WULF KILLMANN
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
For its forty-second session and plan of action for the period 2000-2001, the Committee recommended to FAO at its forty-first session to strengthen its work in the following fields:
- mitigation of global climate
change;
- promotion of sustainable forest
management;
- intensification of communication between FAO and the
private sector;
- outlook study on recovered
paper;
- establishment of a working group on recovered paper.
Two of the fields included in the recommendations, namely global climate change and promotion of sustainable forest management, will be discussed in more detail under two separate agenda items: 4(c) on certification and C&I; and 5(b) on climate change. Therefore, they will be mentioned only briefly in this paper.
Recommendation |
FAO follow-up action |
The Committee acknowledged and commended the work done on global climate change and recommended to plan and implement follow-up activities, such as the establishment of a post of "climate change officer" and the organization of an expert consultation to prepare recommendations for the verification of carbon stocks and changes at the national level. |
In the past year FAO considerably expanded its activities in relation to global climate change. As a direct follow-up to the Committee's recommendations, FAO carried out the following activities: ˇ Organization of a Meeting on Verification of Country-Level Carbon Stocks and Exchanges in Non-Annex I Countries. The meeting was held in Rome from 27 to 29 September 2000 and attended by 17 experts. The results were made public through the Web and are also available on hard copy. The Executive Summary can be found in Annex 1. ˇ The Forestry Department is opening a new position of senior forestry officer (P-5) on forestry and climate change, thus showing the importance it gives to this subject. The vacancy announcement is closed, and at present the final selection is taking place. It is hoped to have the position filled by 1 September 2001. |
Recommendation |
FAO follow-up action |
The Committee recommended that FAO continue its involvement in the promotion of sustainable forest management and, more specifically, that FAO take a very active part in the World Bank Forestry Sector Review. |
FAO participated in a number of workshops and conferences aimed at promoting moves towards sustainable forest management, and also addressing trade issues. In collaboration with international partner organizations, FAO was instrumental in initiating, and supported, criteria and indicator processes, notably in developing countries. FAO also acted as a focal point for dialogue among processes and played a proactive role in the dissemination of information and know-how. A number of documents and papers were prepared and presented in workshops, seminars and regional meetings. Two workshops were hosted at FAO Headquarters on C&I and certification, respectively: ˇ Criteria & Indicators: An Expert Consultation on Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management was organized in Rome from 15 to 17 November 2000, in collaboration with UNEP, ITTO, CIFOR and IUFRO. The meeting noted that over 140 countries were currently involved in one or more international forestry criteria and indicators processes. All processes had identified similar criteria and a number of the same indicators, despite differences among countries in forest types and conditions; ownership patterns; management objectives and practices; and administrative structures. In the light of continuing deforestation and forest degradation in many countries and regions, the meeting stressed the need to improve field-level forest management practices. Criteria and indicators was one tool towards this end. It was noted that there was also a need to further explore and clarify the relationship between criteria and indicators, performance standards and certification. The expert consultation recognized FAO's leadership role and requested that FAO continue, and further strengthen, its activities in this field. It recommended that an international conference on criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management be organized in 2001 or early 2002, ensuring broad stakeholder involvement. Plans for such a conference are being developed. ˇ Certification: FAO, jointly with ITTO and GTZ, hosted a seminar on Building Confidence amongst Forest Certification Schemes and their Supporters on 19 and 20 February 2001. The seminar sought to improve contact; clarify the positions of the different stakeholder groups; increase understanding; encourage those involved with certification to work together; and extend earlier discussions to a broader range of stakeholders, especially the developing countries and civil society. A central issue was the comparability and equivalence between credible forest certification schemes. While there was no consensus on many of the specific issues, the seminar did help to clarify many points and allowed different stakeholders to explain their positions and the reasons for these positions. The seminar highlighted the fact that there was still a considerable distance to go before the different stakeholders would reach real consensus on many issues. There was a desire to continue the dialogue that had been achieved at this seminar, and agreement that organizations such as FAO, GTZ and ITTO should continue to facilitate this dialogue. ˇ World Bank Forestry Sector Review: FAO's Forestry Department was closely involved in all stages of the World Bank Forest Policy Implementation Review and Strategy (FPIRS). This included contracts for preparation of technical reports on sustainable forest management practices and market projections. FO staff also participated in all meetings of the Technical Advisory Group appointed to guide the process. |
Recommendation |
FAO follow-up action |
It was recommended that more frequent contacts and exchange of information (particularly in the field of certification) take place between FAO and the private forest industry sector so that the Organization could be continuously informed of latest industry activities. |
ˇ On 9 October 2000, members of the ACPWP and IFFPA (International Forum of Forest and Paper Associations) met in Rome to discuss relationships, synergies and complementarities between the two bodies. The results of that meeting were further discussed with the other members of both bodies at two meetings during the European Paper Week in Brussels on 30 November 2001. During that meeting, participants also discussed possible activities to be taken up in collaboration. One the issues raised was to compare wood and other competing materials under environmental and energy consumption aspects. ˇ In response, FAO commissioned the German Federal Institute on Forestry and Forest Products Research to prepare a study on Comparison of wood products and major substitutes in respect to environmental and energy balances. The study will be concluded in August 2001. |
Recommendations |
FAO follow-up action |
The Committee recommended that FAO evaluate the feasibility of undertaking an outlook study on recovered paper. The establishment of a working group to review classification and grade definition of recovered paper should be assessed and undertaken if there was sufficient interest from members of the Committee. |
ˇ A working group1 was established and has already started its activities. Definitions and classifications in use for recovered paper statistics were collected and reviewed, and the group is at present preparing recommendations on which would be the most appropriate ones to be used for FAO statistics on recovered paper. Once the working group has agreed upon a set of recommendations, it will put forward them to the ACPWP for approval. If work proceeds as planned, the new definitions and classifications could already be used in the recovered paper survey 2000-2001. Otherwise, the recommendations will be submitted to the ACPWP for approval the following year. ˇ Once the issue of definitions and classifications is settled, an outlook study on recovered paper could be undertaken. |
Sixteen experts of various disciplines were invited in September 2000 by FAO and the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit GTZ GmbH (German Agency for Technical Cooperation) to debate issues related to the verification of carbon stocks and exchanges at the national level in non-annex I countries. The emphasis was originally on National Reports, but the discussion was broadened to cover the spectrum of issues related to Verification from the level of National Reports to Projects under the Clean Development Mechanism.
