Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-7 (section)

=== 7.6.1 Retrospective in Policy Efforts and Achieved Mitigation Within AFOLU ===

<div id="h2-28-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Since the establishment of the UNFCCC, international agencies, countries, sub-national units and NGO’s have developed policies to facilitate and encourage GHG mitigation within AFOLU (Figure 7.18). Early guidance and policies focused on developing GHG inventory methodology with some emphasis on afforestation and reforestation projects, but the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) in the Kyoto Protocol focused attention on emission reduction projects, mostly outside of AFOLU. As successive IPCC AR6 WGIII reports illustrated large potential for AFOLU mitigation, methods to quantify and verify carbon emission reductions emerged within several projects in the early 2000s, through both voluntary (e.g., the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX)) and regulated (e.g., New South Wales and California) markets. The CDM dedicated large attention to LULUCF, including dedicated methodologies and bodies. The reasons for limited uptake of CDM afforestation/reforestation projects were multiple and not limited to the regulatory constraints, but also due to the low abatement potential (poor cost/performance ratio) compared to other mitigation opportunities.

<div id="_idContainer043x" class="_idGenObjectStyleOverride-1"></div>

[[File:c94f057659f739b39f4030376d7f3bab IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Figure_7_18.png]]

'''Figure 7.18 | Milestones in policy development for AFOLU measures.''' ‘ag.’ and ‘agri.’ = agriculture.

Following COP 13 in Bali, effort shifted to advancing policies to reduce deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) in developing countries. According to [[#Simonet--2019|Simonet et al. (2019)]] , nearly 65 Mha have been enrolled in REDD+ type programmes or projects funded through a variety of sources, including United Nations Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (UN-REDD), the World Bank Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, and bi-lateral agreements between countries with Norway being the largest donor. While there has been considerable focus on forest and agricultural project-based mitigation actions, national governments were encouraged to incorporate project-based approaches with other sectoral strategies in their Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) after 2012. NAMAs reflect the country’s proposed strategy to reduce net emissions across various sectors within their economy (e.g., forests or agriculture). More recently, Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) indicate whether individual countries plan to use forestry and agricultural policies or related projects amongst a set of measures in other sectors, to reduce their net emissions as part of the Paris Agreement (e.g., [[#Forsell--2016|Forsell et al. 2016]] ; [[#Fyson--2019|Fyson and Jeffery 2019]] ).

The many protocols now available can be used to quantify the potential mitigation to date resulting from various projects or programs. For instance, carbon registries issue credits using protocols that typically account for additionality, permanence and leakage, thus providing evidence that the projects are a net carbon benefit to the atmosphere. Protocol development engages the scientific community, project developers, and the public over a multi-year period. Some protocols have been revised multiple times, such as the USA State of California’s forest carbon protocol, which is in its fifth revision, with the latest in 2019 (see http://www.climateactionreserve.org/how/protocols/forest/ ). Credits from carbon registries feed into regulatory programs, such as the cap and trade programme in California, or voluntary offset markets ( [[#Hamrick--2017a|Hamrick and Gallant 2017a]] ). Although AFOLU measures have been deployed across a range of projects and programmes globally to reduce net carbon emissions, debate about the net carbon benefits of some projects continues (e.g., [[#Krug--2018|Krug 2018]] ).

A new assessment of projects over the last two decades finds emission reductions or offsets of at least 7.9 GtCO 2 -eq (using GWP100 and a mix of IPCC values for CH 4 and N 2 O) over the last 12 years due to agricultural and forestry activities (Table 7.4). More than 80% of these emission reductions or offsets have been generated by forest-based activities. The total amounts to 0.66 GtCO 2 yr –1 for the period 2010–2019, which is 1.2% of total global, and 5.5% of AFOLU emissions reported in Table 7.1, over the same time period ( ''hi'' ''gh confidence'' ).

