Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
Turkey is an Annex 1 Party with “Specific circumstances” because it has the fastest population growth rate among the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries and lowest per capita energy-related CO2 emissions among the International Energy Agency (IEA) countries. In addition, all national indicators show that Turkey is in fact a developing country. It was deleted from Annex 2 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and not included in the Annex B of the first term of the Kyoto Protocol (KP1). In the context of preparation of a 2015 multilateral treaty on climate change, which would enter into force in 2020, differentiation between Annex 1 and non-Annex 1 Parties may be revisited, and it seems useful to explore the possible consequences of such a reclassification. Accordingly, this study aims at providing a neutral cost/benefit assessment of implementing Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) accounting rules in Turkey in the future, as one possible scenario. The rationale for this assessment is based on a technical and objective deduction and does not in any way pre-empt the national positions put forward by Turkey in the climate negotiations or any possible COP decision that may determine its future classification, considering its specific circumstances. Turkey started reporting LULUCF under the Climate Convention in 2006. Presently, the LULUCF sink (made of a forest sink for its bigger part) is estimated to offset 12 % of Turkey’s total greenhouse emissions. For afforestation/reforestation (A/R) (Article 3.3), the objectives of the 2014–2017 OGM (General Directorate of Forestry Turkish abbreviation) Strategic Plan were considered. For forest management (FM) (Article 3.4), two alternative scenarios were considered: 90 Mm3 of roundwood harvest between 2013 and 2017 (intensive harvest) and 25 Mm3/year of felling (industrial round wood) harvest by 2020 (extensive harvest). The corresponding volumes of firewood, felling and total round wood were forecast accordingly from 2013 to 2020. The carbon credits or Removal Units (RMUs) for Article 3.3 ARD and Article 3.4 FM (including the carbon storage in harvested wood products) were estimated using the guidelines from the intergovernmental panel of experts on climate change and taking into account the upgraded LULUCF rules. For Article 3.3, it was estimated that 119.4 million RMUs could be generated between 2013 and 2020, which is more than twice the maximum amount of RMUs to be generated under Article 3.4 FM. The total economic values (TEVs) of Turkey’s forests have been estimated based on recent studies and then used to calculate benefits. Taking into account the recent European Union (EU) market price (Kyoto market) or the recent forest carbon price (Kyoto and voluntary markets), carbon benefits are reduced in all scenarios compared with other values included in the TEV of the forest. If we consider the carbon shadow price (i.e. the recommended carbon price from 2011 to 2050, to achieve the EU target of reducing GHG emissions fourfold by 2050), it is worth noting that the situation is quite different: for the 3.4 FM areas and mainly for 3.3 ARD areas, the carbon benefits are substantial. However, this price level is still far from attainable as negotiations stand now, unless the international community is able to adopt a strong political commitment in coming years.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Bann, C.; Clemens, M., 2001: “Turkey Forest Sector Review-Global Environmental Overlays Program Final Report (in Turkish)” (Ankara: Isir Publisher Ltd.).
Başgül, E., 2011: “Aide-mémoire: Outcomes of the AFD Mission in Turkey to Set Up a Cooperation Programme Related to Forestry and Climate Change”; 10.
Basgul, E., 2011: “Aide-mémoire: Outcomes of the AFD Mission in Turkey to Set Up a Cooperation Programme Related to Forestry and Climate Change”; 8.
Bouyer, O., 2010: “Note: Preliminary Views on a Consolidated Turkish Position in the Post-2012 Forest/Climate Mechanisms, REDD+ and LULUCF”.
Bouyer, O., 2011: “Note: Possible Areas for a French-Turkish Co-operation in the Forestry Sector: LULUCF, GIS, Corine Land Cover, and Canopée”.
Bouyer, O., 2014: “Cost-Benefit Assessment of LULUCF in Turkey”, GIZ, OGM, SalvaTerra (Salva Terra, Paris): 86.
