|
6.4. Adequacy of the IPCC Guidelines for Reporting Projects under the Kyoto
Protocol
This section assesses the adequacy of the Guidelines for estimating changes
in stocks associated with LULUCF projects. It briefly summarizes the kinds of
changes to the Guidelines that may be needed, recognizing that there are aspects
of reporting that are of a policy nature (e.g., certification) that are not
addressed here.
Under the Kyoto Protocol, reporting of projects will be required. The Guidelines
do not address projects, although many of the accounting methods can be applied
to estimate emissions and removals of GHGs, changes in carbon stock, and associated
activities. At this time, it is unclear which LULUCF activities will be included
under Articles 6 and 12 and potentially under Articles 3.3 and 3.4. Clearly,
however, many of the data and reporting requirements are similar to those of
Articles 3.3 and 3.4 (see Section 6.3) if comprehensive
accounting were applied. In addition, the following issues arise (see Section
6.2 and Chapter 5; Vine et al., 1999).
The degree of improvements to the Guidelines depends on their intended use.
Within each of the options below, Parties could choose their own methods, or
internationally agreed methods could be stipulated. There are three main options
of increasing complexity:
Option 1. If the Guidelines are intended to show impacts to a Party's
assigned amount, a summary of changes in net GHG emissions and removals from
all projects may be all that is required. The first step would involve the transfer
of GHG emissions and removals from the project to the national inventory; in
the second step, the GHGs from projects would be subtracted from the national
inventory.
- Option 1a-This option would allow Parties to choose a different reporting
format for projects approved by the Parties. An example would be a modification
of the URF used in the Activities Implemented Jointly Pilot Project (Annex
III, FCCC, 1997b; Vine et al., 1999, Section 5.4.6).
This option is the simplest to operationalize, but it lacks transparency in
methods and data.
- Option 1b-This option could stipulate the use of internationally
agreed methods and perhaps involve the use of guidance for the URF.
Option 2. If the Guidelines are intended to enable Parties to generate
a complete and transparent record of GHG emissions and removals from each project-including
a breakdown of all activities, baselines, leakage, risks, and so forth (see
methods in Chapter 5)-considerable changes will be required.
Option 3. Finally, there may be a need to report all changes in net
GHG emissions and removals, as well as environmental and socioeconomic impacts,
especially for CDM projects (Article 12).
In option 1, a reporting format for projects could be developed with the Guidelines
with minimal effort. This option would require a decision to report data at
an appropriate, aggregated scale. For options 2 and 3, considerable effort may
be required to qualify for carbon credits. The period involved in developing
these options would depend on the decisions of the Parties.
|