UNFCCC questions
0 likes633 views
The document discusses the definitions and reporting guidelines for mangroves under the UNFCCC, focusing on whether they are classified as forests or wetlands. It covers the use of various IPCC guidelines for greenhouse gas inventories, the necessity of utilizing the wetland supplement, and outlines methodologies for reporting mangrove emissions and carbon stocks. Additionally, it addresses the development of self-standing blue carbon reporting and how countries can incorporate mangrove targets into their nationally determined contributions (NDCs).
UNFCCC questions
- 1. QUESTION 1: Country definition of mangroves under the UNFCCC Option 1: Are they forests? Option 2: Are they wetlands? (does the country have a legal definition of wetland?) Implications for reporting guidelines • IPCC 2006 guidelines for national GHG inventories • IPCC 2013 Wetland Supplement • IPCC 2019 Refinement All of the above can be used
- 2. QUESTION 2: is there a need to use the Wetland Supplement for mangroves? https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/wetlands/ https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol4.html https://www.ipcc.ch/report/2019-refinement-to-the-2006- ipcc-guidelines-for-national-greenhouse-gas-inventories/ • Wetland supplement is encouraged but not required • Choosing either AFOLU or WS but no mixing of guidelines
- 3. Guidelines • Countries can use the IPCC 2006 Guidelines and they can use the IPCC 2019 Refinement. The latter has not been adopted by the UNFCCC but countries can use it if they wish. In many cases, you will find updated default values in the refinement that can be useful. • It is encouraged but voluntary to use the Wetland Supplement 2013. Countries should look at the methodologies and if they are better than what they can find in the IPCC 2006 guidelines then it is recommended to use the wetlands supplement. • The Wetlands Supplement can be used for any land use category with drained or rewetted soils and can also be used for mangroves then mangroves are defined as forests.
- 4. QUESTION 3: How to report mangrove emissions/absorptions for Aboveground Biomass (AGB) with only one measure of stocks? ➢ Emission Factors do not require two-time measurements in the same place, but measurements before and after different representative mangrove conditions (e.g. driven by REDD+ activities) but it must be possible to recognize the different mangrove conditions either through ground-based sampling or remote sensing. ➢ Stocks must cover a variety of mangrove conditions to capture REDD+ baselines: from conserved mangrove to degraded to logged to regenerating Aboveground Carbon (Biomass + necromass) Belowground Carbon (biomass and soil carbon) McIvor et al. 2013
- 5. IPCC provides two generic methodologies
- 6. QUESTION 4: How to include soil carbon in mangrove reporting without soil data? How to include soil N2O and CH4 mangrove emissions under forest land reporting? How to move towards Tier 2 soil Greenhouse Gas emissions for mangroves? Perez & Vazquez 2010 IPCC guidelines include in some cases tier 1 default values which can be used. In some cases, there will be scientific publications that can help provide default values.
- 7. QUESTION 5: REDD+ and FREL/FRL Selecting specific forest types to run their specific FREL/FRL, possible? Selecting specific REDD+ activities for specific forest types, possible? Countries can choose the most relevant REDD+ activities but activities with higher emissions should be included e.g. Chile------------ FREL for Deforestation of temperate rainforests FREL for Degradation of temperate rainforests FRL for Conservation of forest carbon stocks FRL for Enhancement of forest carbon stocks Vietnam has a FREL for reducing emissions from deforestation and reducing emissions from forest degradation and a FRL for enhancement of forest carbon stocks. • In both cases Parties made the submission in a single submission National reporting is encouraged = all forest types included at national scale Subnational as an interim is allowed. Decision 1/CP.16 paragraph 71 b requests parties to develop a national FRELs and/or FRLs or if appropriate, as an interim measure a subnational FREL and/or FRL in accordance with national circumstances. Note the safeguard on avoiding displacement of emissions
- 8. QUESTION 5: REDD+ and FREL/FRL Number of FREL/FRL that countries can report to the UNFCCC under their REDD+ mechanism? The decision text is FREL and/or FRL Countries can choose ➢ Chile has reported 4 ➢ Brazil has reported 2 ➢ Vietnam has reported 2 Are FRL (sources + sinks) for aggregated REDD+ activities and aggregated forest types encouraged? Countries can choose Decision 12/CP.17 annex, bullet C mentions that a country shall include the reason for omitting a pool and or activity from the construction of the FEL and or FRL, noting that significant pools and/or activities should not be excluded.