Dinu, A., 2011: “Project Identification Form: Integrated Approach to Management of Forests in Turkey with Demonstration in High Conservation Value Forests in the Mediterranean Region”.
Duriez, L., 2011: “Diplomatic Telegram: Outcomes of the AFD Mission in Turkey to Set Up a Cooperation Programme Related to Forestry and Climate Change”.
Ecosystem Market Place, 2013: “Maneuvering the Mosaic: State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2013”; at: http://www.forest-trends.org/vcm2013.php.
Erdoğan, E.H., 2013: “Current Status on the Estimation and Reporting of LULUCF in Agricultural Sector of Turkey”; at: http://forest.jrc.ec.europa.eu/media/cms_page_media/110/Erdogan_TRK.pdf.
European Commission, 2013: “Commission Staff Working Document: Turkey 2013 Progress Report—Enlargement Strategy and the Main Challenges 2013–2014”; at: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2013/package/brochures/turkey_2013.pdf.
FAO, GFRA, 2010: “Country Report for Turkey”.
FAO, 2014: “Excel Database of Planted Forests 1990–2005 in Turkey”.
FCBA, 2011: “Carbone Forêt-Bois: Des faits et des chiffres”; at: http://www.pepiniereforestiere.fr/images/telechargements/le-vademecumcarbone-foret-bois.pdf.
Grassi, G.; Monni, S.; Federici, S.; et al., 2008: “Addressing Uncertainties of REDD Estimates: Implantation of the Conservativeness Concept”, in: Environmental Research Letters, 3: 7.
Haase, P., 2011: “Overview of the Forestry Sector in Turkey”.
IPCC, 2003: Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF (Geneva: IPCC).
IPCC, 2006: Chapter 12: “HWP of the AFOLU Guidelines” (Geneva: IPCC).
IPCC, 2013a: Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for GHG Inventories: Wetlands (Geneva: IPCC).
IPCC, 2013b: Revised Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol (Geneva: IPCC).
Kayacan, B., 2007: “The Forestry Sector in National Economy” [in Turkish], in: Verimlilik Dergisi, 1: 147–176.
Kiaei, M., 2010: “Relationship Between Altitude Index and Wood Properties of Pinus eldarica Medw: Case Study in North of Iran”, in: Gazi University Journal of Science, 23: 110–119.
Liabastre, T., 2011: “Draft Memorandum of Understanding between AFD and MEF French-Turkish Co-operation in the Forestry Sector”.
OGM, 2012: Strategic Plan, 2012. 2014–2017 (Ankara: OGM); at: http://www.ogm.gov.tr/ekutuphane/FaaliyetRaporu/Forms/AllItems.aspx.
OGM, 2013: “Financing in Forestry, Final Report” [in Turkish] (Ankara: General Directorate of Forestry): 42.
OGM, 2014: “Acitivity Report of 2014”, (Ankara: OGM); at: http://www.ogm.gov.tr/ekutuphane/FaaliyetRaporu/Forms/AllItems.aspx.
Ok, K.; Kaya, G.; Güneş, Y.; et al., 2013: “United Nations Forest Forum, 10th Session (Unff10, İstanbul 2013) Financing Forestry Report” (İstanbul: UN Technical Report).
Özbağdatlı, N., 2013: “Enhancing Forest Goods and Services in Turkey: NAMA, MRV, Carbon Projects with a Revenue Sharing Mechanism”; at: http://med.forestweek.org/sites/default/files/press/04_ozbagdatli.pdf.
Pak, M.; Türker, M.F.; Öztürk, A., 2010: “Total Economic Value of Forest Resources in Turkey”, in: African Journal of Agricultural Research, 5,15: 1908–1916.
Quinet, A., 2009: La valeur tutélaire du carbone (Paris: Centre d’analyse stratégique): 424.
Sanz, S., 2013: “Approaches to Reporting of LULUCF, Land-Based vs Activity-Based”; at: https://unfccc.int/files/focus/mitigation/application/pdf/01_lulucf_convention_kp_tech_briefing.pdf.
