Chapter 7
Carbon and the Land (Part a)
Pilot land use, land use change and forestry projects that are designed
to avoid emissions by reducing deforestation and forest degradation have
produced marked environmental and socioeconomic co-benefits, including
biodiversity conservation, protection of watershed and water resources,
improved forest management and local capacity building, and employment
in local enterprises. [1]
Introduction
7.1 The contribution of the land-based sectors to emissions and the potential
of elements of the sectors to play a significant role in greenhouse gas
abatement is one of the most complex, controversial and uncertain elements
of the climate change debate. The objective of this chapter is to examine
and provide recommendations on:
- the contribution of the land use change and forestry, and agricultural
sectors to Australia's greenhouse gas emissions;
- the impact of current land management practices and policies on current
and projected greenhouse emissions;
- action that is currently being undertaken to reduce emissions in these
sectors and the potential for these sectors to contribute to greenhouse
gas abatement; and
- the use of carbon sequestration through land-based sinks as a greenhouse
response measure and the issues and uncertainties associated with accounting
for their use.
The Global Carbon Cycle
7.2 Carbon is released into the atmosphere through natural means via
plant respiration, soil respiration and diffusion from oceans, as well
as by human activity such as burning fossil fuels for electricity production
and transport, and deforestation. Human activity has disturbed the natural
cycle resulting in an increase in the release of carbon annually bringing
about an increase in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. [2]
7.3 Plants and soils are important components of the carbon cycle. Carbon
is taken from the atmosphere by plants through photosynthesis, and is
released again to the atmosphere through respiration, as part of life
support processes. However, not all carbon is released as part of this
process. Some carbon dioxide is converted with water into carbohydrate
(which contains carbon) and oxygen. Plants utilise carbohydrate in cell
tissues as they grow, and consequently some of the carbon from the atmosphere
is transformed to the living system. Where photosynthesis exceeds respiration,
the net carbon is stored (sequestered [3]) in
the plant biomass (roots and above ground matter such as stems, tree crowns
etc), thus creating a carbon sink [4] or store.
Soils store carbon as organic matter - as a result of plant litter decomposition,
and root material. [5]
7.4 The contribution of the land use, land use change, and forestry sector
to the global carbon cycle is important. Globally existing terrestrial
ecosystems are currently estimated to be acting as a small net sink for
carbon dioxide. This carbon uptake occurs through vegetation and soils
in terrestrial ecosystems and is much larger in soils than in vegetation.
[6]
7.5 In Australia, the removal of vegetation for agricultural or other
purposes has resulted in significant emissions. Other activities in the
land use change and forestry sectors such as the growth and regrowth of
native forests, establishment of plantations and environmental plantings
provide an opportunity to offset these emissions and sequester additional
carbon from the atmosphere. There are, however, considerable uncertainties
about the long term potential of carbon sinks as an abatement measure
and accounting for the carbon sequestered.
Greenhouse gas emissions from land use change and forestry, and agriculture
7.6 The land use change and forestry sector and the agricultural sector
are both significant contributors to Australia's National Greenhouse Gas
Inventory (NGGI). Each of these sectors is reported separately in the
Inventory according to the international guidelines established under
the UNFCCC. In addition, due to the uncertainty of current estimates from
land clearing, these are not included in the national Inventory total
but reported as a separate item.
7.7 According to the most recent estimates contained in the 1998 NGGI,
the land use change and forestry sector (excluding estimates of land clearing)
is estimated to have provided a net sink of -24.5 Mt CO2-e or -5.4 per
cent of net national emissions. [7] Factors
considered in arriving at this estimate include:
- growth, harvesting and regrowth in managed native forests and plantations;
- wood products including production of fuelwood, paper, particle board,
furniture and building frames that decay at varying rates; and
- prescribed burning, wildfires, and changes in land management practices
such as pasture improvement and minimum tillage. [8]
7.8 Emissions in the forestry subsector as a result of commercial harvesting
and fuelwood production equated to 38.9 Mt and 12.8 Mt, respectively.
This is offset by the removal of greenhouse gases through carbon sequestration
resulting from tree growth in managed forests of -73.4 Mt, resulting in
a net sink of -21.6 Mt. A small amount of emissions were generated as
result of prescribed burning and wildfires (1.4 Mt) and a small sink resulting
from minimum tillage and pasture improvement practices (-4.2 Mt). The
contribution of these areas to the Inventory provides an additional net
sink of -2.8 Mt, bringing the total net sink for the subsector to -24.5
Mt. [9]
7.9 Emissions from harvesting have increased by 10.4 per cent over the
period 1990 to 1998, and whilst the sink associated with forest growth
has also increased over this period, it has not had the same rate of growth
(2.9 per cent) thereby resulting in a reduction in the net forestry sink
in this period. [10]
7.10 Projections undertaken in 1997 identified a potential increase in
net sink capacity from forests to 32 Mt in 2010 with existing measures.
[11] Dependent on the final treatment of sinks
under the Kyoto Protocol this potential could increase significantly.
7.11 The interim estimate of emissions from land clearing in 1998 is
64 Mt. This is comprised of emissions of 81.5 Mt associated with land
clearing and the removal of 17.5 Mt through sinks associated with the
regrowth of grass and woody vegetation. Factors considered in arriving
at this estimate are the burning and decay of aboveground biomass, regrowth
on cleared lands, and changes in soil carbon from current and past events.
Land clearing can cause emissions of carbon dioxide from the disturbed
soil for 10 years or more after the event. [12]
7.12 The estimates for land clearing are highly uncertain and considered
the most uncertain part of the Inventory. The uncertainty results from
a lack of accurate statistics on:
- the rate of land clearing;
- biomass of vegetation cleared;
- regrowth of vegetation on cleared areas; and
- level and change of carbon through soil disturbance. [13]
7.13 To improve confidence in land clearing estimates and to meet future
requirements of the Kyoto Protocol, a National Carbon Accounting System
(NCAS) is under development. A key objective of this system is to provide
by 2002 an estimate of the 1990 emissions from land clearing for inclusion
in Australia's 1990 Kyoto Protocol baseline. It is also intended to provide
substantially improved estimates of areas of clearing, areas of forest
plantings, rates of growth in commercial and environmental plantings and
emissions from soils, to increase confidence in post-1990 estimates and
to meet future Kyoto Protocol accounting requirements for sources and
sinks. [14]
7.14 Using the interim estimates available, it appears that land clearing
activities were a net source of greenhouse gas emissions from 1990
to 1998 but there has been a considerable decline in emissions from this
subsector in this period. [15] More recent
reports of land clearing rates, particularly in Queensland, suggest an
increase in emissions could be expected for 1999 and 2000.
