More twists, turns and stumbles in the jungle: A further exploration of land use, land-use change and forestry decisions within the Kyoto Protocol

Review of European Community and International Environmental Law

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 341-355

  Fry, Ian ^a  

^a Tuvaluan Environment Department

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AFFORESTATION; CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM; DECISION MAKING; EMISSION CONTROL; FORESTRY; KYOTO PROTOCOL; LAND USE CHANGE; POLICY MAKING; REFORESTATION; UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE;

EID: 38349163867     PISSN: 09628797     EISSN: 14679388     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9388.2007.00571.x     Document Type: Article

References (119)

1. See I. Fry, 'Twists and Turns in the Jungle: Exploring the Evolution of Land Use, Land-use Change and Forestry within the Kyoto Protocol', 11:2 RECIEL (2002), 159.
2. Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Kyoto, 11 December 1997).
3. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (New York, 9 May 1992).
4. A 'forest' is defined in the Annex to Decision 16/CMP.1, Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3, 30 March 2006), as a '... minimum area of land 0.05-1.0 hectare with tree crown cover (or equivalent stocking level) of more than 10-30 per cent with trees with the potential to reach a minimum height of 2-5 metres at maturity in situ. A forest may consist either of closed forest formations where trees of various storeys and undergrowth cover a high proportion of the ground or open forest. Young natural stands and all plantations which have yet to reach a crown density of 10--30 per cent or tree height of 2-5 metres are included under forest, as are areas normally forming part of the forest area which are temporarily unstocked as a result of human intervention such as harvesting or natural causes but which are expected to revert to forest'.
5. The complex definition of a forest would lead to later complications and a call for a new definition.
6. See Decision 16/CMP.1, n. 4 above, para. 3(c).
7. See L. Rajamani et al., 'Highlights from SB 13', 12:143 Earth Negotiations Bulletin (6 September 2000).
8. See R.T. Watson, et al. (eds), Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry, A Special Report of the IPCC (Cambridge University Press, 2000), at 377.
9. The messiness was partially due to the insistence by Australia, during earlier negotiations, to include a low threshold for canopy cover, so that arid woodlands subject to land clearing in Australia would be covered. This allowed Australia to be one of the few countries that fall into the net-net accounting system established within Article 3.7 of the Kyoto Protocol. While Australia had partially created this mess, they would not be included in the mess because although Australia signed the Protocol in Kyoto they never ratified it (personal observation).
10. Personal observation.
11. See, Decision 16/CMP.1, n. 4 above, Section D, para. 13.
12. The 'Umbrella Group' of countries includes Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway and the USA, although as this was a Kyoto Protocol issue, both Australia and the USA played low key roles in these discussions, seemingly allowing Canada to champion their cause.
13. The World Bank had established some 'avoided deforestation' projects under their Prototype Carbon Fund. It could be argued that the actions of the World Bank created a false expectation that avoided deforestation' projects would be eligible project activities under the CDM. This agenda-driving action by the Bank would be repeated when the issue of reducing emissions from deforestation resurfaced at COP-11.
14. See I. Fry, n. 1 above, at 162.
15. Personal observation.
16. The unit for the CDM credits.
17. Personal observation.
18. Personal observation.
19. See, Decision 16/CMP.1, n. 4 above, para. 4.
20. For the full text on these tasks, see Decision 16/CMP.1, n. 4 above, para. 3(a)-(d).
21. See I. Barnsley et al., 'Summary of the 25th Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 26-28 April', 12:295 Earth Negotiations Bulletin (1 May 2006).
22. See Decision 15/CP.7, Principles, Nature and Scope of the Mechanisms Pursuant to Articles 6, 12 and 17 of the Kyoto Protocol (FCCC/CP/2001/13/ Add.2, 21 January 2002).
23. See the Annex to Decision 13/CMP.1, Modalities for the Accounting of Assigned Amounts under Article 7, paragraph 4, of the Kyoto Protocol (FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.2, 30 March 2006).
24. See the second sentence of Article 3.7 of the Kyoto Protocol, n. 2 above.
25. While Decision 16/CMP.1, n. 4 above, noted that there were four eligible activities that parties could account for under Article 3.4 in the first commitment period, parties were also given the discretion to decide which of these four activities they would account for and which ones they would not account for. This meant that parties could elect to account for activities which they thought may constitute a net removal in the first commitment period and not account for Article 3.4 activities which were potentially a net emission in the first commitment period, hence creating an accounting imbalance.
