1 / 12

Ken Andrasko Office of Atmospheric Programs

Workshop on Climate Change Mitigation Forestry Projects in India Sequestration Options in the Context of U.S. Climate Policy. Ken Andrasko Office of Atmospheric Programs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA at

troy-parks
Download Presentation

Ken Andrasko Office of Atmospheric Programs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Workshop on Climate Change Mitigation Forestry Projects in IndiaSequestration Options in the Context of U.S. Climate Policy Ken Andrasko Office of Atmospheric Programs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA at Workshop on Climate Change Mitigation Forestry Projects in India, Bangalore, July 10-12, 2003

  2. Technical Cooperation with Experts and Via Bilateral Relationships is Critical • FORCLIMIT: Forestry and Climate Change Mitigation Network, EPA & LBNL with in-country institutes & government • 2000-02: Indonesia, Philippines, and Malaysia: • Tech transfer & training in LBNL sinks models: COMAP. • Mitigation cost curves, by in-country experts • 2-3 stakeholder dialogs on policy & project issues: govt., private industry, NGOs, academics. Foreign experts. • Publication of results. • 2002-03: FORCLIMIT-India • Proposal: FORCLIMIT-Mexico • Same activities as above, or as agreed with country.

  3. Emerging Analytic Issues: SummaryHow Can We Identify and Mobilize Cost-Effective, Credible Sequestration Activities in the US and Internationally? • Assess data availability and needs • Identify promising options and regions • Assess co-benefits and co-effects of options: How do they affect farmers? Water quality? Wildlife? • Assess methods to address technical issues: additionality, baseline setting, leakage, monitoring, duration. • Assess policy and program options to deliver the best options.

  4. We Need to Evaluate Options Using Multiple Criteria, beyond Biophysical Potential • Criterion1: Biophysical Potential • - Saturation of C in pools • Criterion 2: Economic Potential • Criterion 3: Competitive Potential • Criterion 4: Adjustment for leakage, duration • Criterion 5: Limited no. of co-effects (water Q) Consider competitive mix of options, by region, by C price

  5. Summary of Draft EPA Analysis for U.S.: Forest/Ag Option Mix Changes as Carbon Prices Rise, Over Time Time frame 2005-35  2035-50 • Limited forest mgmt. & affor. • Non CO2 • Bio fuels • Non CO2 • Ag soils • Limited forest mgt & affor • Non CO2 • Limited Ag soils • For. mgmt & affor. • Biofuels • Non CO2 C Price <$50/metric ton C   >$50/metric ton C Source: B. McCarl 2002, Forest/Ag Modeling Forum

  6. The FORCLIMIT-India Network • “Workshop on Forestry and Climate Change—Assessing Mitigation Potential and Cost” in New Delhi, Sept. 23-34, 2002. • Sponsored: MoEF; by ICFRE, IISc., LBNL and EPA • Created workplan: Forest Climate Mitigation Network (FORCLIMIT-India) • Network Website: http://ces.iisc.ernet.in/climatechange/

  7. FORCLMIT-India Network: Objectives6/03 EPA • Improve national-level assessment of forestry mitigation opportunities and potential for India. • State-level assessment of mitigation opportunities, costs, issues, 2 states: Karnataka & Uttaranchal. • Develop 2 village-level case studies of mitigation projects: Karnataka, and Uttaranchal • Dialog by government, private, NGO, academic, and local stakeholders on technical & institutional issues • Publish results: peer-reviewed international & Indian journals.

  8. Draft Activities Under FORCLMIT-India Network: 6/03 EPA

  9. Assessing Feasibility of Sinks Options: Example:Conceptual impact of barriers on costs and carbon mitigation potential F7 Estimate – Socioeconomic Potential Economic Potential Market or Achievable Potential Cost of carbon ($/t C) ?? ?? Market Failures: Examples Ill-defined property rights Lack of information Absence of markets Poor capital markets Barriers: Examples Carbon leakage Class structure Gender Issues Attitudes and habits Carbon sequestered or emissions avoided (t C) Source: Sathaye et al, 2001

  10. Key Barriers: Absence of organized markets, long distance to market, lack of access to credit, long gestation period, poor seed quality and inadequate fertilizer inputs,

  11. Issue 5: Can We Identify Co-Benefits and Co-Effects of Mitigation Options, and Design Policies to Promote them?Case study: Lower Mississippi River Basin: Water Quality Changes due to Sequestration Activities • Initial analysis by RTI/Texas A&M for EPA. • Delta states show largest water quality improvement per unit GHG reduced. • ~9% reductions in N loadings entering Gulf at $25 & $50/tC incentive prices. Source: Pattanayak et al. 2002

  12. Summary: Mobilizing Credible Sinks • Sinks have big mitigation impact 20-30 yrs in US, then diminish-- due to saturation. • Seq. project mix will vary by region & C price. • Co-benefits (biodiversity, jobs) affect offset feasibility & location. • Pilot projects are critical learning tools: improve modeling, data, co-benefits, instit’l issues. • Guidance needed: baselines,leakage, duration. • Stakeholder dialog & Bilateral cooperation. More Information: Forestry and Agriculture Greenhouse Gas Modeling Forum Co-sponsors: EPA, USDA, Agriculture Canada http://foragforum.rti.org/index

More Related