1. The
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
Reference
Emission
Levels
Using
the
Collaborative
Modeling
Initiative’s
OSIRIS
Tool
to
Compare
Various
Designs
for
RED(D+)
Reference
Emission
Levels
and
Incentive
Systems
Presentation
by
Ralph
Ashton
Convenor
and
Chair,
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
Senior
Policy
Fellow
and
Project
Director,
The
Heinz
Center
Visiting
Scholar,
Columbia
University
ralph.ashton@terrestrialcarbon.org
Forum
on
Readiness
for
REDD:
REDD
Negotiator
Training
Workshop
Bangkok,
4
October
2009

2. The
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
Science,
Economics,
Public
Policy
Ralph
Ashton
Tim
Flannery
Carlos
Nobre
Chatib
Basri
Thomas
Lovejoy
Hugh
Possingham
Rizaldi
Boer
Yadvinder
Malhi
Bernhard
Schlamadinger†
Peter
Cosier
Jacques
Marcovitch
Hadi
Soesastro
Ruth
DeFries
Warwick
McKibbin
Joseph
Stiglitz
Mohamed
El-­‐Ashry
Daniel
Nepstad
Bernardo
Strassburg
Please
see
full
paper
for
†
RIP
2008
more
details
–
available
in
five
languages
Objective:
Terrestrial
carbon
is
effectively
included
in
the
international
response
to
climate
change
The
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
2

3. Selected
Key
Policy
Considerations
1
Scale
2
Scope
At
what
scale
should
action
be
What
scope
of
terrestrial
carbon
and
measured
and
rewarded?
land
management
activities
should
be

 Project
/
sub-­‐national
included?

 National
 RED

 Aggregate
of
participating
 REDD
nations

 REDD-­‐plus
 Global
all
sectors

 AFOLU
3
Conceptual
Approach
4
Sources
of
Incentives
What
should
action
be
measured
How
should
incentives
be
provided?
against?

 Carbon
market
 Business
as
usual

 Voluntary
or
performance-­‐based
 Status
quo
funds
 Pragmatic

 Carbon-­‐market
linked
funds

 Negotiated

 Meeting
national
commitments
The
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
 Emerging
consensus
 Some
support
3

4. Different
Circumstances
/
Different
Views?
(IPCC:
mitigation
potential
per
annum
in
2030
up
to
US$100
/
tonne
CO2e)
GtCO2e
pa
4
Agriculture
2
Forest
Sequestration
Avoided
Deforestation
0
Latin
America
South
&
South
East
Africa
Asia
The
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
4

5. Different
Circumstances
/
Different
Views?
The
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
5

6. Geographic
Distribution
of
Volatile
Terrestrial
Carbon*
Top
10
Volatile
Forest
Carbon
GtC
Top
10
Volatile
Non-­‐Forest
Carbon
GtC
Brazil
86.9
Brazil
19.3
Democratic
Republic
of
Congo
39.2
China
19.1
Indonesia
27.3
India
10.8
China
18.1
Indonesia
10.4
Peru
14.8
Argentina
9.4
Angola
12.3
Mexico
7.8
Colombia
11.8
Sudan
6.8
Bolivia
10.0
Kazakhstan
6.7
Mexico
9.5
Democratic
Republic
of
Congo
4.1
Venezuela
8.5
South
Africa
4.1
Total
Top
10
238.3
Total
Top
10
98.5
Total
All
Non-­‐Annex
I
Countries
363.7
Total
All
Non-­‐Annex
I
Countries
207.1
Top
10
as
%
of
all
66%
Top
10
as
%
of
all
48%
*
Carbon
that
would
be
emitted
in
the
event
of
land
The
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
use
change
=>
100%
vegetation
&
25%
soil
6

7. The
OSIRIS
Tool
OSIRIS
is
a
free,
transparent,
accessible
and
open
source
decision
support
spreadsheet
tool
designed
to
support
UNFCCC
negotiations
on
REDD+
www.conservation.org/osiris
Collaborative
Modelling
Initiative
Woods
Hole
Research
Center
With
the
International
The
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
Institute
for
Applied
Systems
Analysis
(IIASA)
The
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
7

8. OSIRIS:
Policy-­‐Relevant
Outputs
OSIRIS
country-­‐by-­‐country
outputs:
 Decrease
or
increase
in
deforestation
(Ha/yr)
 Decrease
or
increase
in
emissions
from
deforestation
(ton
CO2
e/yr)
 Distribution
of
revenue
($/yr)
 Cost-­‐efficiency
of
emissions
reductions
($/ton
CO2
e)
 Currently
limited
to
RED
(rather
than
REDD,
REDD+
or
AFOLU)
Focused
on
comparing
effectiveness,
efficiency
and
equity
The
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
This
slide
is
modified
from
a
presentation
by
Jonah
Busch
(Conservation
International)
8