26. See Decision 13/CMP.1, n. 23 above, para. 16.
27. Personal conversation with representatives from G77 and China.
28. See Decision 19/CMP.1, Guidelines for National Systems under Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Kyoto Protocol (FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3, 30 March 2006), para. 15.
29. See ibid., Annex, para. 9.
30. Article 7, para. 1 of the Kyoto Protocol, n. 2 above, states: 'Each Party included in Annex I shall incorporate in its annual inventory of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol, submitted in accordance with the relevant decisions of the Conference of Parties, the necessary supplementary information for the purposes of ensuring compliance with Article 3, to be determined in accordance with paragraph 4 below'. Article 7, para. 2 states: 'Each Party included in Annex I shall incorporate in its national communication, submitted under Article 12 of the Convention, the supplementary information necessary to demonstrate compliance with its commitment under this Protocol, to be determined in accordance with paragraph 4 below'.
31. See Decision 21/CP.7, Good Practice Guidance and Adjustments under Article 5, Paragraph 2, of the Kyoto Protocol (FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.3, 21 January 2002), para. 2.
32. See Decision 19/CP.7, Modalities for accounting of assigned amounts under Article 7, paragraph 4, of the Kyoto Protocol and Decision 13/ CMP.1, Modalities for the Accounting of Assigned Amounts under Article 7, paragraph 4, of the Kyoto Protocol (FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.2, 21 January 2002).
33. See Kyoto Protocol, n. 2 above, Article 3.7. The second sentence of Article 3.7 states: 'Those Parties included in Annex I for whom land-use change and forestry constituted a net source of greenhouse gas emissions in 1990 shall include in their 1990 emissions base year or period the aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions by sources minus removals by sinks in 1990 from land-use change for the purposes of calculating their assigned amount'. This is widely known as the 'Australia clause' as it was introduced by Australia at around 2.00 am of the final night of COP-3 in Kyoto to give Australia an additional allowance for their Kyoto target (personal observation).
34. See para. 13 of Decision 23/CP.7, Guidelines for Review under Article 8 of the Kyoto Protocol (FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.3, 21 January 2002).
35. See ibid., Annex, para. 15(a).
36. See ibid., Annex, para. 15(b)(i).
37. See ibid., Annex, para. 65(c).
38. See Decision 22/CP.8, para. 2, Additional Sections to be Incorporated in the Guidelines for the Preparation of the Information Required under Article 7, and in the Guidelines for the Review of Information under Article 8, of the Kyoto Protocol (FCCC/CP/2002/7/Add.3, 28 March 2003), para. 2.
39. See ibid., Annex I, para. 2(e).
40. This was to fulfil the requirement found in para. 9 of the Annex to 16/ CMP.1, n. 4 above, which recognized that there could be a potential land-use overlap for some Article 3.4 activities (i.e. agroforestry and grazing land management).
41. See Decision 22/CP.8, n. 38 above, Annex III, para. 5.
42. See Decision 21/CP.8 Guidance to the Executive Board of the Clean Development Mechanism (FCCC/CP/2002/7/Add.3, 28 March 2003).
43. See Decision 4/CMP.1, Guidance relating to the Clean Development Mechanism (FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.1, 30 March 2006), Annex I, Rule 32.
44. See Decision 24/CP.8, Technical Standards for Data Exchange between Registry Systems under the Kyoto Protocol (FCCC/CP/2002/7/Add.3, 28 March 2003).
45. See ibid., Annex, table 2.
46. Note that SBSTA-18 had invited the IPCC: 'to submit the report (GPG) for consideration by the SBSTA at its nineteenth session for possible adoption by the COP at its ninth session' (emphasis added). See Good Practice Guidance and Other Information on Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (Agenda Item 4 (E)), Report of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice on its Eighteenth Session, held at Bonn, from 4 to 13 June 2003 (FCCC/SBSTA/2003/10, 31 July 2003), Section E, para. 26(a)(i).
47. Personal observation.
48. See Jim Penman et al. (eds), Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, 2003), chapter 3, section 3.2, at 3.23.
