Suchergebnisse

En mettant le cap vers la 21ème Conférence des Parties (COP21) de la Convention Cadre des Nations Unies sur les changements climatiques (CCNUCC) qui se tiendra à Paris du 30 novembre au 11 décembre 2015, CDC Climat Recherche, en partenariat avec l'ADEME, se livre au décryptage des enjeux de cette COP21. Que devons-nous attendre de cet accord climatique de Paris pour l'après 2020? Comment pourrons-nous en évaluer la réussite? L'ambition de notre publication intitulée «ClimasCOPe» est d'analyser en 6 numéros les enjeux suivants: la tarification du carbone, le financement des politiques climatiques, la comptabilisation des émissions de gaz à effet de serre (GES), le rôle des décideurs territoriaux, l'adaptation au changement climatique et la compatibilité entre les engagements des États et le scénario de maintien de la hausse des températures mondiales en deçà de 2°C.

Les négociations internationales sonttoujours complexes, et celles sur le climat nefont pas exception : ses nombreux acteurs yjouent des rôles très différents et pour tousexistent un moment et un lieu privilégié pourintervenir. La vision que l'on se fait de cethéâtre politique dépend donc fortement de laposition qu'on y occupe. Chaque acteur neperçoit qu'une version simplifiée de sesimbroglios, nécessairement subjective. Atravers la narration du dossier de ladéforestation évitée, cet article ne prétend pasoffrir plus que cette vision personnelle : unesource parmi l'ensemble des éclairages quipermettent de comprendre la nébuleuse desnégociations sur le climat.

Les négociations internationales sont toujours complexes, et celles sur le climat ne font pas exception : ses nombreux acteurs y jouent des rôles très différents et pour tous existent un moment et un lieu privilégié pour intervenir. La vision que l'on se fait de ce théâtre politique dépend donc fortement de la position qu'on y occupe. Chaque acteur ne perçoit qu'une version simplifiée de ses imbroglios, nécessairement subjective. A travers la narration du dossier de la déforestation évitée, cet article ne prétend pas offrir plus que cette vision personnelle : une source parmi l'ensemble des éclairages qui permettent de comprendre la nébuleuse des négociations sur le climat.

Les négociations internationales sonttoujours complexes, et celles sur le climat nefont pas exception : ses nombreux acteurs yjouent des rôles très différents et pour tousexistent un moment et un lieu privilégié pourintervenir. La vision que l'on se fait de cethéâtre politique dépend donc fortement de laposition qu'on y occupe. Chaque acteur neperçoit qu'une version simplifiée de sesimbroglios, nécessairement subjective. Atravers la narration du dossier de ladéforestation évitée, cet article ne prétend pasoffrir plus que cette vision personnelle : unesource parmi l'ensemble des éclairages quipermettent de comprendre la nébuleuse desnégociations sur le climat.

Intro -- Preface -- References -- Acknowledgments -- Contents -- Part I: Assessing the Sustainability Performance of Food Quality Schemes -- Conceptual Framework -- Why a Conceptual Framework to Analyze the Sustainability of Food Quality Schemes? -- The Quality Dimension -- The Characteristic of Value Chain -- The Role of Local Agri-Food Systems -- The Role of Public Goods -- The Governance Model -- The Interaction Between Value Chains and Local Agri-Food Systems -- References -- Common Methods and Sustainability Indicators -- General Points on Indicators and Their Analysis -- Overview of Indicators and Minimal Systematic Comparison -- Analysis of Indicators -- Reference, Data Collection and Metadata Documentation -- Selection of a Reference Product/Case: Elements of Guidance -- Data Collection -- Two Angles of Prioritization -- Relying on Existing Sources of Information -- Default Values -- Quality Checks in Data Collection and Indicator Estimation -- Principles -- Example of Data Collection Agenda -- Tips for Data Collection -- Metadata Documentation -- Summarized Description of Indicators and Their Purpose -- Economic Indicators -- Price -- Profitability and Value Distribution -- International Trade Indicators -- Local Multiplier -- Method to Compute the Indicator -- Definition of the Local Area -- Collection of the Information -- Environmental Indicators -- Carbon Footprint -- Product Carbon Footprint, in tCO2e per kg of Product -- Carbon Footprint of Production Area, in tCO2e per Hectare of Utilized Agricultural Area (UAA) -- Method to Compute the Indicators -- Specific Case of Unfed Seafood and Fish -- Extended Food Miles -- Distance Traveled, in ton.km per Ton of Product -- Carbon Emissions Related to the Transportation Stage, in kgCO2e per Ton of Product -- Water Footprint.