9. OSIRIS:
Flexible
Inputs
 Reference
level
design
 Base
period
(’90-­‐’00
or
’00-­‐’05)
 Carbon
price
($/ton
CO2)
 Responsiveness
of
price
of
 Management
cost
and
transaction
frontier
land
agricultural
cost
($/Ha
or
$/ton
CO2)
output
to
changes
in
extent
 Fraction
of
soil
carbon
eligible
for
of
deforestation
(“price
RED(D+)
elasticity
of
demand”)
 Market,
fund,
or
quota
 Weight
of
countries’
 Timing
of
payment
preference
for
REDD+
surplus
vs.
agricultural
surplus
 Suite
of
countries
participating
in
RED(D+)
 Design-­‐specific
parameters
Can
be
adapted
to
answer
negotiators’
questions
The
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
This
slide
is
modified
from
a
presentation
by
Jonah
Busch
(Conservation
International)
9

10. OSIRIS:
Designs
Compared
Design
option
Reference
Description
“Without
REDD”
FAO
FRA
(2005)
Counterfactual
business
as
usual
scenario
“National
historical”
Santilli
et
al
(2005)
Reference
rate
is
historical
for
all
countries
“Higher
than
historical
Mollicone
et
al
Reference
deforestation
rate
is
0.15%
for
low-­‐
for
countries
with
low
(2007);
da
Fonseca
deforestation
countries;
Baseline
is
historical
deforestation
rates”
et
al
(2007)
for
high
deforestation
countries
“Weighted
average
of
Strassburg
et
al
Reference
rate
is
0.85*historical
rate
for
all
national
and
global”
(2008)
countries
+
0.15*global
average
rate
Reference
rate
is
historical
for
all
countries;
15%
“Flow
withholding
Cattaneo
et
al
“withholding”
on
flow
payments
to
pay
for
and
stock
payment”
(2008)
stock
payments
“Annualized
fraction
At-­‐risk
forest
stock
in
high-­‐defor
countries
Ashton
et
al
of
forest
stock
at
risk
emitted
by
2050;at-­‐risk
forest
stock
in
low-­‐
(2008)
of
emission”
deforestation
countries
emitted
by
2100
“Cap
and
trade
for
Eliasch
(2008);
For
Cap
is
historical
for
all
countries;
countries
REDD”
comparison
only
above
cap
must
purchase
credits
New
/
other
designs
can
be
added
and
compared
in
the
tool
The
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
This
slide
is
modified
from
a
presentation
by
Jonah
Busch
(Conservation
International)
10

11. OSIRIS:
Selected
Results
Significant
Emission
Reductions
in
all
Regions
under
all
Compared
Designs
The
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
This
slide
is
modified
from
a
presentation
by
Jonah
Busch
(Conservation
International)
11

12. OSIRIS:
Key
Messages
Action
more
RED(D+)
can
be
an
effective,
efficient
source
of
emissions
important
than
reductions
under
a
broad
range
of
reference
level
designs
Exact
Design
Design
Impacts
But,
reference
level
design
determines
distribution
of
Who
Gets
What
payments
to
countries
The
most
effective,
efficient
RED(D+)
designs
balance
High
and
Low
incentives
for
reducing
historically
high
rates
of
Deforesters
both
deforestation
with
incentives
for
maintaining
historically
low
Critical
rates
of
deforestation
Extending
RED(D+)
incentives
to
countries
with
historically
Low
Deforesters
low
deforestation
rates
can
prevent
leakage
to
those
Key
to
Avoiding
countries,
making
the
RED(D+)
mechanism
more
effective
Leakage
overall
Agriculture
The
overall
effectiveness
of
RED(D+)
can
be
increased
by
Planning
is
Vital
meeting
agricultural
needs
off
the
tropical
forest
frontier
The
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
This
slide
is
modified
from
a
presentation
by
Jonah
Busch
(Conservation
International)
12