- 9. QUESTION 6: Developing self-standing Blue Carbon reporting and mitigation independent but connected to REDD+ For Blue Carbon based on mangroves, some countries in the region prefer to focus on certain REDD+ activities: Conservation + Enhancement of Forest stocks (= restoration), possible? ➢ Activities with higher emissions need to be included ➢ One monitoring system only for all the REDD+ reporting ➢ Historic Reference, period projection, national circumstances (Decision 12/CP.17 paragraph 9 invites Parties to submit information and rationale of their FRELs and/or FRLs, including details of national circumstances and if adjusted include details on how the national circumstances were considered) Can Conservation + Enhancement of Forest stocks (= restoration), be reported as separated FRLs? ➢ Countries can choose. Based on the country definition of the activities it must be able to trach emissions and removals from each activity to avoid that they count more than one time. ➢ Bhutan have conservation of forest carbon stock in conservation areas, and sustainable management of forest in the remaining forest area. The FRL value is reported as one single value.
- 10. QUESTION 6: Developing self-standing Blue Carbon reporting and mitigation targets For technical simplification and targeted policy development, many countries prefer to have self-standing Blue Carbon Strategies at National or regional scales with separate emission reporting for: ➢ GHG Inventories: Parties can create a separate row for each forest type or wetland type where needed, also to be transparent about different emissions factors Blue Carbon. No separate reporting. ➢ REDD+ and FREL/FRL: Blue Carbon can be a specific FREL or FRL for specific REDD+ activity but reported under the REDD+. No separate reporting. There is no Blue Carbon framework under UNFCCC such as the Warsaw Framework for REDD+. There can be several scenarios for REDD+ FREL/FRL as starting points for developing Blue Carbon reporting within the REDD+
- 11. QUESTION 6: Developing self-standing Blue Carbon reporting and mitigation targets Scenario 1: Current REDD+/FREL/FRL is reported as separated forest types for different REDD+ activities than those chosen by the country for Blue Carbon ❖ Brazil has FREL for Deforestation in Amazon forests ➢ Creating Blue Carbon for conservation and/or Enhancement of Forest Carbon Stocks-----------New FREL/FRLs for each activity/aggregated activities ❖ Many countries have different FREL and/or FRL values for different activities but then one single aggregated FREL/FRL value for all activities Chosen REDD+ Activities: Conservation + Enhancement of Forest stocks (=restoration)
- 12. QUESTION 6: Developing self-standing Blue Carbon reporting and mitigation targets Scenario 2a: Current REDD+/FREL/FRL is reported as aggregated forest types for different REDD+ activities than those chosen by the country for Blue Carbon ❖ Suriname has FREL for all forest types for Deforestation and Degradation ➢ Create FREL/FRL for mangroves and the preferred REDD+ activities, making sure no overlapping areas exist between the current FREL/FRL and the new mangrove FREL/FRL ➢ If overlapping areas exist (e.g. degradation and enhancement of forest carbon stocks). ✓ Re-estimation and Re-submission of previous FREL/FRL with new area distribution where no overlapping exists. ✓ Submission of new Mangrove FRL(s) with non-overlapping areas among chosen REDD+ activities
- 13. QUESTION 6: Developing self-standing Blue Carbon reporting and mitigation targets Scenario 2b: Current REDD+/FREL/FRL is reported as aggregated forest types for REDD+ activities including those chosen by the country for Blue Carbon ❖ Suriname has FREL for aggregated forest types for Deforestation and Degradation ➢ Create FRL for mangroves for all REDD+ activities, making sure no overlapping areas exist between the current reported FREL/FRL and the new mangrove FREL/FRL ✓ Re-estimation and Re-submission of previous FREL/FRL with new area distribution where no overlapping exists. ✓ Submission of new Mangrove FRL(s) with non-overlapping areas with the FREL/FRL of non-mangrove categories.