49. Article 4, para. 1 of the UNFCCC, n. 3 above, states: 'All Parties, taking into account their common but differentiated responsibilities and their specific national and regional development priorities, objectives and circumstances, shall: (a) Develop, periodically update, publish and make available to the Conference of the Parties, in accordance with Article 12, national inventories of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of all greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol, using comparable methodologies to be agreed upon by the Conference of the Parties'. The definition of sinks is found in Article 1, para. 8 which states: '"Sink" means any process, activity or mechanism which removes a greenhouse gas, an aerosol or a precursor of a greenhouse gas from the atmosphere'. Hence it could be argued that all emissions and removals from all forest lands must be included in national inventories, whether they are managed or not.
50. See Decision 13/CP.9, Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land- Use Change and Forestry in the Preparation of National Greenhouse Gas Inventories under the Convention (FCCC/CP/2003/6/Add.1, 22 April 2004).
51. The CRF tables were initially prepared by the Secretariat, in consultation with the IPCC as per instructions of SBSTA-18. See Good Practice Guidance and Other Information on Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (Agenda Item 4 (E)), n. 46 above, Section E, para. 26(b).
52. Personal observation.
53. See Decision 19/CP.9, Modalities and Procedures for Afforestation and Reforestation Project Activities under the Clean Development Mechanism in the First Commitment Period of the Kyoto Protocol (FCCC/CP/2003/6/ Add.2, 22 April 2004), Annex.
54. Defined in the Annex to Decision 19/CP.9, ibid., as 'the increase in greenhouse gas emissions by sources which occur outside the boundary of an afforestation or reforestation project activity under the CDM which is measurable and attributable to the afforestation and reforestation project activity'.
55. A concept sometimes called profit-à-prendre.
56. A concept not defined in the decision, but generally accepted to refer to the fact that planted trees do not live forever and at some stage they will die, be cut down or burnt and hence some or all of the stored carbon will be released back into the atmosphere.
57. Whereby credits for afforestation or reforestation projects would expire and have to be replaced by another project.
58. Initially the Canadian proposal allowed countries to 'insure' their CERs by an international brokerage, but this was considered to be too complicated. The proposal evolved into an arrangement whereby any lCER that was transferred into a retirement account of a party included in Annex I would need to be replaced by an equivalent carbon credit generated by the various Kyoto mechanisms. If a reversal of the sink occurred (e.g. due to fire or logging activity) before the end of the crediting period, an equivalent amount of carbon credits would need to be found to replace the loss. See Decision 5/CMP.1, Modalities and Procedures for Afforestation and Reforestation Project Activities under the Clean Development Mechanism in the First Commitment Period of the Kyoto Protocol (FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.1, 30 March 2006), Annex, Section K.
59. tCERs stands for 'temporary' certified emissions reduction and the curiously named lCERs stands for 'long-term' CERs.
60. See Decision 20/CP.9, Technical Guidance on Methodologies for Adjustments under Article 5, paragraph 2, of the Kyoto Protocol (FCCC/CP/ 2003/6/Add.2, 22 April 2004).
61. See Decision 15/CP.11, Issues Relating to Adjustments under Article 5, paragraph 2, of the Kyoto Protocol (FCCC/CP/2005/5/Add.2, 30 March 2006). This decision later became Decision 21/CMP.1, Issues relating to Adjustments under Article 5, Paragraph 2, of the Kyoto Protocol (FCCC/KP/ CMP/2005/8/Add.3, 30 March 2006). The changing of a decision of the COP marks a notable change in protocol. Decisions of the COP generally remain sacrosanct. The changes from 20/CP.9 to 15/CP.11 are fairly minimal, however the implications for reporting are significant. This was one issue that appears to slip under the radar for most parties.
62. See Decision 14/CP.10, Simplified Modalities and Procedures for Small-Scale Afforestation and Reforestation Project Activities under the Clean Development Mechanism in the First Commitment Period of the Kyoto Protocol and Measures to Facilitate their Implementation (FCCC/CP/2004/ 10/Add.2, 19 April 2005).
63. See Decision 13/CP.10, Incorporation of the Modalities and Procedures for Afforestation and Reforestation Project Activities under the Clean Development Mechanism into the Guidelines under Articles 7 and 8 of the Kyoto Protocol (FCCC/CP/2004/10/Add.2, 19 April 2005).
64. The G77 sought precise identification of the geographical boundary of all activities subject to accounting under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol, whereas Canada sought less specific reporting requirements.
65. The mandate for the Seminar came from COP-10 and represented one of the most controversial outcomes of this meeting. See Report of the Conference of the Parties on its tenth session, held at Buenos Aires from 6 to 18 December 2004 (FCCC/CP/2004/10, 18 April 2005), Annex II, Seminar of Government Experts, at 39.
