A historical institutionalist view on merging LULUCF and REDD+ in a post-2020 climate agreement

Yim

2021

Land

To report changes in land use, the forestry sector, and land-use change matrix (LUCM), monitoring is necessary in South Korea to adequately respond to the Post-2020 climate regime. To calculate the greenhouse gas statistics observing the principle of transparency required by the Climate Change Convention, a consistent nationwide land-use classification and LUCM are required. However, in South Korea, land-use information is available from the 5th National Forest Inventory conducted in 2006 onwards; therefore, developing methods to determine historical LUCM information, including the base year required by the Intergovernmnetal Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is essential. To determine the optimal sampling intensity for measuring systematic land-use changes and to estimate the corresponding area of land-use categories for previously unmeasured years, seven intensities—2 × 2 km to 8 × 8 km—were tested using the areas of the 3rd and 4th aerial photographs in time series for forestland, cropland, grassland, wetland, and settlements, according to their standard deviations and estimates of uncertainty. Analyses of statistical accuracy, statistical efficiency, economic efficiency, and convenience showed that a sampling intensity of 4 × 4 km was ideal. Additionally, the categorized areas of unmeasured land-use years were calculated through linear interpolation and extrapolation. Our LUCM can be utilized for developing a national greenhouse gas inventory.

Section: Optimal Sampling Intensity For Lucm Detectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimal Sampling Intensity in South Korea for a Land-Use Change Matrix Using Point Sampling

Yim

2021

Land

“…Thus, EP (European Parliament) and Council Regulation EP 2018/841, titled LULUCF measures, was implemented. In doing so, the European Parliament and EU Council considered the fact that the land use, land use change, and forestry (LULUCF) sectors could potentially deliver long-term climate benefits and therefore make a major contribution to achieving the Union's greenhouse gas reduction target in addition to the long-term goals of the Paris Agreement (Pistorius et al 2017). The principle of the LULUCF program is primarily based on reporting the amount of sequestered nitrogen (Ellison et al 2014).…”

Section: Land Use Land-use Change and Forestrymentioning

confidence: 99%

An analysis of renewable energy consumption efficiency in terms of greenhouse gas production in selected European countries

Rozenský

Hájek

Vrba

et al. 2020

BioRes

The consumption of renewable energy sources results in the minimal production of greenhouse gases. However, the issue of environmentally efficient use of renewable energy sources remains a key concern. The primary aim of this article was to assess whether the energy production from renewable energy sources was environmentally efficient in four selected European countries: Germany, Austria, Poland, and the Czech Republic. In order to achieve the primary research goal, a regression analysis method was used for several variables. The results of the analysis suggested that with an increase in the consumption rate of renewable energy sources and biofuels equivalent to one thousand tons of oil, the volume of emissions from all sectors would increase by 0.0048 thousand tons (4.8 tons) on average. The system of emission allowances was rather environmentally inefficient at the lower allowance levels; in the monitored period of 2007 to 2016, the dependence of greenhouse gas production on the consumption of fossil fuels did not statistically manifest itself. Based on the analysis, the land use, land-use change, and forestry production activities do not contribute to increasing total greenhouse gas emissions.

“…This could be an area in which the EU could envisage playing a leading role, both by tackling emissions linked to its own domestic agriculture as well as through promoting sustainable supply chains and responsible consumption, partially through existing REDD+ approaches. Others note, however, that there is limited potential to build synergies between LULUCF accounting and REDD+ (see, for example, [84]) and from the perspective of one interviewee, the EU's own rules on LULUCF accounting lack credibility and environmental integrity (Interview with an EU agency staff member by skype, 12 April 2018).…”

Section: Shifting Responsibility From South To North: Targeting Demand?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“Embodied Deforestation” as a New EU Policy Debate to Tackle Tropical Forest Loss: Assessing Implications for REDD+ Performance

Weatherley-Singh

Gupta²

2018

Forests

The need to tackle international drivers of deforestation has long been acknowledged; but remains little addressed via policy measures. In the European Union (EU), a new policy debate is emerging around the concept of "embodied deforestation", which targets EU agricultural commodity imports as drivers of deforestation. The notion views deforestation as an externality generated by EU imports associated with tropical deforestation. Our article examines whether this concept represents a shift in tackling international-level drivers of tropical deforestation within EU policy. We also examine, from a networked governance perspective, whether this new debate fuels further fragmentation or rather a move towards a more integrated approach to combating tropical forest loss within EU policy, and what the implications are for other initiatives, such as the climate change related "reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation" (REDD+). Our analysis draws on an extensive analysis of EU policy documents and semi-structured interviews with stakeholders and EU decision-makers. We find that, despite growing debate around the concept of embodied deforestation, policy measures necessary to reduce the impact of EU consumption of agricultural commodities associated with tropical deforestation have not yet been developed. We conclude that "embodied deforestation" remains more an idea than reality within EU policy to date, with the burden of responsibility for addressing international deforestation drivers still largely remaining on developing countries. There is still potential, however, for this debate to lead to a more integrated approach to tackling tropical deforestation within EU policy, if it comes to be seen, together with REDD+, as one of a number of linked approaches to EU efforts to combat deforestation.