LULUCF/ Forest Reference Level; Finnish reflections. LULUCF workshop, Brussels 25 September 2018 Heikki Granholm

Transcription

1 LULUCF/ Forest Reference Level; Finnish reflections LULUCF workshop, Brussels 25 September 2018 Heikki Granholm 1

2 Issues for consideration 1) Background; Finland, emissions and removals 2) What the LULUCF regulation is about? 3) On-going work to prepare FRL 4) Possible implications 5) Let s look beyond LULUCF Regulation and FRL 2

3 In Finland forest sink offsets a significant proportion of emissions in other sectors GHG emissions and removals Emissions and removals in LULUCF sector Source: Suomen kasvihuonekaasupäästöt Suomen virallinen tilasto (SVT): Kasvihuonekaasut [verkkojulkaisu]. ISSN= Helsinki: Tilastokeskus [viitattu: ] Saantitapa: 3

4 What the LULUCF Regulation is about? Linking LULUCF sector into EU s 2030 climate and energy framework; LULUCF as a separate pillar Helps to operationalize EU s international contribution to Paris Agreement (Nationally Determined Contribution) together with other policies such ETS, ESR, energy efficiency, renewables, etc. LULUCF no-debit target 0, as accounted according to Regulation Focus at national level, not at the level of operators. Does not set guidelines for land and forest management Why was the negotiation difficult? Past accounting system historical burden Technically complex Recognition that LULUCF sector is different: Reduced sink emission; no requirement of additionality Diversity between Member States (magnitude, perspectives, political weight) Accounting is a result of political negotiation, not as a scientific equation: How much is too much/enought? Forest Reference Level; is it to collectivize forest sink? 4

5 On-going work to prepare FRL Finland, like other MSs, is in process to prepare FRL by end of 2018 Technical exercise; carried out by the Natural Resources Institute of Finland (LUKE); (both FRL and writing the report) Legal text is complicated; experts from ministries have helped to understand and operationalize it Exchange between experts from different countries, workshops and guidance document seem to be useful Not a single way of preparing FRL; diversity welcomed, transparency needed In Finland: relatively good data base, expertice in modelling Approval in Finland: standard EU procedure (technical EU committee) Available in internet? How and when? Does it add value? Challenge: Time is short; need to look regulation objectively Technical review in > approval

6 Possible implications Preparatory phase : Demanding workload to experts -> need to improve data and modelling base FRL provisions include some provisions that are not operational, e.g. Constant ration between solid material and energy use -> no implications foreseen Technical review process -> minor clarifications foreseen FRL expected to be ok, but uncertain if overall LULUCF target can be met Period : GHG reporting -> results to be seen in 2027 Preparation of new FRL for Period : GHG reporting -> results to be seen in 2032 Use of flexibilities Transfer of units between ESD/LULUCF and between MSs Overall implications: Stick approach : due to stringent cap on forests, no stimulation to further action in forests; risk avoidance approach Does FRL limit opportunities for bioeconomy? 6

7 Beyond LULUCF Regulation and FRL What is best way forests could contribute to climate change? 3S; Sequestration, Storage and Substitution Avoid deforestation, implement sustainable forest management (climate smart forestry, adaptive management), multifunctionality (ecosystem services), bioeconomy, HWP (wood in construction, high added value and new products), resource efficiency, etc. What kind of policy framework could be established? At global and EU levels: political recognition and predictibility, coherence, equal level playing field between countries Simplicity Allow flexibility and diversity at national level; Trust: acknowledge constant improvement of sfm practices at national level and by operators What kind of incentives could be explored? Stick approach or carrot approach? Potential value of forest sequestration e.g. 300 Mt/yr * 20 /tn = Could we exploring possible implications of sink compensation? Market based approaches? Need to have a long-term perspective (balance between emissions and removals) but act today! 7