66. 2012 is the end of the first commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol.
67. See K. Kulovesi, M. Muñoz and C. Spence, 'Summary of the UNFCCC Seminar of Government Experts', 12:261 Earth Negotiations Bulletin (19 May 2005).
68. See Submission by the Governments of Papua New Guinea and Cost Rica: Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries: Approaches to Stimulate Action (FCCC/CP/2005/MISC.1, 11 November 2005).
69. The Marrakesh Accords are the set of decisions made at COP-7. See Report of the Conference of Parties on its Seventh Session, held at Marrakesh from 29 October to 10 November 2001 (FCCC/CP/2001/13, 15 May 2002).
70. See Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Eleventh Session, held at Montreal from 28 November to 10 December 2005, Part One: Proceedings (FCCC/CP/2005/5, 30 March 2006), Section VI, 'Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries: Approaches to Stimulate Action'.
71. See Decision 18/CMP.1, Criteria for Cases of Failure to Submit Information Relating to Estimates of Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sources and Removals by Sinks from Activities under Article 3, Paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Kyoto Protocol (FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3, 30 March 2006).
72. The Annex to Decision 18/CMP.1, ibid., states: 'The magnitude (M) of the adjustments to an activity for a year of the commitment period, expressed as a percentage, is measured as the absolute value of the "adjusted net estimate for that activity minus the submitted net estimate for the activity", divided by the sum of the absolute values of all submitted components for that activity, multiplied by 0.18'. A footnote to the figure 0.18 states: 'This value was selected as an indicator of the average share of the land use, land-use change and forestry emissions and removals relative to total emissions for Parties included in Annex I to the Convention'. This description is then written as a mathematical equation.
73. Kyoto Protocol, n. 3 above, Article 3.9 states: 'Commitments for subsequent periods for Parties included in Annex I shall be established in amendments to Annex B to this Protocol, which shall be adopted in accordance with the provisions of Article 21, paragraph 7. The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol shall initiate the consideration of such commitments at least seven years before the end of the first commitment period referred to in paragraph 1 above'.
74. See Decision 1/CMP.1, Consideration of Commitments for Subsequent Periods for Parties included in Annex I to the Convention under Article 3, Paragraph 9, of the Kyoto Protocol (FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.1, 30 March 2006).
75. Article 9 of the Kyoto Protocol, n. 2 above, states: '1. The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol shall periodically review this Protocol in the light of the best available scientific information and assessments on climate change and its impacts, as well as relevant technical, social and economic information. Such reviews shall be coordinated with pertinent reviews under the Convention, in particular those required by Article 4, paragraph 2(d), and Article 7, paragraph 2(a), of the Convention. Based on these reviews, the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol shall take appropriate action. 2. The first review shall take place at the second session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol. Further reviews shall take place at regular intervals and in a timely manner'.
76. See Decision 1/CP.11, Dialogue on Long-Term Cooperative Action to Address Climate Change by Enhancing Implementation of the Convention (FCCC/CP/2005/5/Add.1, 30 March 2006).
77. There was no decision to consider the Russian proposal. It was recorded in the report of the meeting. See S. Aguilar et al., 'Summary of the Eleventh Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and First Conference of Parties serving as the Meeting of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol: 28 November-10 December 2005', 12: 291 Earth Negotiations Bulletin (12 December 2005).
78. See Methodological Issues under the Convention, Part A, 'Harvested Wood Products' (FCCC/SBSTA/2005/10, 1 March 2006), Section V.
79. Personal observation. For information on woodmiles, see The Woodmiles Forum, available at .
80. See Methodological Issues under the Convention, Part A, 'Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, and Issues Related to Harvested Wood Products: Draft Conclusions proposed by the Chair' (FCCC/SBSTA/2006/5, 13 September 2006).
81. See Decision 13/CP.9, n. 50 above.
82. SBSTA's work included a draft decision, which was adopted by COP-11. See Decision 14/CP.11, Tables of the Common Reporting Format for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (FCCC/CP/2005/5/Add.2, Section VII, 30 March 2006).
83. The IPCC guidelines would suggest that emissions from wildfires in 'unmanaged' forests according to its definition would not be considered as a reportable emission, even if these wildfires were started by human activities (e.g. escape from burn-offs on agricultural land).
