Advertisement

Land use and forestry based CDM in scientific peer-reviewed literature pre-and post-COP 9 in Milan

  • Matilda PalmEmail author
  • Madelene Ostwald
  • John Reilly
Original Paper

Abstract

This article explores the science-policy interactions between peer-reviewed literature and decisions and declarations on Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) projects in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) taken at Conference of the Parties (COP) meetings. The results are based on a literature analysis capturing 88 articles published from 1997 to 2005. By using a matrix search method and a structured reading form, the method and analysis focussed on whether issues of CDM and LULUCF were presented as ‘supportive of the inclusion of LULUCF’ and ‘critical of the inclusion of LULUCF’. A matrix search method and a structured reading form were applied. Of the 88 articles, 66% included discussions supportive to the inclusion of LULUCF. Forty-nine percent had a first author affiliated in natural sciences. Only 19% had first authors affiliated in developing countries while the same number for contributing authors was 38%. The results show no clear connection between scientific literature and decisions and declarations, but indicate that policymakers set the research agenda by declarations, while researchers feed the process up until decisions are made.

Keywords

CDM COP Land-use change Forestry Literature study Negotiations Policy Research 

Abbreviations

A/R

Afforestation and Reforestation

CDM

Clean Development Mechanism

CER

Certified Emission Reduction

CO2

Carbon dioxide

COP

Conference of Parties

GHG

Greenhouse Gases

IPCC

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

KP

Kyoto Protocol

LULUCF

Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry

NGO

Non Governmental Organisations

OECD

Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development

PDD

Project Design Document

SBSTA

Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice

UNFCCC

United Nations Framework Convention of Climate Change

Notes

Acknowledgements

Helpful comments were provided by Göran Berndes, Tobias Persson, Martin Persson, Martin Rudbeck Jepsen, Martina Jung, Elisabeth Simelton, Deliang Chen and Hans Linderholm. Palm is funded by the Swedish Energy Agency and Ostwald acknowledges the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation. Reilly acknowledges the support of the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.

References

  1. Berlin, D. (2007). Green power generators—how the political stakes of global environmental conventions make some NGOs more fit for power making than others. Dissertation, Göteborg University.Google Scholar
  2. Dessai, S., Schipper, L. F., Corbera, E., Kjellen, B., Gutierrez, M., & Haxeltine, A. (2005). Challenges and outcomes at the ninth session of the conference of the parties to the United Nations framework convention on climate change. International Environmental Agreements, 5, 105–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fogel, C. (2005). Biotic carbon sequestration and the Kyoto rotocol: The construction of global knowledge by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. International Environmental Agreements, 5, 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. IPCC. (2000). Land use, land-use change, and forestry. A special report of the IPCC. In R. T. Watson, I. R. Noble, B. Bolin, N. H. Ravindranath, D. J. Verardo, & D. J. Dokken (Eds.). Camebridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. IPCC. (2003). Good practice guidance for land use, land use and forestry. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change National Greenhouse Inventories Programme, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Japan.Google Scholar
  6. Jasanoff, S., & Wynne, B. (1998). Science and decision making. In S. Rayner, E. L. Malone (Eds.), Human choices and climate change Vol. 1, The Societal Framework (pp. 1–87). Washington: Battelle Press.Google Scholar
  7. Jordan, A., & O’Riordan, T. (1998). Institutions for global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 8, 171–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jung, M. (2005). The role of forestry projects in the clean development mechanism. Environmental Science and Policy, 8, 87–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kothari, A., Birch, S., & Charles, C. (2005). “Interaction” and research utilization in health policies and programs: Does it work? Health Policy, 71, 117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lidskog, R., & Sundqvist, G. (2002). The role of science in environmental regimes: The case of LRTAP. European Journal of International Relations, 8, 177–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Leaf, D. (2001). Managing global atmospheric change: A U.S. policy perspective. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 7, 1211–1226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Oreskes, N. (2004). Behind the ivory tower—the scientific consensus on climate change. Science, 306, 1686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sathaye, J. A., Makundi, W. R., Andrasko, K., Boer R., Ravindranath, N. H., Sudha, P., Rao, S., Lasco, R., Pulhin, F., Masera, O., Ceron, A., Ordones, J., Deying, X., Zhang, X., & Zuomin, S. (2001). Carbon mitigation potential and costs of forestry options in Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, the Philippines and Tanzania. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 6, 185–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sitch, S., Brovkin, V., von Bloh, W., van Vuuren, D., Eickhout, B., & Ganopolski, A. (2005). Impacts of future land cover changes on atmospheric CO2 and climate. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 19, GB2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Skodvin, T. (1999). Science-policy interaction in the global greenhouse institutional design and institutional performance in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Working paper 1999:3 Cicero.Google Scholar
  16. UNFCCC Decision 11/CP.7. (2001). Land use, land-use change and forestry. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop7/13a01.pdf#page=54.
  17. UNFCCC Decision 1/CP.8. (2002). Delhi ministerial declaration on climate change and sustainable development. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop8/07a01.pdf#page=3.
  18. UNFCCC Decision 19/CP.9. (2003). Modalities and procedures for afforestation and reforestation project activities under the clean development mechanism in the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop10/10a02.pdf#page=26.
  19. UNFCCC Decision 14/CP.10. (2004). 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. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop10/10a02.pdf#page=26.
  20. UNFCCC Decision 15/CP.10. (2004). Good practice guidance for land use, land-use change and forestry activities under Article 3, Paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Kyoto Protocol. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop10/10a02.pdf#page=41.
  21. UNFCCC. (2004). Simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale afforestation and reforestation project activities under the clean development mechanism, technical paper. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/tp/tp0402.pdf.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Earth Science, Physical GeographyUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global ChangeMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations