COST-BENEFIT ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTING LULUCF ACCOUNTING RULES IN TURKEY COST-BENEFIT ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTING LULUCF ACCOUNTING RULES IN TURKEY SalvaTerra June 2014 COST-BENEFIT ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTING LULUCF ACCOUNTING RULES IN TURKEY Summary Summary _________________________________________________________ 2 List of figures _____________________________________________________ 3 List of tables ______________________________________________________ 4 Acronyms ________________________________________________________ 5 Summary for policy-makers _________________________________________ 7 1. International context: KP2 (2013-2020) & 2015 Accord (2020 onward) ___ 11 1.1. Key debate: differentiation Annex 1 Parties vs Non-Annex 1 Parties ____________ 11 1.2. “Special Circumstances” of Turkey: chronology & rationale of the debate _______ 13 1.3. REDD+ vs LULUCF: key features and potential access/interest for Turkey _______ 15 1.4. Summary: Turkey in the current/future climate regime, incl. LULUCF ___________ 16 2. LULUCF accounting rules: initial ones (KP1) & upgraded ones (KP2) ___ 17 2.1. Great mitigation potential in the forest sector, difficult to realise by the KP ______ 17 2.2. Initial LULUCF accounting rules: KP1, 2008-2012 ____________________________ 18 2.3. Current LULUCF accounting rules: KP2, 2013-2020 __________________________ 22 2.4. Reporting UNFCCC Categories vs Accounting KP Activities ___________________ 27 2.5. Summary: Upgraded LULUCF accounting rules to be considered ______________ 31 3. LULUCF in Turkey _____________________________________________ 32 3.1. Current key facts and figures about forests in Turkey ________________________ 32 3.2. Assumptions, methodologies, data & trends in LULUCF GHG inventories _______ 42 3.3. Strengths and weaknesses of LULUCF GHG inventories ______________________ 52 3.4. Current and future policies impacting LULUCF by 2020 _______________________ 54 3.5. Summary: State of LULUCF in Turkey and key changes foreseen by 2020 _______ 65 4. Estimation of costs-benefits of LULUCF policies & measures _________ 66 4.1. Credit vs debit for Art. 3.4 - FM ____________________________________________ 66 4.2. Credit vs debit for Art. 3.3 - ARD __________________________________________ 69 4.3. Operation and transaction and costs of pro-LULUCF policies & measures _______ 71 4.4. Non-carbon benefits ____________________________________________________ 75 4.5. Summary: Recap of costs & benefits and key findings ________________________ 80 Annex – Bibliography ______________________________________________ 82 This Report (14-06-05 Cost-Benefit Assessment of LULUCF in Turkey.docx) shall be read in conjunction with its attached Spreadsheets (14-06-05 Cost- Benefit Assessment of LULUCF in Turkey.xlsx). COST-BENEFIT ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTING LULUCF ACCOUNTING RULES IN TURKEY List of figures Figure 1 - Turkey in the OECD & Annexes 1 & 2 of the UNFCCC (BOUYER, 2014) 13 Figure 2 - Mitigation options in the forest sector (MARLAND & SCHLAMADINGER, 1999) 17 Figure 3 - Synthesis of incentives / safeguards in the LULUCF sector for KP1 (BOUYER, 2014) 22 Figure 4 - Synthesis of incentives / safeguards in the LULUCF sector for KP2 (BOUYER, 2014) 26 Figure 5 - Concepts of uncertainty, accuracy, and precision (GRASSI et al., 2008) 27 Figure 6 - Decision tree for key categories analysis - Figure 5.4.1 of GPG-LULUCF 2003 (IPCC, 2003) 28 Figure 7 - Comparative mapping of UNFCCC classes and KP activities in LULUCF (SANZ, 2013) 29 Figure 8 - Matrix of all land use changes within UNFCCC classes and KP2 LULUCF Activities (SANZ, 2013) 30 Figure 9 - Challenges of land tracking for LULUCF accounting in KP2 (KP suppl. GPG-LULUCF, 2013) 30 Figure 10 - Changes in FL and OWL areas (ha), 1972-2020 (BOUYER, 2014 – based on FAO FRA 2010) 34 Figure 11 - Area changes (%): high forest vs coppices, productive vs degraded, from 2004 to 2011 (OGM, 2012) 35 Figure 12 - Changes in AR (ha/yr) from 1990 to 2013 (BOUYER, 2014 – based on OGM, 2014) 35 Figure 13 - Map of climatic zone of Turkey (OGM - GIS division, 2014) 37 Figure 14 - Annual harvest (ind. roundwood and firewood) in ‘000 m3 from 1976 to 2011 (OGM, 2014) 38 Figure 15 - Wood product prices in constant price (TL/m3) from 2000 to 2013 (OGM, 2014) 38 Figure 16 - Production, consumption, export and import of industrial round wood in '000 m3/yr (OGM, 2014) 39 Figure 17 - Production, consumption, export and import of firewood in '000 m3/yr (Source: OGM, 2014) 39 Figure 18 - Number of fires and area per fire (ha) from 1990 to 2012 (OGM, 2014) 40 Figure 19 - Forest area (ha) affected by insects, diseases, storms/avalanches (FAO FRA, 2010) 41 Figure 20 - Costs and areas related to forest pests control (OGM, 2014) 