13. OSIRIS:
Next
Steps
to
Copenhagen
 RED(D+)
designs
of
 Co-­‐benefits
of
RED(D+)
interest
to
parties
(development,
water,
biodiversity)
 Impacts
of
RED(D+)
incentives
to
2050
(with
 Phased
implementation
of
IIASA)
RED(D+)
by
countries
 Market
vs
fund
vs
quota
 Downscaled
analyses
in
key
countries
(Indonesia,
Peru,
 Distribution
and
equity
Madagascar,
Liberia,
Guyana,
Suriname,
Brazil)
The
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
This
slide
is
modified
from
a
presentation
by
Jonah
Busch
(Conservation
International)
13

14. Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
Policy
Briefs
Available
at
terrestrialcarbon.org
We
welcome
suggestions
for
other
topics
With
1.
Distribution
of
2.
Tools
for
3.
Estimating
4.
Legal
and
5.
Measuring
and
Terrestrial
Carbon
Setting
Reference
Tropical
Forest
Institutional
Monitoring
Across
Developing
Emission
Levels
Carbon
at
Risk
of
Foundations
for
Terrestrial
Carbon
Countries
Emission
from
the
National
as
Part
of
Deforestation
Implementation
“REDD+”
MRV
Globally
of
REDD
Systems
(and
Background
(and
Background
Report
with
Case
Report)
Studies)
The
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
14

15. A
Solution
at
Copenhagen
COP15
1. An
overarching
framework
for
terrestrial
carbon
that
includes:
 Forestry
immediately,
through
joint
or
separate
mechanisms
for:
 Avoided
emissions;
and
 New
sequestration
(either
a
reformed
CDM
or
a
new
mechanism,
or
both)
 A
detailed
program
of
work
to
fill
scientific,
methodological,
technical,
and
capacity
gaps
to
bring
in
Agriculture
and
Other
Land
Use
by
as
early
as
2013
2. Establish
a
new
World
Land
Use
Organisation
(or
mandate
an
existing
organisation)
to
coordinate,
support,
and
drive
the
transition
to
a
global
land-­‐use
management
approach
that
provides
sufficient
food,
fiber,
fuel,
and
other
land-­‐based
values
to
a
growing
global
population
in
a
land-­‐
and
carbon-­‐constrained
world
The
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
15

16. Reference
Emission
Levels:
Background
Material

17. Why
Reference
Emission
Levels
(and
Sequestration
Levels)
are
Required
 When
creating
a
system
that
incentivizes
avoided
emissions
and
increased
sequestration,
it
is
necessary
to
know:
 What
is
being
rewarded
 How
to
measure
success
 How
to
link
project,
sub-­‐national,
and
national
action
to
international
reporting
 Therefore
need
to
agree:
 Reference
emission
levels
 Reference
sequestration
levels
The
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
17

18. Avoiding
Emissions
vs
Reducing
Rates
Climate
change
is
a
%
Year
O
Volume
Carbon
120
greenhouse
gas
problem
100
Reducing
rates
of
deforestation
is
an
80
important
near-­‐term
goal,
but
reducing
rates
is
not
60
enough
Goal
Must
also
avoid
emissions
40
Otherwise
same
area
of
forest
will
be
destroyed,
20
and
same
volume
of
greenhouse
gas
will
be
0
emitted,
but
over
a
longer
Year
period
Business
as
Usual
Reduced
Rate
Avoided
Emissions
Total
Emissions
The
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
18

19. Conceptual
Approach:
Schematic
Reward
performance
Most
important
compared
with
what
Incentivise
only
outcome
is
that
a
would
happen
in
the
countries
with
Use
historical
data
threshold
number
of
future
without
the
emissions
in
the
because
it
is
the
only
countries
agree
incentive
system
immediate
past
“real”
data
available
to
the
RELs
Business
Status
Quo
Pragmatic
Negotiated
as
Usual
Extrapolated
Adjusted
Forward-­‐
Historical
Historical
Looking
History
is
a
good
History
is
a
good
but
The
only
way
to
guide
to
the
future
imperfect
guide,
and
understand
future
(or
its
best
therefore
adjust
emissions
is
to
model
approximation),
and
historical
data
to
the
future,
taking
into
therefore
extrapolate
improve
its
predictive
account
factors
that
historical
data
into
the
capability
drive
and
constrain
future
emissions
from
land
use
The
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
19

