The incentive gap: LULUCF and the Kyoto mechanism before and after Durban

To-date, forest resource-based carbon accounting in land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Kyoto Protocol (KP), European Union (EU) and national level emission reduction schemes considers only a fraction of its potential and fails to adequately mobilize the LULUCF sector for the successful stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations. Recent modifications at the 2011 COP17 meetings in Durban have partially addressed this basic problem, but leave room for improvement. The presence of an Incentive Gap (IG) continues to justify reform of the LULUCF carbon accounting framework. Frequently neglected in the climate change mitigation and adaptation literature, carbon accounting practices ultimately define the nuts and bolts of what counts and which resources (forest, forest-based or other) are favored and utilized. For Annex I countries in the Kyoto Mechanism, the Incentive Gap under forest management (FM) is significantly large: some 75% or more of potential forestry-based carbon sequestration is not effectively incentivized or mobilized for climate change mitigation and adaptation (Ellison etal. 2011a). In this paper, we expand our analysis of the Incentive Gap to incorporate the changes agreed in Durban and encompass both a wider set of countries and a larger set of omitted carbon pools. For Annex I countries, based on the first 2years of experience in the first Commitment Period (CP1) we estimate the IG in FM at approximately 88%. Though significantly reduced in CP2, the IG remains a problem. Thus our measure of missed opportunities under the Kyoto and UNFCCC framework - despite the changes in Durban - remains important. With the exception perhaps of increased energy efficiency, few sinks or sources of reduced emissions can be mobilized as effectively and efficiently as forests. Thus, we wonder at the sheer magnitude of this underutilized resource

Factors Affecting European Farmers’Participation in Biodiversity Policies

This article reports the major findings from an interdisciplinary research project that synthesises key insights into farmers’ willingness and ability to co-operate with biodiversity policies. The results of the study are based on an assessment of about 160 publications and research reports from six EU member states and from international comparative research.We developed a conceptual framework to systematically review the existent literature relevant for our purposes. This framework provides a common structure for analysing farmers’ perspectives regarding the introduction into farming practices of measures relevant to biodiversity. The analysis is coupled and contrasted with a survey of experts. The results presented above suggest that it is important to view support for practices oriented towards biodiversity protection not in a static sense – as a situation determined by one or several influencing factors – but rather as a process marked by interaction. Financial compensation and incentives function as a necessary, though clearly not sufficient condition in this process

Downscaling of agricultural market impacts under bioeconomy development to the regional and the farm level—An example of Baden‐Wuerttemberg

The expansion of the bioeconomy sector will increase the competition for agricultural land regarding biomass production. Furthermore, the particular path of the expansion of the bioeconomy is associated with great uncertainty due to the early stage of technology development and its dependency on political framework conditions. Economic models are suitable tools to identify trade-offs in agricultural production and address the high uncertainty of the bioeconomy expansion. We present results from the farm model Economic Farm Emission Model of four bioeconomy scenarios in order to evaluate impacts and trade-offs of different potential bioeconomy developments and the corresponding uncertainty at regional and farm level in Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany. The demand-side effects of the bioeconomy scenarios are based on downscaling European Union level results of a separate model linkage between an agricultural sector and an energy sector model. The general model results show that the expanded use of agricultural land for the bioeconomy sector, especially for the cultivation of perennial biomass crops (PBC), reduces biomass production for established value chains, especially for food and feed. The results also show differences between regions and farm types in Baden-Wuerttemberg. Fertile arable regions and arable farms profit more from the expanded use of biomass in the bioeconomy than farms that focus on cattle farming. Latter farms use the arable land to produce feed for the cattle, whereas arable farms can expand feedstock production for new value chains. Additionally, less intensive production systems like extensive grassland suffer from economic losses, whereas the competition in fertile regions further increases. Hence, if the extensive production systems are to be preserved, appropriate subsidies must be provided. This emphasizes the relevance of downscaling aggregated model results to higher spatial resolution, even as far as to the decision maker (farm), to identify possible contradicting effects of the bioeconomy as well as policy implications.Ministerium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kunst Baden‐Württemberg http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100003542Peer Reviewe