The array of activities in Table 7.4 includes the Clean Development Mechanism, REDD+ activities reported in technical annexes of country biennial update reports to the UNFCCC, voluntary market transactions, and carbon stored as a result of carbon markets in Australia, New Zealand and California in the USA. Although other countries and sub-national units have developed programmes and policies, these three regions are presented due to their focus on forest and agricultural carbon mitigation, their use of generally accepted protocols or measures and the availability of data to quantify outcomes.

The largest share of emission reductions or carbon offsets in Table 7.4 has been from slowing deforestation and REDD+, specifically from efforts in Brazil (86% of total), which substantially reduced deforestation rates between 2004 and 2012 ( [[#Nepstad--2014|Nepstad et al. 2014]] ), as well as other countries in Latin America. With the exception of [[#Roopsind--2019|Roopsind et al. (2019)]] , estimated reductions in carbon emissions from REDD+ in Table 7.4 are measured relative to a historical baseline. As noted in Brazil’s Third Biennial Update Report ( [[#Ministry%20of%20Foreign%20Affairs--2019|Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2019]] ), estimates are made in accordance with established methodologies to determine the benefits of results-based REDD+ payments to Brazil. REDD+ estimates from other countries also have been derived from biennial update reports.

Regulatory markets provide the next largest share of carbon removal to date. Data from the Australia Emissions Reduction Fund are carbon credits issued in for agricultural, and vegetation and savanna burning projects. In the case of California, offset credits from forest and agricultural activities, using methods approved by a third-party certification authority (Climate Action Reserve), have been allowed as part of their state-wide cap and trade system. Transaction prices for forest and agricultural credits in California were around USD13 tCO 2 –1 in 2018, and represented 7.4% of total market compliance. By the end of 2018, 80 MtCO 2 had been used for compliance purposes.

For New Zealand, the carbon reduction in Table 7.4 represents forest removals that were surrendered from post-1989 forests between 2008 and the 2020. Unlike offsets in voluntary markets or in California, where permanence involves long-term contracts or insurance pools, forests in the New Zealand market liable for emissions when harvested or following land-use change. This means sellers account for future emission risks related to harvesting when they enter forests into carbon contracts. Offset prices were around USD13 tCO 2 –1 in 2016 but have risen to more than USD20 tCO 2 –1 in 2020.

The voluntary market data in Table 7.4 are offsets developed under the major standard-setting organisations, and issued from 2008–2018 (e.g., [[#Hamrick--2018|Hamrick and Gallant 2018]] ). Note that there is some potential for double counting of voluntary offsets that may have been transacted in the California compliance market, however this would only have applied to transactions of US-issued offsets, and the largest share of annual transactions of voluntary AFOLU credits occurs with credits generated in Latin America, followed by Africa, Asia and North America. Europe and Oceania have few voluntary carbon market transactions. Within forestry and agriculture, most of the voluntary offsets were generated by forestry projects. Using historical transaction data from various ''Forest Trends'' reports, the offsets generated were valued at USD46.9 million yr –1 . Prices for voluntary offset transactions in the period 2014–2016 ranged from USD4.90 to USD5.40 tCO 2 –1 ( [[#Hamrick--2017a|Hamrick and Gallant 2017a]] ).

Voluntary finance has amounted to USD0.5 billion over a 10-year period for development of forest and agricultural credits. The three regulatory markets quantified amount to USD2.7 billion in funding from 2010 to 2019. For the most part, this funding has focused on forest projects and programs, with agricultural projects accounting for 5–10% of the total. In total, reported funding for AFOLU projects and programmes has been USD4.4 billion over the past decade, or about USD569 million yr –1 ( ''low confidence'' ). The largest share of the total carbon includes efforts in the Amazon by Brazil. Government expenditures on regulatory programmes and business expenditures on voluntary programmes in Brazil (e.g., the soy or cattle moratoriums) were not included in financing estimates due to difficulties obtaining that data. If Brazil and CDM (for which we have no cost estimates) are left out of the calculation, average cost per ton has been USD3.20 tCO 2 –1 .