7.15 When land clearing figures are included in the total for the land
use change and forestry sector, total emissions for 1998 are estimated
at 134.7 Mt with the removal of -95.2 Mt through sinks. This leaves a
net emissions result of 39.5 Mt compared to the currently reported net
sink of -24.5 Mt. [16]
7.16 The 1998 NGGI notes that:
The uncertainty associated with estimates of emissions and removals
from Forest and Grassland Conversion [land clearing] remains high. This
is largely due to the use of incomplete data, preliminary rates of land
clearing for some states and some years, inadequate methodology for
calculation of regrowth sequestration, use of averaged pre-clearing
biomass and soil carbon estimates not spatially linked to where clearing
is occurring, and the use of default conversion factors for soil carbon
change following clearing. [17]
7.17 The agricultural sector contributed 20.2 per cent or 92.2 Mt of
total national net emissions in 1998 (excluding land clearing estimates).
It is the most significant source of greenhouse gas emissions following
the stationary energy sector, and the largest source of methane and nitrous
oxide emissions. However, it also one of the more stable sectors with
little change in emissions overall in the period 1990 to 1998. Sources
of emissions in the agricultural sector are livestock (enteric fermentation
and manure management), rice cultivation, agricultural soils, prescribed
burning of savannas (for pasture management, fuel reduction, prevention
of wildfires and traditional Aboriginal burning practices), and field
burning of agricultural residues. [18]
7.18 There have been increases and decreases within this sector, most
significantly in the agricultural soil subsector, which has seen an increase
of 10.4 per cent overall in the period 1990 to 1998. The increase is due
primarily to increase in nitrous oxide emissions from fertilised crops
and pastures (representing an increase in the rate of artificial nitrogen
fertiliser application). There has also been an increase in emissions
resulting from the field burning of agricultural residues such as cereal
stubble burning, and an increase in methane emissions due to increases
in rice cultivation. Changes in livestock emissions over the period 1990
to 1998 can largely be attributed to increases and decreases in livestock
numbers driven by economic factors such as wool prices, however, there
has been an increase in nitrous oxide emissions due to increasing intensification
of the livestock industries. [19]
7.19 Emissions projections undertaken in 1997 for the agricultural sector
indicate growth of 7 per cent on 1990 levels by 2010 with current measures.
[20] As noted above, there has been limited
overall growth in the agricultural sector with current trends showing
an overall 1.8 per cent increase in the period 1990 to 1998. [21]
7.20 There are also considerable uncertainties about emissions estimates
from the agricultural sector. The level of uncertainty is thought to be
between 20 per cent and 80 per cent and is due to the diffuse sources
of emissions in the sector, lack of understanding of some of the processes
leading to emissions in the sector, lack of robust data, and the methods
by which data has been compiled. [22]
Requirements under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol
7.21 As a party to the UNFCCC, Australia is committed to the promotion
of sustainable development and promotion and cooperation in the conservation
and enhancement of sinks and reservoirs of all greenhouse gases, including
biomass, forests and oceans. [23] Australia
is also required to produce and regularly update a NGGI that presents
emissions on a gas by gas and sector by sector basis as determined by
the reporting guidelines established by the IPCC. [24]
This includes the land use change and forestry, and agricultural sectors.
7.22 Following the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol, carbon sequestration
through forestry sinks and other means has taken a more prominent role.
Under Article 3 of the Kyoto Protocol, countries must count both sequestration
and emissions from a limited set of land use change and forestry activities
towards meeting their Kyoto Protocol target commitments. Sinks may also
play a strong role in the implementation of the flexibility arrangements
(Emissions Trading, Joint Implementation (JI), Clean Development Mechanism
(CDM)) under the Kyoto Protocol. There are outstanding definitional, operational
and measurement issues awaiting decision before the potential impact of
these articles is fully known. A number of these are expected to be considered
and resolved in the international negotiations at CoP 6 later this year.
[25] The inclusion of, and parameters of, the
Articles pertaining to sinks in the Protocol has been the source of much
international and domestic debate, and a key focus of submissions to this
inquiry. These issues are explored in greater detail in the sections on
accounting for carbon, and the role of sinks, below.
Overview of current greenhouse action in the land use change and forestry,
and agricultural sectors
7.23 Governments and industry have placed significant emphasis on the
potential role of sinks in achieving Australia's Kyoto target. Governments
view sinks as highly cost effective means of meeting the abatement task
and point to a range of ancillary benefits that can also be achieved with
sink related programs, such as addressing issues of land degradation and
enhancing biodiversity.
7.24 Under the National Greenhouse Strategy (NGS), efforts are
being made to reduce land-based emissions and enhance greenhouse sinks
through existing national forestry and revegetation programs such as Bushcare
- the National Vegetation Initiative; and new programs such as Bush for
Greenhouse, which aims to promote investment in the establishment of greenhouse
sinks. Bush for Greenhouse was only declared `open for business' [26]
by the Government in April 2000, more than 2 years after its inception,
and is not without its critics. For example, Southern Pacific Petroleum
and Central Pacific Minerals reported:
Our experience with the Bush for Greenhouse program has been disappointing
mostly because there appears to be confusion within Government about
this program's scope and objectives. [27]
7.25 Effort has also been expended in investigating the potential role
of carbon sinks in a national emissions trading scheme; improving understanding
of how relevant carbon pools are affected by management practices; and
expanding capacity to measure and monitor changes in carbon stocks through
the establishment of a NCAS.
7.26 Primary responsibility for the management of natural resources such
as native vegetation rests with the states and territories, and has been
the source of much tension in Commonwealth and state relations. A number
of national strategies/ frameworks/policies have been agreed with the
states and territories to encourage sustainable land management practices
and greater protection for native vegetation. For example, the 1992 National
Forest Policy Statement and more recently, the Australian and New Zealand
Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) National Framework for the
Management and Monitoring of Australia's Native Vegetation. The success
of these strategies is reliant on action taken by the states and territories,
with the Commonwealth often expected to facilitate action through the
provision of funding or other support.
7.27 In addition, considerable focus has been given to the ongoing international
negotiations related to sinks and the Kyoto Protocol. This point was reinforced
by Mr Ralph Hillman, Australia's Ambassador for the Environment, who told
the Committee:
Sinks are of critical importance to Australia. The definition and rules
to be adopted will impact on the size of our abatement task, as well
as the cost. This will be a key issue for us at CoP 6. [28]
7.28 State governments (most notably Western Australia and New South
Wales) have embarked on a range of sink enhancement and investment projects.
The potential for sinks has also been recognised in most state greenhouse
strategies/action plans developed under the auspices of the NGS.