20. Conceptual
Approach:
Evaluation
Data
Required
Potential
Problems
Historical
data
• Might
require
models
and
assumptions
Business
and
/
or
various
• Might
have
relatively
high
data
availability
as
Usual
legal,
biophysical
(see
also
next
slide
and
“Tools
for
Setting
RELs”
section)
and
economic
data
• Ignores
modelling
that
shows
that
an
incentive
system
that
excludes
countries
with
terrestrial
carbon
at
risk
Status
Quo
Only
historical
data
of
emission
will
cause
significant
“leakage”,
thereby
undoing
the
climate
impact
of
the
system
• Historical
data
is
not
necessarily
accurate,
even
in
terms
of
representing
emissions
in
the
historical
Pragmatic
Only
historical
data
period
in
question
• Does
not
specifically
address
additionality
Can
be
based
on
• This
approach
will
be
problematic
if
it
does
not
Negotiated
any
number
of
specifically
address
additionality
methodologies
The
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
20

21. Conceptual
Approach:
Is
History
a
Good
Guide?
Demand
for
Food,
Prices
for
Population
Fibre,
Fuel,
Land
&
(Increase
from
7
to
Carbon,
Commod-­‐
9
billion
by
2050)
and
Land
ities
Land
Land-­‐Use
Availability
Possible
Under-­‐Estimation
Decisions
(especially
after
What
do
these
dynamics
mean
for
and
Land
deforestation)
threats
to
vegetated
land
in
Availability
developing
nations?
Possible
Over-­‐Estimation
The
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
Forests
eventually
run
out…
21

22. TCG
Analysis
on
Tools
for
RELs
1. Outlines
policy
considerations
facing
decision-­‐makers
when
setting
an
REL
including
on
scale,
scope,
and
conceptual
approach
(see
previous
section)
2. Analyses
9
existing
tools
that
can
be
used
to
set
reference
emission
levels
3. Draws
conclusions
about:
 Ability
of
these
tools
to
meet
policy
needs
 Data
that
are
required
regardless
of
the
detailed
rules
 How
easily
can
the
reference
emission
level
be
set
Available
at
based
on
cost,
data
requirements
and
availability,
www.terrestrialcarbon.org
and
complexity
The
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
22

23. d
Tool
Comparison
Update
Being FAC GCOMAP GEOMOD GTM Guyana EVN
IIASA G4M &
GLOBIOM
LUCS
Sim-Amazonia
1
TCG 3 Filters
Scale
Project / Sub-National       
National        
Regional       
Aggregate of Participating Nations     
Scope
RED         
REDD
REDD-plus (without degradation)       
AFOLU    
Emissions (not just area change)         
Conceptual Approach:
Business as Usual Perspective
Extrapolated Historical 
Adjusted Historical  
Forward-Looking      
Feasibility
Feasibility High Medium Low Medium Medium Low Medium Low Medium
Spatially explicit data used    
Major Drivers and Constraints
Considered
Legal   
Biophysical       
Economic         
Other
Developing
Original Geographic Focus Not specific Not specific Costa Rica Not specific Guyana Not specific Not specific Amazon Basin
Countries
Timeframe 20 years 100 years 20 years 100 years 30 years 100 years 20 years 30-40 years Long Run
Dynamic     
The
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
Key:  = Possible with Current Tool;  = Possible with Adaptations to Current Tool or More Data 23

24. Key
Data
for
Tools
for
RELs
 The
following
data
was
used
by
four
or
more
of
the
tools
reviewed:
 Forest
(carbon
stock,
net
primary
productivity,
type)
 Land
use
data
 Soil
/
suitability
of
land
for
agriculture
 Timber
(species,
age,
increment,
yield)
 Commodity
prices
(agriculture
and
forestry)
 Cost
/
investment
(land,
governance
and
monitoring,
harvest,
herd
establishment,
planting,
transport)
 Population
(change,
density,
growth
rate)
 Carbon
density
information
is
also
essential
The
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
24

25. REL
Tools:
Implications
 The
more
a
REL
reflects
a
reasonable
business
as
usual
scenario,
the
more
it
guarantees
additionality
 RELs
are
a
policy
choice
and
might
or
might
not
correspond
exactly
with
a
business
as
usual
scenario
 Tools
can
provide
a
yardstick
to
measure
the
credibility
of
RELs
 Further
policy
work
should
focus
on
making
tools
for
setting
RELs
more
feasible
across
a
range
of
scopes,
countries,
and
policy
considerations
rather
than
on
making
existing
tools
more
accurate
 Aggregate
of
country
RELs
(including
the
volume
of
potential
international
offsets)
must
be
reflected
in
the
overall
global
carbon
budget
The
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
25

26. Determining
Terrestrial
Carbon
At
Risk
of
Emission
1. Total
Terrestrial
Carbon:
Estimate
total
volume
of
terrestrial
carbon
in
vegetation
and
soil
2. Volatile
Terrestrial
Carbon:
Calculate
carbon
that
would
be
emitted
in
the
event
of
land
use
change

