SBSTA 12 (June 2000). Work continued inter-sessionally with several SBSTA workshops
convened on LULUCF. The IPCC Special
Report on LULUCF was formally presented to SBSTA 12.
Parties failed to reach agreement on LULUCF matters at COP 6 in The Hague (November 2000), as part of a
package of decisions under the Buenos Aires Plan of Action. Negotiating texts on LULUCF issues
were forwarded to a resumed session of COP 6 for further consideration ( FCCC/CP/2000/5/Add.3 (Vol. IV)).
At COP 6 part II (July 2001), Parties adopted the Bonn Agreement on the implementation of the
Buenos Aires Plan of Action, registering political agreement on key issues, including those on
LULUCF. The most important issues regarding LULUCF included definitions for all activities under
Article 3.3 and 3.4, and rules by which activities under Article 3.4 will operate for the first commitment
period. A draft decision text was finalized and later adopted at COP 7.
COP 7 (October/November 2001) adopted a decision on LULUCF and related issues as part of the Marrakesh
Accords (refer to Decision 11/CP.7). This
decision by COP 7 recommended that the COP/MOP, at its first session, adopt a decision on land use, land-use
change and forestry. This decision has now been adopted by the COP/MOP, at its first session, as
decision 16/CMP.1.
Decision 16/CMP.1 consists of three main
elements:
- A set of
principles to govern the treatment of LULUCF activities;
- A common
definition for “Forest,” plus definitions for activities under Article 3.3 and agreed activities
under Article 3.4; and
-
modalities, rules and guidelines relating to the accounting of activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4.
|
|
|
|
B. Reporting LULULCF activities under the Kyoto Protocol
|
|
|
|
Discussions on the use of the IPCC
good practice guidance for LULUCF in the preparation of national GHG inventories at SBSTA 19 (FCCC/SBSTA/2003/15,
paragraph 24(b)–(e)) did not include any related discussion to the Kyoto Protocol. Parties needed
some time to further consider the IPCC good practice guidance for LULUCF and decided to postpone a decision
on this matter until COP 10. The SBSTA took note of the information contained in document FCCC/SBSTA/2003/INF.11
on a draft common reporting format (CRF) for LULUCF under the Kyoto Protocol. Following submissions by
Parties (FCCC/SBSTA/2004/MISC.1),
these draft tables of the CRF for LULUCF activities under the Kyoto Protocol were updated to facilitate
further consideration of this topic at SBSTA 20.
SBSTA 20 (FCCC/SBSTA/2004/6,
paragraphs 11–19) considered and elaborated the updated draft tables of the CRF for LULUCF activities
under the Kyoto Protocol, contained in FCCC/SBSTA/2004/INF.1,
taking into account the submissions by Parties (FCCC/SBSTA/2004/MISC.1).
SBSTA 21 (FCCC/SBSTA/2004/13,
paragraphs 26–28) finalized the elaboration of these tables of the CRF for LULUCF activities under the
Kyoto Protocol and recommended a draft decision, including a draft decision to be forwarded to COP/MOP at its
first session, for adoption by COP 10 (December 2004).
The decision on “Good practice guidance for land use, land-use change and forestry activities under
Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Kyoto Protocol” ( decision 15/CP.10) was adopted by the COP at its
tenth session. The decision encouraged Annex I Parties that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol to
submit in 2007, on a voluntary basis, estimates of GHGs from activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4, using the
tables of the CRF as well as follow the guidance on supplementary information on these LULUCF activities
contained in this decision (the tables of the CRF are available in document FCCC/CP/2004/10/Add.2,
pages 47–61). Following this, Parties were invited to submit their views on these tables of the
CRF and accounts of their experiences on the use of these tables.
The draft decision on “Good practice guidance for land use, land-use change and forestry activities
under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Kyoto Protocol”, attached to decision 15/CP.10, was adopted by the COP/MOP, at its first
session, as decision 17/CMP.1.
This COP/MOP decision decided that Annex I Parties that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol shall apply the IPCC
good practice guidance for LULUCF, in a manner consistent with the Kyoto Protocol, in their provision of
information on GHG emissions and removals from LULUCF activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 for the first
commitment period. After the SBSTA, at its twenty-seventh session (December 2007), has considered the
views by Parties relating to their experiences on the use of these CRF tables, these tables will be updated
and incorporated in an annex to this decision.
|
|
|
|
C. Completion of the technical guidance on methodologies for adjustments under the
Kyoto Protocol
|
|
|
|
The SBSTA, at its twenty-second session (FCCC/SBSTA/2005/4,
paragraphs 34–40), completed the technical
guidance on methodologies for adjustments under Article 5, paragraph 2 of the Kyoto Protocol that
includes guidance on adjustments for estimates of anthropogenic emissions and removals from land use,
land-use change and forestry. The original technical guidance, as adopted by decision 20/CP.9, included all other inventory
sectors except LULUCF. This additional guidance on methodologies for adjustments would be applicable to
emissions and removals of LULUCF in the base year for the purpose of establishing the assigned amount under
Article 3, paragraph 7 and for estimates of emissions and removals from activities under Article 3,
paragraphs 3 and 4.
The COP/MOP, at its first session, adopted a decision ( 21/CMP.1) on issues relating to adjustments under
Article 5, paragraph 2, of the Kyoto Protocol. In addition, the secretariat established a process that
enabled expert review teams to gain experience with the methods for adjustments of LULUCF estimates during
the inventory review period of 2007–2008.
|
|
|
|
D. Criteria for cases of failure to submit information relating to GHG estimates of LULUCF
activities under the Kyoto Protocol
|
|
|
|
The SBSTA, at its twenty-third session (FCCC/SBSTA/2005/10,
paragraphs 48–52), developed criteria for cases of failure to submit information relating to estimates
of greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks from activities under Article 3, paragraphs
3 and 4, of the Kyoto Protocol, similar to those described in paragraph 3 of decision 15/CMP.1, and recommended a decision on this matter
for adoption by COP/MOP at its first session.
By this decision ( 18/CMP.1), an
Annex I Party shall not issue removal units (RMU) for a specific activity under Article 3, paragraph 3 or a
specific elected activity under Article 3, paragraph 4, associated with the year of the commitment period, if
the magnitude of the adjustments to that activity exceeds 9 per cent for that year.
More information on adjustments under Article 5.2 and criteria for cases of failure can be found at the
following weblink on “Guidelines under Articles 5, 7 and 8: Methodological Issues,
Reporting and Review under the Kyoto Protocol”:
back <<
|
|
|
|