7.29 Industry is also increasingly seeking to offset emissions through
the use of sinks. The Australian Greenhouse Office Greenhouse Challenge
Program recognises the use of sinks as an offset in industry agreements
and several state governments have entered into agreements with industry.
Recent examples are the agreement between State Forests NSW and the Tokyo
Electric Power Company to establish 10,000 to 40,000 ha of plantations
in NSW to offset a portion of their emissions; and investment by BP AMOCO
in reforestation projects in partnership with the Western Australian Department
of Conservation and Land Management.
7.30 A commensurate amount of effort does not appear to have been taken
by governments in reducing emissions from agricultural production. Module
6 of the NGS identifies a number of sustainable agricultural management
practices to deliver reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, however,
little evidence of the promotion of these practices at any level of government
has been presented to this inquiry. Significant hopes appear to be pinned
on the outcomes of rumen modifier research being conducted by CSIRO as
the key measure for achieving emissions reductions in this area.
The future for the land use change and forestry, and agricultural sectors
7.31 The Committee canvassed a broad range of views when considering
issues associated with the land use change and forestry, and agricultural
sectors. These included: Federal and state government agencies, community
advocacy groups, industry representatives, environmental groups, and farming
interests. A wide range of views was presented and very few areas of concurrence
amongst witnesses emerged. A key area of divergence was the potential
role and contribution of sinks in meeting Australia's Kyoto Protocol commitments.
The agricultural sector attracted few comments, although land clearing
for agricultural and other purposes was perceived by most witnesses as
a significant problem that needed to be addressed.
7.32 Common views and issues which emerged from evidence presented to
the inquiry were:
- Sinks present a cost-effective means of abatement and have a number
of positive ancillary environmental benefits. However, there is considerable
concern over the permanence of sequestered carbon and the longer term
impact of choosing this method over reduction of emissions at source.
- There were fears that a perverse outcome may result from the over-reliance
on sinks as an abatement measure. The use of sinks as a primary response
measure could lead to an increase in actual emissions at source and
potential reduction in investment in areas such as renewable energy,
fuel switching and energy efficiency.
- There was criticism by a number of groups of the negotiating position
the Government took to Kyoto, in particular the inclusion of Article
3.7 which enables Australia to include land clearing in its 1990 baseline
and claim as a credit any reductions from the subsequent decrease in
emissions as a result. Significant focus is now being given to the negotiating
position the Government is taking to the CoP 6 negotiations.
- The allocation of carbon credits associated with sinks has a number
of inherent risks and uncertainties that are yet to be overcome, including
measuring and monitoring the carbon sequestered and establishing carbon
property rights. These uncertainties have been viewed as stifling potential
investment in sinks and concern was expressed that the longer the delay
in their resolution, the less benefit such investment will be to meeting
Australia's Kyoto target in the first commitment period. Other concerns
relate to the potential for the misuse and false accounting of carbon
sequestered.
- It was widely agreed that the need for credible and transparent accounting
mechanisms for the land use change and forestry sector, to reduce current
levels of uncertainty and meet future reporting requirements under the
Kyoto Protocol, is an imperative.
- The negative impact of current land management practices, in particular
land clearing, on Australia's emissions is high. There are many ancillary
environmental and other benefits such as enhancement of biodiversity,
soil conservation and water management, and low cost abatement to be
achieved by reducing emissions in this sector. There is a common view
that insufficient action is being undertaken in parts of Australia to
reduce or halt land clearing and that further research and development
in sustainable agricultural systems is required if emissions reductions
in this sector are to be achieved.
7.33 To a large degree the future role and potential contribution of
sinks to Australia's greenhouse abatement task will be determined by the
outcome of the
CoP 6 negotiations. Regardless of this uncertainty, a number of policy
options have been put forward by witnesses (including suggestions for
Australia's negotiating position on sinks), although there are divergent
views on the best options. Suggestions included:
- A greater emphasis should be placed on reducing emissions at source
in the land-based sectors by halting land clearing and ensuring more
sustainable management practices in agricultural production. Sinks should
only be viewed as part of a portfolio of responses in the land-based
sectors not as the key response measure.
- Rather than focus on creating new sinks, greater efforts should be
made to protect existing sinks, in particular old growth forest, by
ceasing logging activities in native forests. Government policy should
favour the protection of ecologically diverse natural forest landscapes
over the creation of plantations.
- As a greenhouse response measure, sinks should only be viewed as a
short term or transitional option to buy additional time to identify
and implement long term abatement solutions that reduce emissions at
source.
- Priority should be given to a more precise definition of forest and
forest related activities under the Kyoto Protocol, to ensure that priority
is given to maintaining existing carbon sinks rather than creating new
ones.
- Sequestration is a useful transitional strategy to employ until we
have the solutions to go to more sustainable forms of energy usage.
- Australia should be actively promoting its sequestration opportunities
beyond forests and should ensure that recognition in the form of carbon
credits is also given in the Kyoto Protocol to revegetation activities.
- Investment in plantations and revegetation activities on already cleared
land offers a low cost solution not only for greenhouse but also salinity
and the delivery of regional ecologically sustainable development. To
effectively achieve these outcomes property rights to carbon must be
recognised at a Federal level and a uniform national framework put in
place to enable trading of carbon credits between growers and industry
to generate further investment. Such a trading system needs to be supported
by a transparent and credible accounting framework.
- To best meet Australia's interests, the objective of the international
negotiating position on sinks under the Kyoto Protocol should pursue
as broad an interpretation as possible to enable all revegetation activities
to be recognised and accepted as a sink.
- Government should provide leadership, funding and regulation to provide
sufficient incentive for the development of appropriate biomass plantations
to provide carbon sequestration and the added objective of addressing
issues such as dryland salinity, wildlife habitat, soil erosion, liquid
fuel production, wood products, and biomass for energy production.
- The management of land clearance and the pursuit of forestry and land
rehabilitation programs that have economic and/or environmental benefits,
as well as greenhouse abatement, should be a key priority for ongoing
national greenhouse policy development.
- Government greenhouse policy in the land-based sector should also
aim to benefit the long term viability and sustainability of rural communities
and help to achieve broader natural resource management outcomes.
- Government should also be willing to develop and commit to cost sharing
approaches for the management and retention of native vegetation, including
equitable compensation for landholders adversely affected by imposition
of government controls on vegetation use and management.
- Government should be providing a greater level of support for research
and development in reforestation and revegetation opportunities.