100%
carbon
in
vegetation
and
25%
carbon
in
soil
3. At-­‐Risk
Terrestrial
Carbon:
Use
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
“3
Filters”
methodology
to
estimate
volatile
carbon
at
risk
of
emission
over
the
long
run
Available
at
www.terrestrialcarbon.org
The
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
26

27. Geographic
Distribution
of
Volatile
Terrestrial
Carbon*
Top
10
Volatile
Forest
Carbon
GtC
Top
10
Volatile
Non-­‐Forest
Carbon
GtC
Brazil
86.9
Brazil
19.3
Democratic
Republic
of
Congo
39.2
China
19.1
Indonesia
27.3
India
10.8
China
18.1
Indonesia
10.4
Peru
14.8
Argentina
9.4
Angola
12.3
Mexico
7.8
Colombia
11.8
Sudan
6.8
Bolivia
10.0
Kazakhstan
6.7
Mexico
9.5
Democratic
Republic
of
Congo
4.1
Venezuela
8.5
South
Africa
4.1
Total
Top
10
238.3
Total
Top
10
98.5
Total
All
Non-­‐Annex
I
Countries
363.7
Total
All
Non-­‐Annex
I
Countries
207.1
Top
10
as
%
of
all
66%
Top
10
as
%
of
all
48%
*
Carbon
that
would
be
emitted
in
the
event
of
land
The
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
use
change
=>
100%
vegetation
&
25%
soil
27

28. “3
Filters”
Method
to
Determine
Volatile
Carbon
At
Risk
of
Emission
over
Long
Term
Effectively
Protected
• Legally
protected
1.
by
Law
• Effective
governance
2.
Biophysically
unsuitable
• Climate,
soil
and
terrain
conditions
for
agriculture,
pasture
• Input
levels
&
management
conditions
[or
logging]
Economic
constraints
• Level
of
agricultural
development
3.
• Access
to
markets:
local,
national,
[international]
mean
unlikely
• [Level
of
demand
for
food,
fibre,
fuel]
to
fulfil
biophysical
• [Extent
of
population
pressures]
potential
• [Proximity
to
current
deforestation
frontier]
The
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
Note:
Square
brackets
indicate
not
yet
incorporated
in
tool
28

29. Tropical
Forest
Carbon
at
Risk
Globally
(preliminary
results)
Yellow
=
Tropical
Forest
Carbon
at
Risk
Green
=
Effectively
Protected
by
Law
White
=
No
Tropical
Forest
Carbon
or
no
data
GtC
Africa
Asia
Latin
America
Total
Potentially
at
Risk
82.5
46.6
136.2
265.3
Effectively
protected
(6.9)
(5.9)
(39.6)
(52.4)
Biophysically
unsuitable
and/or
(18.8)
(13.4)
(11.2)
(43.5)
economically
unfeasible
At
Risk
58.2
29.6
87.8
175.5
%
of
total
potentially
at
risk
71%
64%
64%
66%
The
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
29

30. TCG
Modeling:
Next
Steps
to
Copenhagen
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
is
working
independently
and
collaboratively
on:
 Refining
existing
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
modeling
to:
 Capture
the
dynamic
future
(biophysical
and
economic)
 Capture
‘at
risk’
profile
over
time
(not
just
aggregate
over
long
run)
 Update
the
global
carbon
map
(completed
with
Holly
Gibbs)
 Widen
the
scope
of
existing
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
modeling
to:
 Include
deforestation
of
all
forest
types
(not
just
tropical)
 Include
afforestation
/
reforestation
potential
 Include
degradation
 Include
agricultural
carbon
emissions
The
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
30

31. Key
Actions
Required
for
RELs
International
Ensure
longevity
of
earth
observation
infrastructure:
satellites,
Remote
Sensing
receiving
stations,
analysis
capacity
(human
and
computing)
Improve
field
measurement
capabilities
and
expand
coverage
Science
of
conversion
factors
(land
use
types,
species,
regions),
especially
for
forest
degradation
and
peatlands
Negotiations
Agree
to
each
country’s
REL,
including
RELs
for
early
action
National
Gather
and
analyse
key
data
at
local,
provincial
/
island,
and
Data
national
levels
for
RELs
and
ongoing
measuring
and
monitoring
(remote
sensing
and
field
measurements)
Science
As
for
International,
but
focused
on
local
conditions
Establish
national
institutions
to
link
project,
sub-­‐national
and
Institutions
national
RELs
to
each
other
and
to
international
reporting
requirements
The
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
31