The report is organized into the analysis of (1) carbon in the context of ecosystems, food security and sustainable development, (2) operational aspects followed by (3) a discussion of the areas where further work is required and where FAO could endeavour to expand its participation in the process ("The road map").
1.1 Only a holistic landscape-ecosystem approach has the potential to facilitate the understanding of carbon dynamics, as well as the much debated issues of carbon permanence, reversibility of sequestered carbon, leakage, baselines and the links between biomass and soil carbon storage. At the project level, all carbon pools and all fluxes should be included in the verification and accounting. The fate of agricultural and wood products and impacts of carbon cycle intensification on other pools and fluxes (e.g. nitrogen, water...) needs to be studied in greater detail.
1.2 Projects must generate enough environmental and societal value for stakeholders - in particular the people living in project areas - to derive clear benefits in terms of food security and sustainability of development. The verification process will have to pay due attention to those benefits, to avoid projects being abandoned after their completion and turning into carbon sources.
1.3 Together with the ecosystem approach and sustainability as a major project selection criterion, an ecoregional approach could simplify and improve the verification process (a stratification procedure would facilitate calculations and reduce costs). Ecoregions are understood as a combination of agro-ecological and agro-economic zones, i.e. areas where both environmental and socio-economic conditions, as well as human activities, are homogeneous enough to warrant the meaningful use of standard emission factors, reference values and methods yielding consistent and accurate data on carbon pools and fluxes.
2.1 Carbon accounting systems have to be simple. They might be based on land use practices, but both the land-based approach and the activity-based approach would be needed, whenever there are multiple activities on the same land. Process, spatial and temporal consistency in the method used is most important. At the same time, there is need for pragmatism to keep costs acceptable. A programme approach, involving policy and legal measures, together with incentives for stable livelihoods would also diminish risks. Regional monitoring by government agencies may help and this could be done together with the establishment of regional baselines.
2.2 The operationalization of the Kyoto Protocol should match the Parties' capabilities. A series of guidelines will be needed covering inter alia criteria for project selection, eligibility, additionality, baseline methodology, error propagation, etc. Ecoregional guidelines on sampling strategies and data processing, among others for soil carbon, would be useful. Revised inventory guidelines and improved monitoring techniques for the developing countries are required by ecoregions, since the current guidelines are often deemed not appropriate.
3.1 Carbon databases in agriculture, forestry and soils should be centralized in a transparent and widely accessible system, and an information strategy should be developed. FAO could be the repository of the meta-data bases and databases, and the custodian of the ecosystem and biosphere models that will be used to extrapolate flux and process measurements to the appropriate regional, national and global scales. Uncertainty in carbon data could be overcome through increased scientific knowledge about the carbon cycle, strengthening of the institutions involved, a reduction in sampling errors and thus improved statistics. Soil carbon has been a neglected aspect and FAO should start the compilation of more accurate data. Moreover, because the available data are currently primarily collected for other purposes than carbon accounting, there is a need to design and implement improved inventory systems.
3.2 The following thematic priorities were identified. In forestry, the most relevant issues were listed as definitions (terminology, classification), statistics (areas, biomass), forest typology and forest dynamics databases. In agriculture, agro-climatic typology, land-use typology, agro-ecological zoning and farming systems typology were seen as key topics. In soils, detailed soil maps and databases should be given due attention. To assist the process, an analytical lexicon/glossary would be needed.
3.3 To assist in project design it would be most desirable to establish a global look-up table of actual and potential carbon sequestration rates by land-use and activities on an ecoregional basis. The look-up table would constitute an essential tool for the identification of good practices and project planning, among others by facilitating the definition of baselines.
3.4 The Experts discussed the potential of Benchmark Projects/Sites in the validation of the operational (testing and validation) and societal aspects of the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. Their main emphasis would be on long-term methodological development, the assessment of the accuracy and the cost of verification, as well as capacity building (ecoregional manuals and training programmes). In the pilot phase at least some 30 benchmark projects would be required.
3.5 Dissemination of know-how, methods and data to improve the participation and involvement of national experts constitutes the most important cross-cutting issue in the verification and reporting processes.
1 The members of the working group are: Oscar Alcantara (CNICP, Mexico), David W. Church (CPPA, Canada), Jacob Handelsman (AFPA, USA), Esa Hyvarinen (CEPI, Belgium), Klaus-Dieter Kibat (VdP, Germany), Ernesto Ronchini Lima (Bracelpa, Brazil), Masahiko Oi (JPA, Japan), C.F.L. Prins (FAO Liaison Office with the United Nations, Switzerland), N.S. Sadawarte (India), Zoltán Szikla (Dunapack Ltd, Hungary).