Greenhouse Sinks and the Kyoto Protocol
7.34 As noted earlier, the Kyoto Protocol makes allowances for the inclusion
of sink activities as follows:
Article 3.3. The net changes in greenhouse gas emissions by
sources and removals from sinks resulting from direct human-induced
land use change and forestry activities, limited to afforestation, reforestation
and deforestation since 1990, measured as verifiable changes in carbon
stocks in each commitment period, shall be used to meet the commitments
under this article of each party included in Annex I. The greenhouse
gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks associated with those
activities shall be reported in a transparent and verifiable manner
and reviewed in accordance with Articles 7 and 8.
Article 3.4. Prior to the first session of the Conference of
the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol,
each Party included in Annex I shall provide, for consideration by the
Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice, data to establish
its level of carbon stocks in 1990 and to enable an estimate to be made
of its changes in carbon stocks in subsequent years. The Conference
of the Parties servings as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol
shall, at its first session or as soon as practicable thereafter, decide
upon modalities, rules and guidelines as to how, and which, additional
human-induced activities related to changes in greenhouse gas emissions
by sources and removals by sinks in the agricultural soils and the land
use change and forestry categories shall be added to, or subtracted
from, the assigned amounts for Parties included in Annex I, taking into
account uncertainties, transparency in reporting, verifiability, the
methodological work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
the advice provided by the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological
Advice in accordance with Article 5 and the decisions of the Conference
of the Parties. Such a decision shall apply in the second and subsequent
commitment periods. A party may choose to apply such a decision on these
additional human-induced activities for its first commitment period,
provided that these activities have taken place since 1990. [29]
7.35 In addition, there is scope for sink activities to be included in
the Protocol's flexibility mechanisms (JI, CDM and Emissions Trading).
7.36 The Kyoto Protocol did not provide definitions of land use change,
forests, forestry activities including afforestation, deforestation, and
reforestation, carbon stocks, human-induced and direct human-induced.
Nor does the Protocol set out the rules for accounting for carbon stock
changes, and for emissions and removals of greenhouse gases from land
use and land use change and forestry activities, or how sinks may be incorporated
in the flexibility mechanisms.
Articles 3.3 and 3.4
7.37 Internationally a significant effort has been put into clarifying
and reaching agreement on issues associated with Articles 3.3 and 3.4.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was charged with
the preparation of a special report concerning current understanding of
land use, land use change, and forestry activities and their relationship
to the Kyoto Protocol. The IPCC's Summary for Policymakers provides
scientific and technical information to provide guidance to the Parties
to the Protocol in their ongoing deliberations on these matters. The report
notes that:
There are many possible definitions of a `forest' and approaches to
the meaning of the terms `afforestation', `reforestation', and `deforestation'
(ARD). The choice of definitions will determine how much and which land
in Annex I countries are included under the provisions of Article 3.3…
. The amount of land included will have implications for the changes
in carbon stocks accounted for under Article 3.3. [30]
Countries have defined forests and other wooded lands for a number
of national and international purposes, in terms of: (i) legal, administrative,
or cultural requirements; (ii) land use; (iii) canopy cover; or (iv)
carbon density (essentially biomass density). Such definitions were
not designed with the Kyoto Protocol in mind and, thus, they may not
necessarily suffice for the particular needs of Articles 3.3 and 3.4.
[31]
7.38 The difficulties of defining terms such as forests was illustrated
to the Committee by Professor Graham Farquhar of the Cooperative Research
Centre for Greenhouse Accounting:
If, for example, something that had 40 per cent [canopy] cover was
called forest you could convert from 100 per cent cover down to 40 per
cent cover and still have a forest. In taking that very strict definition
the fear is that the Parties might not report the loss of carbon from
forests. I am sure it was not the intent, but that is what people are
debating about in terms of the usage of canopy covers and how it might
play out if the people follow the letter rather than the spirit of the
thing. [32]
7.39 The Special Report developed seven definitional scenarios, for lands
that can be counted under Article 3.3, which combine different definitions
of forests, and afforestation, deforestation, and reforestation. Each
scenario reflecting the range of approaches that can be taken with them
and an assessment of the implications. An example of some of the issues
encountered include:
Definitions of a forest, which are often based on a single threshold
of canopy cover or carbon density may allow increases or decreases in
carbon to remain unaccounted due to aggradation or degradation. To minimise
this possibility multiple or sequential thresholds, or national, regional
or biome-specific thresholds could be used, or the issues of aggradation
and degradation could be covered under Article 3.4… .
Some definitions of reforestation include the activity of regeneration
after disturbance or harvesting, while disturbance or harvesting are
not defined as deforestation. In these circumstances credits could be
accounted for the regeneration without debits for disturbance or harvesting,
this would lead to an accounting system where the changes in terrestrial
carbon do not reflect the real changes in the atmosphere. [33]
7.40 Professor Farquhar advised the Committee that for Article 3.3 a
key issue has been how to develop accurate and verifiable measures of
changes in carbon stocks, particularly when some aspects such as soil
carbon are difficult to measure:
… the accounting system has to be cost effective as well as accurate,
consistent, comparable, verifiable and efficient to record and report
changes in carbon stocks and changes in emissions from land us, land
use change and forestry activities. There is a variety of research methods
to help here - statistical analyses, forestry inventories, remote sensing
techniques, flux measurements, soil sampling and ecological surveys.
We note that those terms `afforestation' and `reforestation' will probably
not be terribly important in accounting terms in the sense that they
would get treated the same way. The difference would refer to the time
before the actual act of planting trees since trees were there before.
[34]
7.41 Article 3.3 refers only to those activities (afforestation, reforestation
and deforestation) which have taken place since 1990. The actual measurement
does not occur until the first commitment period (2008-2012). Professor
Farquhar advised the Committee the way this would work is:
Under Article 3.3 one compares how much carbon is in an area affected
directly by humans if there is a comparison between 2008 and 2012. In
an area where there is deforestation, one looks at the carbon stock
in 2008 and determines how much less there is in 2012, and there is
a debit. In areas where there has been an activity since 1990 in terms
of growing a new forest, one looks once again at the change in carbon
stock between 2008 and 2012. So the change in stock is measured over
the first movement period, 2008-2012, only for those activities that
relate to the period since 1990.
Scientists would hope that there would be contiguous accounting periods
because if you have a gap after 2012 before a second commitment period
then all sorts of fun and games could go on if people were not following
the spirit of the framework convention. I think most people agree that
the second commitment period should be starting immediately in 2012.
[35]
7.42 The interpretation of `activities' that may be included as additional
activities under Article 3.4 have posed similar problems for the method
of carbon accounting and separating human-induced changes from naturally
induced changes.