84. See A. Conrad et al., 'Summary of the UNFCCC Dialogue on Long-term Cooperative Action, 15-16 May 2006', 12:297 Earth Negotiations Bulletin (17 May 2006).
85. See A. Conrad et al., 'Kyoto Protocol Ad Hoc Working Group, Wednesday 17 May 2006', 12:298 Earth Negotiations Bulletin (Thursday, 18 May 2006).
86. See Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries (FCCC.SBSTA/2006/5, 13 September 2006), Section VI.
87. The issue on biomass burning came from a request from Tuvalu as a follow up to the issue of wildfires and managed and unmanaged lands. The issue relating to methane and volatile organic compounds came from Australia. Personal observation.
88. Formerly Decision 11/CP.7, Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (FCCC/ CP/2001/13/Add.1, 21 January 2002).
89. The figure proposed by Italy was 2.78Mt C/year (a 260% increase) over the original allocated 0.18 Mt C/yr.
90. According to para. 12 of Decision 16/CMP.1, n. 4 above: 'A Party may request the Conference of the Parties to reconsider numerical values as contained in paragraph 10 and in the appendix to paragraph 11, with a view to the Conference of the Parties recommending a decision for adoption to the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, no later than 2 years prior to the beginning of the first commitment period' (emphasis added). Apparently, Italy's submission just made the cut off date with hours to spare.
91. The mandate for this workshop came originally from Decision 10/CP.9, Scientific, Technical and Socio-Economic Aspects of Impacts of, and Vulnerability and Adaptation to, Climate Change, and Scientific, Technical and Socio-Economic Aspects of Mitigation (FCCC/CP/2003/6/ Add.1, 22 April 2004) and was further elaborated upon at SBSTA-23. See Scientific, Technical and Socio-Economic Aspects of Mitigation of Climate Change (FCCC/SBSTA/2005/10, 1 March 2006), Part IV, para. 26.
92. See A. Bhardwaj et al., 'SB 24 & AWG Highlights, Tuesday, 23 May 2006', 12:303 Earth Negotiations Bulletin (Wednesday, 24 May 2006).
93. See Decision 1/CP.12, Further Guidance to an Entity Entrusted with the Operation of the Financial Mechanism of the Convention, for the Operation of the Special Climate Change Fund (FCCC/CP/2006/5, 26 January 2007).
94. The initial Decision 7/CP.7, Funding under the Convention (FCCC/CP/2001/ 13/Add.1, 21 January 2002) noted that a special climate change fund be established for a number of activities including: '2(c) energy, transport, industry, agriculture, forestry and waste management' (emphasis added). Then COP-8 adopted a follow-up decision entitled: Initial Guidance to an Entity Entrusted with the Operation of the Financial Mechanism of the Convention, for the Operation of the Special Climate Change Fund, Decision 7/CP.8 (FCCC/CP/2002/7/Add.1, 28 March 2003), which established a process to further define the prioritized activities, programmes and measures to be funded out of the Special Climate Change Fund which had been identified in para. 2 of Decision 7/ CP.7. Consequently, COP-9 adopted a decision based on the process established at COP-8. This decision, Decision 5/CP.9, Further Guidance to an Entity Entrusted with the Operation of the Financial Mechanism of the Convention, for the Operation of the Special Climate Change Fund (FCCC/CP/2003/6/Add.1, 22 April 2004), para. 2(a), identified that adaptation activities funded under the SCCF in the areas of water resource management, land management, agriculture, health, infrastructure development, fragile ecosystems, including mountain ecosystems, and integrated coastal zone management. It is interesting to note that forestry disappeared from this list but may be considered as being included in broader categories such as land management. At COP-12, parties agreed to prioritized areas for funding including: '1(d) Afforestation, reforestation and use of marginal land'; See Decision 1/ CP.12, n. 93 above.
95. Personal observation.
96. See Reducing Emission from Deforestation in Developing Countries (FCCC/ SBSTA/2006/11, 1 February 2007), Part V.
97. See Issues Relating to Greenhouse Gas Inventories (FCCC/SBSTA/2006/11, 1 February 2007), Part VIII(B).
98. See 'Procedures to Define the Eligibility of Lands for Afforestation and Reforestation Project Activities', Executive Board of the Clean Development Mechanism, Twenty-Second Meeting Report (CDMEB- 22, 25 November 2005), Annex 16.