- 14. QUESTION 6: Developing self-standing Blue Carbon reporting and mitigation targets Scenario 3: Current REDD+/FREL/FRL is reported as aggregated forest types for all REDD+ activities, including those chosen by the country for Blue Carbon ❖ Panama has FRL for aggregated forest types for all REDD+ activities ➢ Separate mangroves from other forest types, choose preferred REDD+ activities (e.g. conservation + enhancement of forest carbon stocks), develop their FRL(s) making sure there are no overlapping areas between the mangrove FREL/FRL and the remaining FREL/FRL for the other forest types. ✓ Re-estimation and Re-submission of FREL/FRL with all forest types except mangroves and new distribution of areas with no overlapping. ✓ Submission of new Mangrove FRL(s) with non-overlapping areas among chosen REDD+ activities
- 15. Results-based payments • There is no restriction on the number of FRELs and/or FRLs a Party may submit to the UNFCCC for technical assessment. • The UNFCCC decisions generally offer some flexibility for Parties to accommodate national circumstances, and a stepwise approach is specially mentioned in the decisions. • However, if a country is considering results-based payments then it should also consider whether the financing entities have any additional requirements. More than one FREL/FRL could create problems in terms of displacements.
- 16. QUESTION 6: Developing self-standing Blue Carbon reporting and mitigation targets Scenario 1: Current REDD+/FREL/FRL is reported as separated forest types for different REDD+ activities than those chosen by Blue Carbon ❖ Brazil has FREL for Deforestation in Amazon forests ➢ Creating Blue Carbon for all REDD+ activities-----------New FRL for the aggregated activities Chosen REDD+ Activities: All REDD+ activities
- 17. QUESTION 6: Developing self-standing Blue Carbon reporting and mitigation targets Scenario 4: Current REDD+/FREL/FRL is reported as aggregated forest types for all REDD+ activities, including those chosen by Blue Carbon ❖ Panama has FRL for aggregated forest types for all REDD+ activities ➢ Separate mangroves from other forest types, choose preferred REDD+ activities (e.g. conservation + enhancement of forest carbon stocks), develop their FRL(s) making sure there are no overlapping areas between the mangrove FREL/FRL and the remaining FREL/FRL for the remaining forest types. ✓ Re-estimation and Re-submission of FREL/FRL with all forest types except mangroves and new areas distribution with no overlapping. ✓ Submission of new Mangrove FRL(s) with non-overlapping areas among chosen REDD+ activities
- 18. QUESTION 7: Can countries include their REDD+ targets in their NDCs (e.g. 2020 NDC resubmission) NDCs are nationally determined, thus countries are free to do whatever they prefer, as long as the ambition doesn’t fall below the previous NDC. However, countries must ensure that they can track the progress towards the target they defined. • Decision 4/CMA.1 – Information to facilitate clarity, transparency and understanding
- 19. QUESTION 8: Considerations on Blue Carbon reporting and mitigation Under the UNFCCC and voluntary markets ➢ Currently, Art 6 of the Paris Agreement on carbon markets is still fully undefined and therefore countries have not yet decided on how to deal with double accounting and the technicalities around this topic. For now, there is no guidance. Art. 6 includes art. 6.2 (cooperative approaches), art. 6.4 (mechanism) and 6.8 (non-market approaches) ➢ Topics under discussion under Art 6 of the PA include: • the registry – how to track and how to avoid double counting – corresponding adjustments, how to take into account different NDCs • the use of international transferable mitigation outcomes (ITMOs) • activity included, use of older activities e.g. from the Kyoto Protocol • real, additional, measurable, permanence, • governance, share of proceeds and many other elements.