7.43 The Climate Action Network Australia (CANA) [36]
has referred to the Kyoto Protocol as an `accounting game' and expressed
concern about when activities are reported under the Protocol and for
how long. In reference to Article 3.4, Ms Anna Reynolds noted:
If it was an entire system where you counted what was happening in
1990 with crop land management, pasture management and forest management,
and you actually accounted for it also in the end year, there would
not be as much of a loophole. It is used as a way for your accounts
to show all these debits while your emissions actually increase. And
3.4 was rushed through in the last few hours of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations.
It was not really discussed. There was not much transparency about what
it could do to country targets. So no-one's targets have really accounted
for the potential growth in emissions they can gain if they include
pasture management and soil tillage improvement. [37]
7.44 In their Report, the IPCC has stated that:
A well designed carbon accounting system would provide transparent,
consistent, comparable, complete, accurate, verifiable, and efficient
recording and reporting of changes in carbon stocks and/or changes in
greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks from applicable
land use, land use change, and forestry activities and projects under
relevant Articles of the Kyoto Protocol. [38]
7.45 The IPCC has identified two possible accounting approaches towards
meeting these requirements, a land-based approach and an activity-based
approach, either of which or a combination of the two could be adopted.
There are further uncertainties that need to be taken into account at
this point including: measurement uncertainty; uncertainties in identifying
lands under Article 3.3 and 3.4; and defining and quantifying baselines
if any. It has been suggested that the best way to deal with these uncertainties
is by using good-practice guidelines or by adjusting the carbon stock
changes to understate the increases and overstate the decreases. [39]
7.46 The potential management of wood products and the permanence of
carbon sinks are further issues to be considered in carbon accounting.
For example, if the management of wood products is treated as an additional
activity under Article 3.4, then it may be necessary to exclude wood products
from accounting under other Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities to avoid double
counting.
7.47 The permanence of carbon sinks has been a key issue internationally,
and in submissions and evidence put to this inquiry, in the debate on
their use as a greenhouse response measure. The enhancement of carbon
sinks is potentially reversible as a result of human activities, disturbances
or environmental changes including climate change. The solution that has
been put forward by the IPCC to deal with this possibility is to ensure
that any credit for enhanced carbon stocks is balanced by accounting for
any subsequent reductions in carbon stocks. [40]
On the issue of permanence, Professor Farquhar noted that:
… the question has to be answered in two senses. It seems to me
that from an accounting point of view it is not a problem, that is,
you get debited if the sink is removed. From a national perspective,
in terms of planning how a country meets its requirements, that is an
issue that the countries will have to take note of. The underlying fear
from some people might be that this might lead to inaction in other
areas and that it all could come to a head if suddenly there were a
climate change and all the forests were to burn down. I personally do
not think that that is very likely. In the foreseeable future I see
our ecosystems, as a whole, continuing to take up carbon dioxide. As
the temperature rises we are likely to have impacts on those areas.
I can see that there will be a threat to alpine ecosystems and so on,
but I do not think that large scale impermanence is an issue. [41]
7.48 The Committee recognises the concerns raised by CANA regarding the
permanence of sinks, and how they are accounted for under the Kyoto Protocol.
The Committee also recognises that solutions have been put forward by
Professor Farquhar and the IPCC that may address these concerns.
Greenhouse sinks and the Kyoto Protocol flexibility mechanisms
7.49 The potential inclusion of sink activities in the Kyoto Protocol
flexibility mechanisms is also an area requiring resolution. Only the
JI mechanism specifically allows for sinks, although it has been argued
that Articles 3.1, 3.3 and 3.4 imply that credits from sink activities
can also form part of Emissions Trading. Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol,
the CDM, does not explicitly refer to sinks and there is a strong push
by a number of countries, including Australia, for their inclusion.
7.50 The Australian Government argues that the inclusion of sink activities
in all three flexibility mechanisms is important to ensure that `the flexibility
mechanisms are used to their full potential including delivery of maximum
economic and environmental benefits and participation by a wide range
of Parties'. [42]
7.51 Others such as CANA, have argued that the inclusion of sink activities
in the flexibility mechanisms, in particular their inclusion in CDM, should
be limited, citing issues of permanence, potential carbon `leakage', negative
socioeconomic impacts, monitoring and verification and the potential impact
their inclusion might have on action to reduce emissions at source. For
example, Ms Carrie Sonneborn of the Australian Cooperative Research Centre
for Renewable Energy, expressed the view that:
The flexibility mechanisms… can promote sinks to the detriment
of investment in renewable energy, and it can also fail to deter extensive
new fossil fuel developments such as natural gas. If it had to be a
carbon - a fossil fuel - you would want it to be natural gas, that is
for sure. … if the widespread establishment of renewables is delayed
as a result of flexibility mechanisms, it could result, at a domestic
level, in Australia losing out on market share because it does not invest
in this new growth industry sufficiently. At an international level
it could delay a shifting to sustainable energy and therefore the addressing
of the global warming issue at its source. [43]
7.52 With the exception of the issue of delaying the shift to more renewable
forms of energy, the IPCC Special Report has gone to some lengths to examine
and provide options for dealing with the issues associated with the flexibility
mechanisms and sinks. The Report notes that with the exception of permanence,
these issues are not unique to land use change and forestry activities.
7.53 With regard to potential socioeconomic impacts, the Special Report
examined current projects occurring under the auspices of activities implemented
jointly. The Special Report notes that:
Pilot LULUCF [Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry] projects that
are designed to avoid emissions by reducing deforestation and forest
degradation have produced marked environmental and socioeconomic co-benefits,
including biodiversity conservation, protection of watershed and water
resources, improved forest management and local capacity building, and
employment in local enterprises. [44]
7.54 However, the Report also notes that:
Projects that are designed to protect natural forests from land conversion
or degradation could pose significant costs to some stakeholders if
they restrict options for alternative land uses such as crop production.
Such costs might be mitigated, however, by siting projects in regions
where conservation measures are consistent with regional land use policies
and by promoting sustainable agricultural intensification on associated
lands. [45]
7.55 The potential impact of projects that encourage afforestation through
plantations are just as variable. For example, plantations can help maintain
and improve soil properties and provide a source for biomass fuels and
other wood products, but may also have negative impacts on biodiversity
if replacing native grassland or woodland, and negative socioeconomic
impacts if projects displace valuable agricultural land. [46]
7.56 The IPCC Special Report suggests that a `screening' test be applied
to activities to ensure that projects do not have adverse socioeconomic
or environmental effects and limiting the crediting of activities to those
that pass such a test. The IPCC suggests that one option would be to adopt
internationally recognised Environmental Impact Assessment standards and
guidelines for carbon-offset projects. [47]
7.57 The Committee supports of the inclusion of sinks in the Kyoto Protocol
flexibility mechanisms and is of the view that ultimately such activities
will benefit developing nations to achieve sustainable development. However,
the Committee also recognises the concerns of groups such as CANA, that
sink activities may delay the shift to more sustainable forms of energy
use, and may have negative socioeconomic and environmental impacts.