99. See 'Procedures to Demonstrate the Eligibility of Lands for Afforestation and Reforestation Project Activities (Version 02)', Executive Board of the Clean Development Mechanism, Twenty- Second Meeting Report (CDM-EB-26, 29 September 2006), Annex 18.
100. For instance Annex 18 includes the concept of 'minimum width' with respect to forest definition thresholds. This concept is not found in Decision 16/CMP.1, n. 4 above, but is found in the IPCC Good Practice Guidance on LULUCF
101. see IPCC, Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, 2003), at 4.11.
102. The CDM EB developed a new set of draft procedures at its thirty-first meeting. The EB decided to base the definition of eligible land on decisions under 16/CMP.1, n. 4 above, and 5/CMP.1, n. 58 above, rather than trying to reinterpret the definitions as the CDM EB had done previously. The CDM EB did however indicate that land could be cleared after 1990 and then reforested and still be eligible subject to the provision of 'transparent information that demonstrates that the land was not intentionally converted to nonforest land for the purpose of implementing an afforestation and reforestation CDM project activity'. See 'Draft Procedures to Demonstrate the Eligibility of Lands for Afforestation and Reforestation Project Activities', Executive Board of the Clean Development Mechanism, Thirty-First Meeting Report (CDM-EB-31, 4 May 2007), Annex 14. This is an interesting decision by the EB as the concept of 'intentional conversion' of land is not found within 16/CMP.1, n. 4 above. It presents an interesting conundrum as to how far the CDM EB can interpret, or in fact, reinterpret, COP/MOP decisions.
103. Recalling that the limit had been set a 8 kilotonnes of CO2 equivalent in Decision 14/CP.10, n. 62 above.
104. See S. Carter et al., 'COP-12 and COP/MOP 2 Highlights, Wednesday, 15 November 2006', 12:316 Earth Negotiations Bulletin (16 November 2006).
105. See Further Commitments for Annex I Parties and the Duration Thereof: Work Plan and Schedule of Future Sessions (FCCC/KP/AWG/2006/L.4, 14 November 2006).
106. G77 and China advocated a limited mandate, while AOSIS sought a broader scope. Personal observation.
107. See Decision 7/CMP.2, Review of the Kyoto Protocol Pursuant to its Article 9 (FCCC/KP/CMP/2006/10/Add.1, 2 March 2007).
108. See S. Carter et al., 'Summary of the Twelfth Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Second Meeting of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, 6-17 November 2006', 12:318 Earth Negotiations Bulletin (20 November 2006).
109. See 'Submission by the Government of Tuvalu: Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries', in Views on the Range of Topics and Other Relevant Information relating to Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries, Submissions from Parties (FCCC/ SBSTA/2007/MISC.2/Add.1, 3 April 2007).
110. The reluctance to invite relevant organizations to participate is an apparent reaction to the proposal by the World Bank to establish a carbon trading mechanism ahead of any COP decision. Personal observation.
111. See Methodological Issues under the Convention: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (FCCC/SBSTA/2007/L.5, 15 May 2007).
112. See A. Appleton et al., 'SB 26 Highlights', 12:327 Earth Negotiations Bulletin (12 May 2007).
113. This point was noted in an intervention by Tuvalu at the workshop on reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries, 7-9 March 2007 in Cairns, Australia. Personal observation.
114. A. Appleton et al., 'SB 26 Highlights: Thursday, 17 May 2007', 12:332 Earth Negotiations Bulletin (18 May 2007).
115. S. Carter, P. Doran and K. Kulovesi, 'Fourth Sessions of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol and Convention Dialogue, 27-31 August 2007', 12:339 Earth Negotiations Bulletin (3 September 2007).
116. See ibid.
117. The term 'roadmap' was coined at the Midnight Sun Dialogue on Climate Change in Sweden in June 2007. The term came from the South African Environment Minister, Marthinus van Schalkwyk, as a compromise between agreeing to start negotiations for a new legal instrument under the UNFCCC and agreeing to do nothing at Bali (personal observation). Considering the agreement coming from the G8 + 5 Summit earlier in 2007 to conclude negotiations by the end of 2009, the proposal to have a 'roadmap' means that a mandate to start negotiations will have to be agreed upon in 2008 (unless the UN General Assembly can do this after the COP in December 2007). This gives parties very little time to negotiate such a new agreement and come forward with a comprehensive and cohesive decision on LULUCF.
118. Personal observation.
119. See White House Council on Environmental Quality, Final Chairman's Summary: First Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change (27-28 September 2007), available at .