TurkStat, 2013: LULUCF section of the Turkey GHG inventory 1990 to 2011 (Ankara: Turkish Statistical Institute).
Türker, M.F.; Öztürk A.; Pak M., 2002: “Evaluation of the Method Used in the Determination of Economic Loss Arisen from Forest Fires: Forest Economics Perspective”, in: The Economics of Natural Hazards in Forestry, 7–10 June 2001, Solsona, Catalonia (Padua University Press): 71–77.
Türker, M.F.; Pak, M.; Öztürk A., 2005: “Turkey”, in: Merlo, M.; Croitoru L. (Eds.): Valuing Mediterranean Forests: Towards the Total Economic Value (Wallingford Oxfordshire: CABI Publishing): 195–211.
TurkStat: Turkey GHG National Inventory 1990 to 2004 (Ankara: TurkStat).
UNDP, 2011: “Press Release: Ecosystems Services Valuation in Turkey”; at: http://www.tr.undp.org/content/turkey/tr/home/presscenter/news-from-new-horizons/2011/07/time-for-forest-and-ecosystems-services-valuation-in-turkey.html.
UNFCCC, 1997a: “Kyoto Protocol”; at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf.
UNFCCC, 1997b: “Review of Information and Possible Decisions Under Article 4.2(f): Submission by Turkey and Note by the Secretariat”.
UNFCCC, 1999: “Decisions 9/CP4, 15/CP4, 16/CP5”; at: http://unfccc.int/documentation/decisions/items/2964.php.
UNFCCC, 2001: “Decisions 5/CP6bis”; at: http://unfccc.int/documentation/decisions/items/2964.php.
UNFCCC, 2002: “Decisions 11/CP7, 26/CP7”; at: http://unfccc.int/documentation/decisions/items/2964.php.
UNFCCC, 2006: “Decision 1 to 27/CMP1”; at: http://unfccc.int/documentation/decisions/items/2964.php.
UNFCCC, 2008: “Decisions 1 to 11/CMP3”; at: http://unfccc.int/documentation/decisions/items/2964.php.
UNFCCC, 2009: “Technical Paper: Cost of Implementing Methodologies and Monitoring Systems Relating to Estimates of Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, the Assessment of Carbon Stocks and GHG Emissions from Changes in Forest Cover, and the Enhancement of Forest Carbon Stocks”; at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/tp/01.pdf.
UNFCCC, 2010: “Submissions from Turkey: Preparation of an Outcome to Be Presented at to the COP for Adoption at its 16th Session to Enable the Full, Effective, and Sustained Implementation of the Convention Through the Long-Term Cooperative Action Now, Up, and Beyond 2012”.
UNFCCC, 2011: “Decisions”; at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/cmp7/eng/10a01.pdf.
UNFCCC, 2012a: “Decisions”; at: http://unfccc.int/meetings/doha_nov_2012/meeting/6815/php/view/decisions.php.
UNFCCC, 2012b: “Report of the Individual Review of the Inventory Submission of Turkey Submitted in 2011”; at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2012/arr/tur.pdf.
UNFCCC, 2013a: “Decision 1 to 2/CMP8”; at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2012/cmp8/eng/13a01.pdf.
UNFCCC, 2013b: “Annual Status Report of the GHG Inventory of Turkey”; at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2012/asr/ukr.pdf.
UN, 1992: “General Assembly. Report of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Framework Convention on Climate Change on the Work of the 2nd Part of its 5th Session, Held at New-York from 30 April to 9 May 1992”; at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/1992/a/eng/19.pdf.
Wood Marketing Division, 2014: Excel Database of Roundwood 1976–2013 in Turkey (Ankara: OGM).
- Cost-Benefit Assessment of Implementing LULUCF Accounting Rules in Turkey
- Chapter 8
Systemische Notwendigkeit zur Weiterentwicklung von Hybridnetzen