Australia's international negotiating position on greenhouse sinks and
the Kyoto Protocol
7.58 The Australian Government undertook a consultation process earlier
this year to inform people about the land use change and forestry issues
currently under consideration in the international climate change negotiations;
and to inform the development of Australia's international negotiating
position on greenhouse sinks and the Kyoto Protocol. Through this process
written submissions were sought on an Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO)
issues paper titled Greenhouse Sinks and the Kyoto Protocol - An Issues
Paper.
7.59 At the same time, the Federal and Western Australian Governments
hosted a closed international forum on greenhouse sinks with representatives
from 30 countries. There were no public reports arising from the forum
which has led to criticism about its restrictive nature and perceptions
amongst the conservation movement `that Australia is very clearly pushing
an agenda of maximising the use of sinks under the Kyoto Protocol' [48]
at the expense of real abatement action at source.
7.60 The conservation movement has expressed considerable concern about
the provisions for sinks under the Kyoto Protocol due to their potential
to be used as `loopholes'. As noted above, an area of particular concern
to the conservation movement is the inclusion of additional sink activities
under Article 3.4, arguing that it is `against the spirit of the Kyoto
Protocol'. [49] In presenting evidence to the
Committee the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) noted that:
The second issue in terms of continuing negotiations is 3.4 of the
Kyoto Protocol which is on additional activities, which include a range
of activities potentially involving agricultural practices and so on.
The definitions of those have not yet been finalised. To give an example
of the potential impact of those definitions, the University of Colorado
prepared a report for the World Wildlife Fund. They found that, with
a particular definition of additional activities, emissions in the United
States could increase by 10 per cent and the US would still meet its
Kyoto target. Basically, a minus seven target could be met, on paper,
with no extra activities, just by including sinks. [50]
7.61 The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) put forward a similar view stating
that land use change and forestry activities would create `loopholes'
in national commitments:
The reason I used the somewhat pejorative term `loopholes' is that,
because the detail of how this section could be used was left hanging,
there is scope for the misuse of the land use change and forestry section
to actually avoid actions to achieve the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change goal which is, of course, to reduce atmospheric concentrations
of greenhouse gases. We have coined the phrase `carbon pardons' to describe
these loopholes, because, essentially, many people are operating - and
certainly many businesses are operating - very similarly to the Pardoner
of Geoffrey Chaucer's time of selling pieces of paper giving absolution
from climate sin with no real change to the actual activities going
on. [51]
7.62 Following the release of the IPCC Special Report, and the conclusion
of the Government's consultation process on sinks and the Kyoto Protocol,
Australia recently (1 August 2000) put forward its submission to the UNFCCC
on land use, land use change and forestry. The submission sets out Australia's
views on how the sinks provisions (which includes afforestation, reforestation
and deforestation in Article 3.3 and additional sinks activities under
Article 3.4) should be implemented through decisions agreed at CoP 6.
7.63 In its 1 August submission, the Australian Government suggests that
the key to implementing the land use, land use change and forestry provisions
is the development of an overarching carbon accounting framework known
as the `Article 3.3/3.4 lands accounting approach'. The Article 3.3/3.4
lands accounting approach refers to land-based accounting which is directly
linked to specific, eligible land use, land use change and forestry activities.
Australia argues that the benefits of this approach are that it:
- provides a coherent framework for reporting eligible Article 3 activities;
- facilitates consistent and robust estimates of all relevant carbon
pools;
- simplifies measurement and carbon accounting by removing the need
to separate out emissions associated with human-induced processes (harvesting
and replanting cycles) from natural processes (fire, CO2 fertilisation);
and
- ensures that measurement of changes in carbon stock and/or greenhouse
gas emissions are in line with key requirements of the Protocol.
7.64 Key requirements for land use, land use change and forestry activities
in the first commitment period include that:
- the activity is directly human-induced, or human-induced;
- the activity took place since 1990;
- measurement of changes in carbon stock or greenhouse gas emissions
as a result of the activity is verifiable and transparent; and
- measurement uncertainties are taken into account.
7.65 The Government's submission supports a set of definitions and rules
for eligible Article 3.3 sink activities (afforestation, reforestation
and deforestation) that they argue:
- reflect Australia's diverse national forest estate;
- winds elements of a definition of a forest into the definitions for
afforestation, reforestation and deforestation;
- requires a change in land use for afforestation and reforestation
activities, for example establishment of a plantation on land cleared
for agricultural purposes, but does not apply a strict land use change
test for deforestation, although harvesting is explicitly excluded (this
is because the harvesting cycle is assumed to be in balance); and
- are consistent with the 1996 IPCC Revised Inventory Guidelines which
govern monitoring and reporting for the first commitment period (Article
5.2). [52]
7.66 The Australian submission supports a narrow approach to the selection
of additional activities under Article 3.4 in conjunction with land-based
accounting and argues strongly for the inclusion of revegetation activities
including:
- the establishment of woody vegetation to address sustainable land
management;
- windbreaks and shelterbelts;
- environmental plantings or fencing off areas of native vegetation;
- agroforestry planting of trees or the development of new tree crops,
such as tea tree oil, to encourage a more diversified and sustainable
production system that leads to social, economic and environmental benefit
for land users; and
- changes in stock management practices to encourage regeneration of
vegetation. [53]
7.67 The submission does, however, leave open the question of further
additional activities being put forward for inclusion, noting that Australia
is working on methodologies to account for additional activities in the
agricultural soils and forest management categories (including wood products).
[54]
7.68 The Committee accepts that many of the issues surrounding the practical
implementation and resolution of the inclusion of sinks in the Kyoto Protocol
are highly technical in nature. However, in the Committee's view the Government
can take greater steps to clarify and explain its position. A step in
this direction would be public reporting of the outcomes of the Perth
Sinks Forum. The Committee is concerned at continued perceptions of Australia
attempting to maximise potential loopholes in these aspects of the Kyoto
Protocol. While it is unclear that this is the case, the strength of these
perceptions cannot be overlooked.
7.69 The Committee acknowledges that it is in the best interests of all
Parties to the Kyoto Protocol to reach resolution on the inclusion of
sinks in the Protocol, as soon as possible, to provide for greater certainty
and facilitate ratification of the Protocol. However, the Committee is
concerned that aspects of the science are still highly uncertain and the
potential for loopholes to be exploited through the accounting system
remain.