The ability to accurately monitor, record, report and verify greenhouse gas emissions is the cornerstone of any effective policy to mitigate climate change. Accounting for Carbon provides the first authoritative overview of the monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) of emissions from the industrial site, project and company level to the regional and national level. It describes the MRV procedures in place in more than fifteen of the most important policy frameworks - such as emissions trading systems in Europe, Australia, California and China, and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change - and compares them along key criteria such as scope, cost, uncertainty and flexibility. This book draws on the work of engineers and economists to provide a practical guide to help government and non-governmental policy makers and key stakeholders in industry to better understand different MRV requirements, the key trade-offs faced by regulators and the choices made by up-and-running carbon pricing initiatives

The climate plan presented on 6 July 2017 by the French government has set a target of carbon neutrality by 2050. In this context, the forest-based sector is set to become strategically important. However, major uncertainties remain on the strategy to be adopted, as illustrated by the author of this article. Taking stock of two independent studies on the subject, her article shows that most scenarios lead to a temporary increase in greenhouse gas emissions from the forest sector and ultimately to a lack of improvement in the carbon balance by 2050, followed however by a potential improvement on more distant horizons, and therefore closer to the time scales of forest management. ; Le plan climat présenté le 6 juillet 2017 par le gouvernement français s'est fixé un objectif de neutralité carbone en 2050. Dans ce contexte, le secteur forêt-bois est amené à prendre une importance stratégique. Cependant de grandes incertitudes persistent sur la stratégie à adopter comme l'illustre l'auteure de cet article. En faisant le point sur deux études indépendantes sur le sujet, son article montre en effet que la plupart des scénarios conduisent à une hausse temporaire des émissions de gaz à effet de serre du secteur forestier et pour finir à une absence d'amélioration du bilan carbone à l'horizon 2050, suivie cependant d'une amélioration potentielle à des horizons plus lointains, et donc plus proches des échelles temporelles de la gestion forestière.

In order to ensure the environmental integrity of carbon offset projects, emission reductions certified under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) have to be 'real, measurable and additional', which is ensured, inter alia, through the monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) process. MRV, however, comes at a cost that ranges from several cents to €1.20 and above per tCO2e depending on the project type. This article analyses monitoring uncertainty requirements for carbon offset projects with a particular focus on the trade-off between monitoring stringency and cost. To this end, existing literature is reviewed, overarching monitoring guidelines, as well as the ten most-used methodologies are scrutinized, and finally three case studies are analysed. It is shown that there is indeed a trade-off between the stringency and the cost of monitoring, which if not addressed properly may become a major barrier for the implementation of offset projects in some sectors. It is then demonstrated that this trade-off has not been systematically addressed in the overarching CDM guidelines and that there are only limited incentives to reduce monitoring uncertainty. Some methodologies and calculation tools as well as some other offset standards, however, do incorporate provisions for a trade-off between monitoring costs and stringency. These provisions may take the form of discounting emissions reductions based on the level of monitoring uncertainty – or more implicitly through allowing a project developer to choose between monitoring a given parameter and using a conservative default value.Policy relevanceThe CDM Executive Board acknowledged that monitoring uncertainty has not been treated in a consistent manner and the draft standard on uncertainty was subsequently presented in May 2013. This article supports the implementation of this standard for more comprehensive, yet cost-efficient accounting for monitoring uncertainty in carbon offset projects. Moreover, in the light of the ongoing discussions on the New Market ...

In order to ensure the environmental integrity of carbon offset projects, emission reductions certified under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) have to be 'real, measurable and additional', which is ensured, inter alia, through the monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) process. MRV, however, comes at a cost that ranges from several cents to €1.20 and above per tCO2e depending on the project type. This article analyses monitoring uncertainty requirements for carbon offset projects with a particular focus on the trade-off between monitoring stringency and cost. To this end, existing literature is reviewed, overarching monitoring guidelines, as well as the ten most-used methodologies are scrutinized, and finally three case studies are analysed. It is shown that there is indeed a trade-off between the stringency and the cost of monitoring, which if not addressed properly may become a major barrier for the implementation of offset projects in some sectors. It is then demonstrated that this trade-off has not been systematically addressed in the overarching CDM guidelines and that there are only limited incentives to reduce monitoring uncertainty. Some methodologies and calculation tools as well as some other offset standards, however, do incorporate provisions for a trade-off between monitoring costs and stringency. These provisions may take the form of discounting emissions reductions based on the level of monitoring uncertainty – or more implicitly through allowing a project developer to choose between monitoring a given parameter and using a conservative default value.Policy relevanceThe CDM Executive Board acknowledged that monitoring uncertainty has not been treated in a consistent manner and the draft standard on uncertainty was subsequently presented in May 2013. This article supports the implementation of this standard for more comprehensive, yet cost-efficient accounting for monitoring uncertainty in carbon offset projects. Moreover, in the light of the ongoing discussions on the New Market ...

In order to ensure the environmental integrity of carbon offset projects, emission reductions certified under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) have to be 'real, measurable and additional', which is ensured, inter alia, through the monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) process. MRV, however, comes at a cost that ranges from several cents to €1.20 and above per tCO2e depending on the project type. This article analyses monitoring uncertainty requirements for carbon offset projects with a particular focus on the trade-off between monitoring stringency and cost. To this end, existing literature is reviewed, overarching monitoring guidelines, as well as the ten most-used methodologies are scrutinized, and finally three case studies are analysed. It is shown that there is indeed a trade-off between the stringency and the cost of monitoring, which if not addressed properly may become a major barrier for the implementation of offset projects in some sectors. It is then demonstrated that this trade-off has not been systematically addressed in the overarching CDM guidelines and that there are only limited incentives to reduce monitoring uncertainty. Some methodologies and calculation tools as well as some other offset standards, however, do incorporate provisions for a trade-off between monitoring costs and stringency. These provisions may take the form of discounting emissions reductions based on the level of monitoring uncertainty – or more implicitly through allowing a project developer to choose between monitoring a given parameter and using a conservative default value.Policy relevanceThe CDM Executive Board acknowledged that monitoring uncertainty has not been treated in a consistent manner and the draft standard on uncertainty was subsequently presented in May 2013. This article supports the implementation of this standard for more comprehensive, yet cost-efficient accounting for monitoring uncertainty in carbon offset projects. Moreover, in the light of the ongoing discussions on the New Market ...