42 Figure 21 - Total GHG without LULUCF and GHG from LULUCF (MtCO2eq/yr) from 1990 to 2011 (UNFCCC, 2013) 43 Figure 22 - Sectoral distribution of GHG emissions/removals (in MtCO2eq and %) in 2011 (UNFCCC, 2013) 43 Figure 23 - GHG inventory for LULUCF in Turkey (MtCO2eq/yr) from 1990 to 2011 (UNFCCC, 2013) 43 Figure 24 - GHG emissions/removals from FL-FL and NFL-FL (MtCO2eq/yr) from 1990 to 2011 (UNFCCC, 2013) 44 Figure 25 - Net removals (in tCO2eq/ha/yr) in FL-FL (BOUYER, 2014, based on UNFCCC, 2013) 44 Figure 26 - Area changes (kha) from 1990 to 2011 in NFL-FL, esp. CL-FL and GL-FL (UNFCCC, 2013) 46 Figure 27 - Net removals (tCO2eq/ha/yr) in CL-FL & GL-FL from 1990 to 2011 (BOUYER, 2014, based on UNFCCC, 2013) 46 Figure 28 - GHG emissions/removals (ktCO2eq/yr) in CL-CL and NCL-CL from 1990 to 2011 (UNFCC, 2013) 48 Figure 29 - Area change from 1990 to 2019 in the agriculture sector (TurkStat, 2010) 48 Figure 30 - Net removals (tCO2eq/ha/yr) in CL-CL and NCL-CL from 1990 to 2011 (UNFCCC, 2013) 49 Figure 31 - GHG emissions/removals (ktCO2eq/yr) from GL-GL and NGL-GL from 1990 to 2011 (UNFCCC, 2013) 50 Figure 32 - GHG emissions/removals (ktCO2eq/yr) in CL-WL and GL-WL from 1990 to 2011 (UNFCCC, 2013) 51 Figure 33 - Changes of areas (kha) in CL-WL and GL-WL from 1990 to 2011 (UNFCCC, 2013) 51 Figure 34 - NCCAP: links with the national and international processes on climate (MEF, 2011) 54 Figure 35 - Estimated 1990-2020 data series for 3.3 AR and 3.3 D (BOUYER, 2014) 57 Figure 36 - Estimated 1990-2020 data series for forest area (ha), by forest types (BOUYER, 2014) 57 Figure 37 - Estimated 1990-2020 data series for 3.4 FM area (ha), by forest types (BOUYER, 2014) 58 Figure 38 - 2002-2012 volume increment for the three main forest types (BOUYER, 2014, based on ENVANIS, 2013) 58 Figure 39 - 190-2020 data series of volume increment for the three main forest types (BOUYER, 2014) 58 Figure 40 - 10 top key species in Turkish forest (ENVANIS, 2013) 59 Figure 41 - Estimates of D, BEF1, BEF2, and R for Turkish forests (BOUYER, 2014) 59 Figure 42 - Estimates of stocks (in tdm/ha) for the three main forest types (BOUYER, 2014) 60 Figure 43 - 1990-2020 data series of the average stocks (tdm/ha) in Turkish forests (BOUYER, 2014) 60 Figure 44 - 2020 projections of firewood production and consumption in the extensive scenario (BOUYER, 2014) 61 Figure 45 - 2020 projections of roundwood production and consumption in the extensive scenario (BOUYER, 2014) 61 COST-BENEFIT ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTING LULUCF ACCOUNTING RULES IN TURKEY Figure 46 - 2020 projections of ind. roundwood production and consumption in the extensive scenario (BOUYER, 2014) 61 Figure 47 - 2020 projections of roundwood production and consumption in the intensive scenario (BOUYER, 2014) 62 Figure 48 - 2020 projections of ind. roundwood production and consumption in the intensive scenario (BOUYER, 2014) 62 Figure 49 - 2020 projections of harvest per forest types in the extensive scenario (BOUYER, 2014) 63 Figure 50 - 2020 projections of harvest per forest types in the intensive scenario (BOUYER, 2014) 63 Figure 51 - Default values used to estimate carbon stock changes in HWP pool (IPCC, 2006) 68 Figure 52 - Net removals from HWP (MtCO2eq/yr) under intensive vs extensive scenario (BOUYER, 2014) 68 Figure 53 - 1990-2020 net removals in 3.4 FM area under intensive vs extensive scenario (BOUYER, 2014) 69 Figure 54 - Five different RELs for Art. 3.4 FM in Turkey and numerical consequences (BOUYER, 2014) 69 Figure 55 - 1990-2020 net removals due to AR and D (BOUYER, 2014) 70 Figure 56 - % of growth lost by felling, firewood, fires under intensive vs extensive scenario (BOUYER, 2014) 71 Figure 57 - Avoided felling to reach the cap under the RELproj (BOUYER, 2014) 71 Figure 58 - Weighted price of 1 m3 of coniferous vs deciduous felling (BOUYER, 2014) 72 Figure 59 - Opportunity cost in case of reduced felling to reach the cap under the RELproj (BOUYER, 2014) 72 Figure 60 - Costs of plantations from 1990 to 2020, in MUS$/yr (BOUYER, 2014) 73 Figure 61 - Costs of maintenance of plantations from 1990 to 2020, in MUSD/yr (BOUYER, 2014) 73 Figure 62 - Overview of costs involved in MRV of LULUCF (BOUYE, 2014, based on UNFCCC, 2009) 74 Figure 63 - Components of the Total Economic Value (TEV) of forest (CROITORU, 2007) 77 Figure 64 - Valuation techniques to estimate the TEV of forests (MERLO and CROITORU, 2005) 78 Figure 65 - Disaggregation of the TEV of the Turkish forests (PAK et al., 2010) 78 Figure 54 - Five different RELs for Art. 3.4 FM in Turkey and numerical consequences (BOUYER, 2014) 80 Figure 66 - Recap of costs and benefits estimates of LULUCF accounting for different scenario (BOUYER, 2014) 80 List of tables Table 1 - REDD+ vs LULUCF: key features (BOUYER, 2014) 15 Table 2 - LULUCF categories in key category analysis –