32. Notes
and
Sources
Slide:
“Different
Circumstances
/
Different
Views?”
Slide:
“OSIRIS:
Selected
Results”
Mitigation
potential
by
sector:
Avoided
Deforestation,
Forest
Busch,
J.
et
al
in
press.
2009.
OSIRIS
v2.6
Parameter
values:
C02
price=$5/
Sequestration
and
Agriculture
show
annual
mitigation
potential
at
ton
CO2
;
Permanence
scale=1.00;
Elasticity
of
demand=1.0;
Social
less
than
US$100
/
tCO2
in
2030
based
on
forest
carbon;
preference
for
REDD
surplus
=
1.00;
Mgmt
cost=$3.50/Ha/yr;
Soil
carbon
agricultural
sequestration;
and
avoidance
of
N2O
and
CH4
eligible=0.25;
Baseline
for
low
defor=0.0015;
Weight
on
historical=0.85;
emissions,
mainly
from
livestock
(<
0.1
Gt).
Developing
countries
=
Stock-­‐flow
withholding=0.15;
Low
defor
emitted
by:
2100;
High
defor
Non-­‐OECD
/
Non-­‐EIT.
Smith
et
al.,
2007
(Figure
8.5:
Total
technical
emitted
by:
2050
mitigation
potentials
(all
practices,
all
GHGs:
MtCO2-­‐eq/yr)
for
Slides:
“Conceptual
Approach:
Schematic”
to
“REL
Tools:
Implications”
each
region
by
2030,
showing
mean
estimates);
Nabuurs
et
al,
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
Project.
2009.
Policy
Brief
Number
2
“Tools
for
2007
(Table
9.3:
Potential
of
mitigation
measures
of
global
Setting
Reference
Emission
Levels:
A
review
of
existing
tools
that
can
be
forestry
activities.
Global
model
results
indicate
annual
amount
used
to
set
a
benchmark
for
rewarding
reduced
emissions
and
increased
sequestered
or
emissions
avoided,
above
business
as
usual,
in
sequestration
of
greenhouse
gasses
in
the
terrestrial
system”,
available
at
2030
for
carbon
prices
100
US$/tCO2
and
less);
both
from
Climate
www.terrestrialcarbon.org.
Change
2007:
Mitigation.
Contribution
of
working
group
III
to
the
4th
assessment
report
of
the
IPCCC.
Slides:
“Determining
Terrestrial
Carbon
At
Risk
of
Emission”
to
“Tropical
Forest
Carbon
at
Risk
Globally”
Slide:
“Different
Circumstances
/
Different
Views?”
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
Project.
2009.
Policy
Brief
Number
1
“Distribution
Griscom,
B.
et
al.
(2009)
Sensitivity
of
amounts
and
distribution
of
of
Terrestrial
Carbon
Across
Developing
Countries:
Forest
and
Non-­‐Forest;
tropical
forest
carbon
credits
depending
on
baseline
rules.
Vegetation
and
Soil”
and
Project
Policy
Brief
Number
3
“Estimating
Tropical
Environmental
Science
and
Policy,
in
press.
Based
on
remaining
Forest
Carbon
at
Risk
of
Emission
from
Deforestation
Globally:
Applying
the
forest
in
1996
compared
with
original
forest
cover,
and
mean
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
Reference
Emission
Level
Approach”
(available
at
annual
rate
of
forest
cover
loss
1990-­‐2005
as
a
percentage
of
www.terrestrialcarbon.org),
and
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
analysis.
original
forest
cover.
Slide:
“Geographic
Distribution
of
Volatile
Terrestrial
Carbon”
Data
sources:
Filters:
UNEP-­‐WCMC,
WRI,
IIASA
/
FAO;
Carbon:
Gibbs,
IGBP.
Methodology
is
similar
to
that
used
in
Eliasch
Review.
Filter
3
is
currently
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
Project.
2009.
Policy
Brief
Number
1
the
least
developed.
Ideally,
will
take
into
account
projections
of
local,
“Distribution
of
Terrestrial
Carbon
Across
Developing
Countries:
national
and
global
market
conditions,
which
will
depend
on
numerous
Forest
and
Non-­‐Forest;
Vegetation
and
Soil”
(available
at
factors,
including
availability
of
alternative
agricultural
land,
yield
www.terrestrialcarbon.org).
improvements,
infrastructure,
population
growth
and
density.
The
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group
32