Recommendation 66
The Committee recommends that the approach taken by the Government
to international negotiations on the inclusion of sinks should be based
on the following principles:
- that sinks activity in the Clean Development Mechanism should be
consistent with the principles of ecological sustainability and that
appropriate project guidelines be included to minimise potential adverse
socioeconomic and environmental impacts;
- the sinks activity in the Clean Development Mechanism should complement
other activities to reduce emissions at source;
- that the credibility of the use of sinks relies on the credible,
verifiable, and transparent recording and reporting of changes in carbon
stocks and/or changes in greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals
by sinks;
- that sink activities undertaken for climate change mitigation purposes
should not result in native forests being cleared to establish plantations;
and
- that it is desirable for the second commitment period to start
immediately after the first commitment so that reporting on sink activities
is contiguous.
Accounting for the Carbon Domestically
7.70 The need for a credible, transparent and verifiable process for
accounting in the land use change and forestry sector internationally
and domestically has been acknowledged and called for by governments and
interest groups alike. As part of the Prime Minister's 1997 Statement:
Safeguarding the Future: Australia's Response to Climate Change,
the establishment of a NCAS for Land Based Sources and Sinks was announced
at a projected cost of $12.5 million. The Commonwealth submission to the
inquiry notes that:
Australia's greenhouse gas performance can only be measured through
careful monitoring of sources and sinks. Reduction in uncertainty of
current emissions estimations particularly the Land Use Change and Forestry
sector, is essential as it is likely to form the basis for assessing
emissions trends, abatement performance and compliance to commitments
under the Kyoto Protocol.
The National Carbon Accounting System (NCAS), announced by the Commonwealth
in 1997 with funding of $12.5 million, aims to provide a complete accounting
and forecasting capability for human-induced sources and sinks of greenhouse
gas emissions from Australian land-based systems. The CRC for Greenhouse
Accounting, supported by the AGO will assist in developing the fundamental
science that underpins NCAS. [55]
7.71 In presenting evidence to the inquiry, the AGO noted that:
We certainly would agree we need an internationally credible and transparent
process of accounting in land use change and forestry. I think you will
find that the approach that was commenced with our National Greenhouse
Gas Inventory and is now flowing through to the National Carbon Accounting
System does do that. There is a very strong focus on scientific excellence
in terms of developing the approach through essentially workshopping
and involving, through other devices, a whole range of expert input
and review. For example, the draft implementation plan for the 1990
emissions baseline underwent an international scientific review amongst
a good number of the world's leading scientists late last year. We have
published that international review report and it is going on to our
web site. We will basically continue that process and I think we have
in place the arrangements to do that.
We do expect that the international review provisions that will go
with the compliance regime for the Kyoto Protocol will involve international
scrutiny of all countries' national systems accounting for emissions
and sinks, including land use change in forestry. Australia is taking
a very active part in beginning to develop the international guidelines
and codes for that. For example, Australia hosted the final expert workshop
for IPCC good practice guidance provisions in Sydney last week. We have
been actively supporting that and we will be actively supporting the
good practice guidance work that will follow specifically on land use
change and forestry. [56]
7.72 It is the Government's intent that the National Carbon Accounting
System (NCAS) will:
- reduce scientific uncertainties surrounding land-based estimates of
emissions and sinks in the Australian context;
- provide the scientific and technical basis for international reporting
under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol;
- provide a basis for emissions projections to assess progress towards
meeting international emissions reduction targets;
- support emissions trading discussions; and
- underpin international negotiations on greenhouse sink activities.
[57]
7.73 Clarifying the 1990 baseline is a critical issue for Australia as,
at present, there is considerable uncertainty over what Australia's target
of 108 per cent means in terms of actual megatonnes of emissions. This
uncertainty is largely due to the uncertainty of emissions from the land
use change and forestry sector, in particular land clearing. The first
priority of NCAS is to provide the information to refine estimates of
Australia's 1990 baseline. The work that is currently being undertaken
to support this is focused on:
- area and location of land cover change;
- biomass of the vegetation and carbon content of plant components -
such as leaves, roots and stems;
- effects of different land use and agricultural practices;
- the decay rate of wood products - such as furniture, woodframes and
paper; and
- refinement of data and models to track these changes. [58]
7.74 Ms Gwen Andrews, Chief Executive of the AGO notified the inquiry
that this work should be completed around the middle of 2001.
7.75 CANA put the view that `further independent (non-government) research
is needed to quantify and monitor land use and forestry roles in carbon
sequestration and climate change strategies'. [59]
The Wilderness Society submission states that `the controversy surrounding
the use of biospheric carbon stores and sinks would be substantially mitigated
by the establishment of an independent (from government and industry),
resourced, scientific body whose tasks would be to refine the science
and develop the reporting, monitoring and compliance rules to allow any
role of land use change and forestry to be creditable'. [60]
7.76 This in part stems from a view that:
Current government policy is to allow substantial increases in domestic
industrial emissions and meet the Kyoto target `on paper' with off-setting
mechanisms. This will require creative accounting that gives the impression
of reductions while in reality the planet's atmosphere is left with
more greenhouse gases not less. The main tools to achieve this at a
domestic level will be land use change, emissions trading, and sinks
(tree planting) schemes. [61]
7.77 Given the work of the NCAS and the CRC for Greenhouse Accounting,
Australia is well placed to meet the reporting requirements of the Kyoto
Protocol and provide greater certainty on the emissions from land use,
land use change and forestry. In the interest of transparency, greater
steps could be taken by the Government to remove the `black box' of accounting
by involving a broader range of non-government stakeholders in discussions
on the work taking place and ensuring the results of peer review are publicly
reported.
Recommendation 67
The Committee recommends that regular briefings for all stakeholders
are held on the progress of the National Carbon Accounting System and
the outcomes of work as it is finalised.
Footnotes
[1] Watson et al (Eds), Land Use, Land-Use
Change and Forestry: A Special report of the IPCC, Cambridge University
Press, 2000, p 327.
[2] Australian Greenhouse Office, National
Emissions Trading: Crediting the carbon, Discussion Paper No. 3, 1999,
p 12.
[3] Sequestration is the process of removing
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and retaining it in a carbon sink such
as a forest.
[4] A sink is defined as a process, activity
or mechanism, which removes a greenhouse gas, an aerosol, or a precursor
of a greenhouse gas from the atmosphere.
[5] Australian Greenhouse Office, National
Emissions Trading: Crediting the carbon, Discussion Paper No. 3, 1999,
p 13.
[6] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Summary for Policy Makers: Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry,
Canada, 2000, p 5.
