By Charlotte Streck
The current rules of the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol fail to formulate a coherent vision for land-based emissions. Until the creation of an incentive framework for reduced emissions from deforestation there was little that encouraged developing countries to reduce emissions from unsustainable land use, and the accounting framework created by the Kyoto Protocol for developed countries established an continuously improving, but still incomplete set of rules for ‘land use, land-use change, and forestry’. The current negotiation of a future climate treaty presents an opportunity to create an integrated accounting and incentive framework for adaptation and mitigation strategies across all land uses. Land use accounts for roughly one-quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions, and a more comprehensive coverage and increased incentives for emission reductions from forestry and agriculture could unlock significant mitigation potential. In addition, the lack of comprehensive land-use coverage has resulted in serious difficulties in the case of bioenergy and biofuels, where indirect effects of land use have often been missed in national greenhouse gas inventories.
A post-2020 land-use agreement will have to address three main challenges: the full coverage of land-use emissions (i.e. from forests as well as agriculture); the differentiation between countries according to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities; the integration of adaptation and mitigation within land-use strategies. In addition the system should be coherent and consistent across landscapes and countries while creating incentives for a scaled up mitigation ambition and ensuring environmental integrity of the overall system.
There are no fundamental barriers to treating land use, both in adaptation and mitigation, on a basis comparable to other sectors. However, in some respects agriculture and forestry differ from the rest of the economy and these differences may justify special rules. Negotiators may consider the following special features of land use:
- Agriculture, adaptation and food security. There are some concerns that sector-specific mitigation commitments in agriculture may threaten states’ sovereignty over their own food security and lead to climate-motivated trade measures. The recognition that for many countries the need to adapt agricultural practices and technologies to build more climate-resilient agriculture and allow for sustainable agricultural production is a priority. However, there are also cost efficient mitigation activities (e.g. demand-side measures, sustainable consumption) that may positively contribution to food security and should be encouraged.
- Adaptation. The land use sector has significant potential for synergies among the objectives of mitigation, adaptation, food security, and poverty reduction. In particular in relation to the agricultural sector, countries have stressed the need to consider adaptation and mitigation in an integrated manner.
- Natural disturbances and the legacy effect in the forestry sector. Dedicated rules may apply to the accounting for extreme weather events and variances of carbon stock in a managed ecosystem. Such rules (e.g. reference levels and discounting) may encourage countries to commit to bolder mitigation contributions in the land use sector.
- Reversal risk. There is a risk that climate benefits of land use activities are lost if land use changes and carbon stock is released. Rules encouraging permanence may help to ensure the sustainability of increased carbon contents and reduced emissions. Such rules should apply to all countries and could consist in buffers, temporary credits, state guarantees (for continued mitigation and coverage), among others.
- Uncertainty. Although there have been improvements in methods, carbon fluxes in biological systems can be difficult to estimate, and national capacities and systems for estimating carbon emissions from land use are often lacking. Parties may therefore consider supporting weaker countries in building their capacities in addition to promoting conservative estimates. Transparency should be encouraged.
Reviewing existing rules developed under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol shows that the tools to integrate different land uses and create a harmonized system exist. It is also clear that more comprehensive treatment of land use will enhance system integrity (e.g., better capture of the cross-sector spillovers in bioenergy) and fungibility can enhance the cost-effectiveness if it increases the range of lower cost mitigation opportunities available, relative to other sectors.
The challenge consists in bringing things together so that they create incentives for ambitious land use contributions for all countries taking into account their respective capabilities and national circumstances. In doing so, the land use sector should be linked to the broader climate architecture, while recognizing differences between the land use and other sectors. Flexibility and incentives should be provided for national circumstances and to maximize mitigation efforts overall, taking into account the need for comparability of mitigation efforts.
Further reading:
Land use in a future climate agreement
The land-use sector within the post-2020 climate regime
