| Project/Area Number |
15405025
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B)
|
| Allocation Type | Single-year Grants |
|---|
| Section | 海外学術 |
|---|
| Research Field |
林学・森林工学
|
|---|
| Research Institution | Waseda University |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
AMANO Masahiro Waseda University, Faculty of Human Sciences, Professor, 人間科学学術院・人間科学部, 教授 (60353562)
|
|---|
| Co-Investigator(Kenkyū-buntansha) |
MATSUMURA Naoto Mie University, Fac.of Bioresources, Assistant Professor, 生物資源学部, 助教授 (30332711)
日下部 朝子 日本学術振興会, 特別研究員(PD)
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
2003 – 2004
|
| Project Status |
Completed (Fiscal Year 2004)
|
| Budget Amount *help |
¥7,200,000 (Direct Cost: ¥7,200,000)
Fiscal Year 2004: ¥3,200,000 (Direct Cost: ¥3,200,000)
Fiscal Year 2003: ¥4,000,000 (Direct Cost: ¥4,000,000)
|
|---|
| Keywords | Kyoto Protocol / Forest / Carbon Sink / Global warming / Commitment Period / 吸収源 / 第2約束期間以降 / オセアニア |
|---|
| Research Abstract |
This report addresses two issues. The first issue compares the approaches of the governmental of Japan, Canada, and the European Union member countries toward using forest carbon sinks to meet their respective Kyoto carbon reduction targets for the first compliance period 2008-2012. This paper examines and compares the approach of the governments of Japan, Canada and the European Union(EU) with respect to carbon sinks for meeting their respective Kyoto Protocol(KP) carbon reduction targets. The study examines various proposed government policies to stimulate the forest sector to achieve carbon sequestration by promoting afforestation, reforestation and deforestation(ARD) and forest management under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 of the KP. It also touches on the establishment of a reporting system for IPCC (UNFCCC) Inventory report under Article 5. In the second issue this report begins a speculation of the prospective ways that biological and forest carbon might be used to sequester carbon beyond the Kyoto compliance period 2008-2012. In the post Kyoto period approaches to addressing carbon sinks will need to be revisited. Three ranges of alternatives are possible. These are the KP system can continue, the system can be simplified, or new modalities can be developed. Also, there is the question of how once register Kyoto forests will be treated in the post Kyoto period. Although COP 9 indicated that once modified the forest would be modified indefinitely. However, it is not clear how binding the provisions of the current KP will be on activity and agreements in the post Kyoto period, which, after all. will almost surely be negotiated de novo. Obvious considerations for a 2^<nd> KP could involve a rethinking of both Articles 3.3 and 3.4.
|