[7] Australian Greenhouse Office, National
Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1998, 2000, p A-28.
[8] Australian Greenhouse Office, National
Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1998, Fact Sheet 7, Forestry and Land Clearing,
2000.
[9] Australian Greenhouse Office, National
Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1998, Fact Sheet 7, Forestry and Land Clearing,
2000.
[10] Australian Greenhouse Office, National
Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1998, 2000, p A-28.
[11] Australia's Second National Report under
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, November 1997,
p 6.
[12] Australian Greenhouse Office, National
Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1998, Fact Sheet 7, Forestry and Land Clearing,
2000.
[13] Australian Greenhouse Office, National
Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1998, Fact Sheet 7, Forestry and Land Clearing,
2000.
[14] Australian Greenhouse Office, National
Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1998, Fact Sheet 7, Forestry and Land Clearing,
2000.
[15] Australian Greenhouse Office, National
Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1998, Fact Sheet 7, Forestry and Land Clearing,
2000.
[16] Australian Greenhouse Office, National
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Land Use Change and Forestry Sector 1990 to 1998,
2000, p A-3.
[17] Australian Greenhouse Office, National
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Land Use Change and Forestry Sector 1990 to 1998,
2000, p A-5.
[18] Australian Greenhouse Office, National
Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1998, Fact Sheet 4, Agriculture, 2000.
[19] Australian Greenhouse Office, National
Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1998, Fact Sheet 4, Agriculture, 2000; and
Australian Greenhouse Office, National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1998,
2000, p A-26.
[20] Australia's Second National Report under
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, November 1997,
p 6.
[21] Australian Greenhouse Office, National
Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1998, 2000, p A-23.
[22] Australian Greenhouse Office, National
Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1998, Fact Sheet 4, Agriculture, 2000.
[23] Australian Greenhouse Office, The National
Greenhouse Strategy: Strategic Framework for Advancing Australia's Greenhouse
Response, 1998, p 101.
[24] Australian Greenhouse Office, The National
Greenhouse Strategy: Strategic Framework for Advancing Australia's Greenhouse
Response, 1998, p 101.
[25] Australian Greenhouse Office, Greenhouse
Sinks and the Kyoto Protocol: An Issues Paper, 2000, pp 2-3.
[26] Senator, the Hon Robert Hill, Bush for
Greenhouse Open for Business, Australian Greenhouse Office, Media Release,
April 13 2000, p 1.
[27] Southern Pacific Petroleum and Central
Pacific Minerals, Submission 172, p 1749.
[28] Official Committee Hansard, Canberra,
9 March 2000, p 3.
[29] The Kyoto Protocol to the Convention on
Climate Change.
[30] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Summary for Policy Makers: Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry,
Canada, 2000, p 5.
[31] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Summary for Policy Makers: Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry,
2000, p 5.
[32] Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra,
6 September 2000, p 919.
[33] Robert T Watson, Chair of the IPCC, A
Report on the Key Findings from the IPCC Special Report on Land Use, Land-Use
Change and Forestry, 12th session of SBSTA, Bonn, Germany, 13 June
2000.
[34] Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra,
6 September 2000, p 921.
[35] Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra,
6 September 2000, p 921.
[36] The Climate Action Network Australia is
comprised of the following organisations: Australian Conservation Foundation;
Community Information Project on Sustainable Energy; Conservation Council
of South East Region and Canberra; Environment Victoria; Friends of the
Earth; Greenpeace Australia; Queensland Conservation Council; Sunshine
Coast Environment Council; Total Environment Centre; World Wide Fund for
Nature (Australia); Conservation Council of Western Australia; Urban Ecology,
South Australia; New South Wales Nature Conservation Council; AidWatch;
Pacific Bioweb; North Queensland Conservation Council; Institute for Sustainability
and technology Policy; Tasmanian Conservation Trust; Institute for Sustainable
Futures; Northern Territory Environment Centre; and Centre for Education
Research in Environmental Strategies (CERES).
[37] Official Committee Hansard, Canberra,
10 March 2000, p 48.
[38] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Summary for Policy Makers: Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry,
Canada, 2000, p 8.
[39] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Summary for Policy Makers: Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry,
Canada, 2000, p 9.
[40] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Summary for Policy Makers: Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry,
Canada, 2000, p 9.
[41] Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra,
6 September 2000, p 928.
[42] Australian Greenhouse Office, Greenhouse
Sinks and the Kyoto Protocol: An Issues Paper, 2000, p 90.
[43] Proof Committee Hansard, Perth,
17 April 2000, p 537.
[44] Watson et al (Eds), Land Use, Land-Use
Change and Forestry: A Special Report of the IPCC, Cambridge University
Press, 2000, p 327.
[45] Watson et al (Eds), Land Use, Land-Use
Change and Forestry: A Special Report of the IPCC, Cambridge University
Press, 2000, p 327.
[46] Watson et al (Eds) Land Use, Land-Use
Change and Forestry: A Special Report of the IPCC, Cambridge University
Press, 2000, pp 327-28.
[47] Watson et al (Eds), Land Use, Land-Use
Change and Forestry: A Special Report of the IPCC, Cambridge University
Press, 2000, pp 115-18.
[48] Mr Shane Rattenbury, Proof Committee
Hansard, 23 June 2000, Canberra, p 757.
[49] Climate Action Network Australia, Submission
193, p 2035.
[50] Mr Van Rood, Official Committee Hansard,
Melbourne, 21 March 2000, p 195.
[51] Mr Michael Rae, Official Committee
Hansard, Sydney, 23 March 2000, p 440.
[52] Australian submission to the UNFCCC on
Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry - 1 August 2000: Implementation
of Articles 3.3 and 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol, pp 1-3.
[53] Australian submission to the UNFCCC on
Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry - 1 August 2000: Implementation
of Articles 3.3 and 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol, pp 1-3.
[54] Australian submission to the UNFCCC on
Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry - 1 August 2000: Implementation
of Articles 3.3 and 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol, p 13.
[55] Australian Greenhouse Office on behalf
of the Commonwealth Government, Submission 169, p 1700.
[56] Official Committee Hansard, Canberra,
9 March 2000, p 23.
[57] Greenhouse notes: Information from
the Australian Greenhouse Office, No 16: National Carbon Accounting
System, December 1999.
[58] Greenhouse notes: Information from
the Australian Greenhouse Office, No 16: National Carbon Accounting
System, December 1999.
[59] Climate Action Network Australia, Submission
193, p 2036.
[60] The Wilderness Society, Submission 178,
pp 1844-45.
[61] Climate Action Network Australia, Submission
193, p 2037-38.
|