The large number of policy approaches described in Table 7.4 combined with efforts by other international actors, such as the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), as well as non-state actors (e.g., eco-labelling programmes and corporate social responsibility initiatives) illustrate significant policy experimentation over the last several decades. Despite widespread effort, AFOLU measures have thus far failed to achieve the large potential for climate mitigation described in earlier IPCC WG III reports ( ''high confidence'' ). The limited gains from AFOLU to date appear largely to result from lack of investment and other institutional and social barriers, rather than methodological concerns ( ''hi'' ''gh confidence'' ).

'''Table 7.4 | Estimates of achieved emission offsets or reductions in AFOLU through 2018.''' Data include CDM, voluntary carbon standards, compliance markets, and reduced deforestation from official UNFCCC reports. Carbon sequestration due to other government policies not included.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! '''Fund/mechanism'''

! '''Total emission reductions or offsets (MtCO''' 2 '''-eq)'''

! '''Time frame'''

! '''MtCO''' 2 '''-eq y''' '''r''' –1

! '''Financing'''

'''(million USD y''' '''r''' –1 ''')'''

|-
| CDM-forest a

| 11.3

| 2007–2015

| 1.3

| –

|-
| CDM-agriculture a

| 21.8

| 2007–2015

| 2.4

| –

|-
| REDD+ (Guyana) b

| 12.8

| 2010–2015

| 2.1

| 33.0

|-
| Reduced Deforestation/REDD+ Brazil c

| 6894.5

| 2006–2017

| 574.5

| 49.2

|-
| REDD+ Indonesia c

| 244.9

| 2013–2017

| 49.0

| 13.4

|-
| REDD+ Argentina c

| 165.2

| 2014–2015

| 55.1

| 1.4

|-
| REDD+ Others c

| 211.8

| 2010–2017

| 26.5

| 46.0

|-
| Voluntary Market d

| 95.3

| 2009–2018

| 9.5

| 46.9

|-
| Australia ERF e

| 42.7

| 2012—2019 h

| 6.1

| 53.6

|-
| California f

| 122.2

| 2013–2018

| 20.4

| 227.1

|-
| New Zealand carbon trading g

| 83.9

| 2010–2019

| 8.4

| 101.7

|-
| '''Total'''

| '''7,897.4'''

| '''2007–2018'''

| '''658.1 h'''

| '''569.1'''

|}

a Clean Development Mechanism Registry: [https://cdm.unfccc.int/Registry/index.html] [https://cdm.unfccc.int/Registry/index.html] (accessed 22 June 2021).

b [[#Roopsind--2019|Roopsind et al. 2019]] .

c UNFCCC REDD+ Web Platform ( https://redd.unfccc.int/submissions.html ) and UNFCCC Biennial Update Report database ( https://unfccc.int/BURs ).

d ( [[#Hamrick--2017a|Hamrick and Gallant 2017a]] ). State of Forest Carbon Finance. Forest Trends Ecosystem Marketplace. Washington, DC, USA.

e Data for Australia carbon credit units (ACCUs) from Australia Emissions Reduction Fund Registry for agricultural and vegetation and savanna burning projects through FY2018/19 (downloaded on 24/10/2019): ( http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/project-and-contracts-registers/project-register ) and from Emissions Reduction Fund auction results to December 2018: ( [http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/auctions-results/december-2018 http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/auctions-results/d ecember-2018] ).

f Data from the California Air Resources Board Offset Issuance registry ( https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/compliance-offset-program ) for forestry and agricultural early action and compliance credits.

g Surrendered forest carbon credits from post-1989 forests in New Zealand. Obtained from New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority. ETS Unit Movement interactive report (Excel based). [https://www.epa.govt.nz/industry-areas/emissions-trading-scheme/ets-reports/unit-movement/ https://www.epa.govt.nz/industry-areas/emissions-trading-scheme/ets-reports/u nit-movement/] .

h Obtained 13/08/2020. All non-CO 2 gases are converted to CO 2 -eq using IPCC GWP100 values recommended at the time the project achieved approval by the relevant organisation or agency.

<div id="7.6.2" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="review-of-observed-policies-and-policy-instruments"></span>