In order to ensure the environmental integrity of carbon offset projects, emission reductions certified under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) have to be 'real, measurable and additional', which is ensured, inter alia, through the monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) process. MRV, however, comes at a cost that ranges from several cents to €1.20 and above per tCO2e depending on the project type. This article analyses monitoring uncertainty requirements for carbon offset projects with a particular focus on the trade-off between monitoring stringency and cost. To this end, existing literature is reviewed, overarching monitoring guidelines, as well as the ten most-used methodologies are scrutinized, and finally three case studies are analysed. It is shown that there is indeed a trade-off between the stringency and the cost of monitoring, which if not addressed properly may become a major barrier for the implementation of offset projects in some sectors. It is then demonstrated that this trade-off has not been systematically addressed in the overarching CDM guidelines and that there are only limited incentives to reduce monitoring uncertainty. Some methodologies and calculation tools as well as some other offset standards, however, do incorporate provisions for a trade-off between monitoring costs and stringency. These provisions may take the form of discounting emissions reductions based on the level of monitoring uncertainty – or more implicitly through allowing a project developer to choose between monitoring a given parameter and using a conservative default value.Policy relevanceThe CDM Executive Board acknowledged that monitoring uncertainty has not been treated in a consistent manner and the draft standard on uncertainty was subsequently presented in May 2013. This article supports the implementation of this standard for more comprehensive, yet cost-efficient accounting for monitoring uncertainty in carbon offset projects. Moreover, in the light of the ongoing discussions on the New Market ...

In order to ensure the environmental integrity of carbon offset projects, emission reductions certified under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) have to be 'real, measurable and additional', which is ensured, inter alia, through the monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) process. MRV, however, comes at a cost that ranges from several cents to €1.20 and above per tCO2e depending on the project type. This article analyses monitoring uncertainty requirements for carbon offset projects with a particular focus on the trade-off between monitoring stringency and cost. To this end, existing literature is reviewed, overarching monitoring guidelines, as well as the ten most-used methodologies are scrutinized, and finally three case studies are analysed. It is shown that there is indeed a trade-off between the stringency and the cost of monitoring, which if not addressed properly may become a major barrier for the implementation of offset projects in some sectors. It is then demonstrated that this trade-off has not been systematically addressed in the overarching CDM guidelines and that there are only limited incentives to reduce monitoring uncertainty. Some methodologies and calculation tools as well as some other offset standards, however, do incorporate provisions for a trade-off between monitoring costs and stringency. These provisions may take the form of discounting emissions reductions based on the level of monitoring uncertainty – or more implicitly through allowing a project developer to choose between monitoring a given parameter and using a conservative default value.Policy relevanceThe CDM Executive Board acknowledged that monitoring uncertainty has not been treated in a consistent manner and the draft standard on uncertainty was subsequently presented in May 2013. This article supports the implementation of this standard for more comprehensive, yet cost-efficient accounting for monitoring uncertainty in carbon offset projects. Moreover, in the light of the ongoing discussions on the New Market ...

Reducing CO2 emissions from forests was slow to get off the ground as a subject of international climate negotiations, but it has picked up considerable momentum since 2005. In particular, agreement has been reached on the urgence to set up a global REDD+ mechanism. The mechanism aims to provide developing countries with incentives to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and to increase forest carbon stocks through appropriate forestry practices or through planting. Agreement has also been reached that REDD+ incentives should be result-based and ultimately awarded at the national level. Nevertheless, local initiatives are a useful mean of tackling deforestation. However, when carbon incentives depend on national performance, linking them to local initiatives is a technical and financial challenge. Technically, the national accounting framework must be able to track emissions-reduction initiatives at the sub-national level (regional, local or projet level). Financially, investors are likely to be scared away if their reward depends on deforestation occuring outside the area of their investment. Ultimately, the issue of transferring national incentives coming from supranational agreements to the local level can be reduced to a political decision on risk sharing between the State and private stakeholders. Industrialized countries have already faced this issue during the first commitment period under the Kyoto protocol and they have often found it difficult to develop satisfactory solutions. Two notable exceptions are New Zealand, which included its forest sector in its emissions trading scheme, and Australia, which is developing a "Carbon Farming Initiative" for forestry and agricultural offsets. This study draws lessons from a comparison of the treatment of the Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) sector in industrialized countries during the first Kyoto protocol commitment period and the current discussions and initiatives on the architecture of a future REDD+ mechanism. Two ...