untitled

Jour. Korean For. Soc. Vol. 96, No. 3, pp. 235~244 (2007) JOURNAL OF KOREAN FOREST SOCIETY w w CDM k w» 1 Á 2 1 p f w w, 2 w w An Economic Feasibility Study of AR CDM project in North Korea Ki Joo Han 1 and Yeo-Chang Youn 2 1 Department of Forest Resource Management, University of British Columbia, Canada 2 Department of Forest Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-921, Korea : m wš CDM w w k w.» w w y w CDM w w w CDM ƒ w ys ƒ 51 haƒ w, k m 8,000 ha CDM ƒ w ys ƒ w ù kû. ys w ƒ wù ¾ ù (Robinia pseudoacacia) œ wš 20 w» m w k š ƒ j CDM w. k wš ww v w, w, «w sww w CDM z sƒw. ys ¾ ù w 20 w CDM mw w y k ha 376 tco 2 «q ù w mw tcer 503 tcer/ha, lcer 265 lcer/ha ùkû. n» tcer w w n US$ 4.04 ùkûš lcer w w US$ 7.67 ùkû. ù tcer lcer ƒ» «ƒ w». Abstract: Potentials of AR CDM project in North Korea are assessed and feasible land area for AR CDM project is estimated. According to our estimation, There could be 515,000 hectares of forest lands deforested before 1990 in North Korea and 8,854 hectares at the regional level of Gae-sung City, which are eligible for AR CDM project, based on researches of satellite image analyses conducted from 1980's to 1990's. A baseline scenario assumed 44.73 tones of carbon stored in soil per hectare with no vegetation above ground remained during the project period following the default value of IPCC's Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF considering soil structure, climate and land use of the project area. The scenario also assumes that black rocust (Robinia pseudoacacia) is planted and the CDM project is implemented for 20 years. The costs for producing greenhouse gases CER (certified emission reduction) credits include costs of tree planting and forest management, and costs of project negotiation and transactions for issuing the credits. It is estimated that 376 tones of carbon dioxide per hectare can be accumulated and 503 temporary CER credits per hectare and 265 long-term CER credits per hectare could be produced during the project period. It is estimated to cost US$ 4.04 and US$ 7.67 to provide one unit of temporary credit and long-term credit, respectively. These values can be regarded as the cost of conferring emission commitment of a country or a private entity. However, it is not clear which option is better economically because the replacement periods are different in these two cases. Key words : UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, Clean Development Mechanism, LULUCF, North Korea, tcer, lcer, Sink *Corresponding author E-mail: youn@snu.ac.kr 235

236 ªƒžª 96 «3 y (2007)»z y w»z yx (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change: UNFCCC) m (Kyoto Protocol) k ƒ z 8 w 2005 2 16 m ƒ z 2008 l œ». m ƒ» w m f 1) w š m f y w y w n wš. w, ƒ» w ü ù xk w ƒ wš 1 œ» (afforestation) (reforestation) x wš 1% wwš (UNFCCC, 2001). mw ƒ w ƒ 1990 z ü CDM 2) w w š. ü w y» AIJ 3) (Activity Implementated Jointly) k w» ƒ w»z yx 7 z f w mw CDM w ³ y w z k ƒ š. ù 2002» x w ƒ 9, 1990 2002 183% ƒ d š š j wz ƒ w (, 2004). w ƒ w y ƒ w CDM w ƒ v w. p ù y š w ys ƒ, 1990 ysy, CDM ww ƒ q. w ys w CDM ƒ w CDM wš, CDM ù wš k w. CDM ƒ œ w f w w w š CDM y w l w. ys ƒ w kw. 4) CDM k» ƒ»z yx m d m, ƒ w w y, CDM ù, k sww. d 1992»z yx k z x w œ mw wš CDM ü mw. w y» k w CDM ƒ wš w. ù» ù w š w k k w. n» w š w w y w. k w ƒ w w š w w. š 1.»z yx m 1992 k»z yx 1994 3 21 z 2006 6 12 x x 189 ƒ w ù 1993 12»z yx ƒ w (UNFCCC, 2006). x 17 x w w w wš, z m k ƒ 1997 3 z m ƒ k. m 2005 2 16 z 2006 8 1) m ƒ w m f (CDM: Clean Development Mechanism), œ w(ji: Joint Implementation), «(ET: Emissions Trading)ƒ. 2) y w CDM CDM, AR CDM, CDM w š ù 1 œ» ³ wš w CDM m w. 3) m k» œ w ƒ mw» w w 4) CDMn e UNFCCC Kyoto Protocol w wš, ƒ w DNA(Designated National Agency) ew UNFCCC w CDM w w. w DNA w ù ew wš w.

30 ¾ 164 ƒ mw ƒ ƒ w. m 2 3 I ƒ w w w w w ƒ t wš. 3 3w 4w LULUCF(Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry) ƒ w wš w ü wš. 6 12, 17 m m f w wš. 6 œ w mw ƒ w ù w t w l w I w ù l w w. 12 w wš I ƒƒ I ƒ ww w t w w w. 17 I ƒƒ t w» w mw «w «ƒ y w wš. 2. m m f»z yx w w ü w š z x mw y 2001 7 z x w w ƒ. w w CDM k 237 Table 1. Definition of terms used for LULUCF under the Marrakesh Accord. forest ³ afforestation reforestation deforestation revegetation forest management cropland management grazingland management : UNFCCC Decision 6/CMP.1 (0.05-1.0ha), s (10-30%) š(2-5m)» w. y x» e w (young natural stands) (plantation) w» 50 w m, q, ˆ mw w ƒ y w m, q, ˆ mw w. 1 œ» y 1989 12 31 m w w yw ³ ù ww 0.05ha sww mw k ƒ j y k,, z» { w» w w l š ù { wš m w l w ƒ xk w m w l 1998 4 z 3 3w w w ü, 1 œ» ƒ 1990 z ³,, 2008-2012 w j š j w. LULUCF y w LULUCF w p š z w»» (SBSTA: Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice) z z w w (UNFCCC, 1998). 2000 2001 6 z x»z yp» (Special Climate Change Fund),» (Least Developed Countries Fund) m» (The Kyoto Protocol Adaptation Fund) w š m f y z w» w kw. 2001 7 z ³ ƒ f w mw y. 7 z k f w m LULUCF y w w³e w ü swwš. 7 z LULUCF y w w w (Table 1). f w mw 1 œ» w LULUCF y, CDM «1990» 1%¾ y w wwš xk ³

238 ªƒžª 96 «3 y (2007) Table 2. Previous researches on land use in North Korea by using satellite images. t Land Form, Land Cover, and Crop Use Intensity Mapping for 90 1998 Agriculture Rehabilitation and Food Security in the DPRK* Landsat UNEP/ w Vegetation Cover Type Mapping over Korean Peninsula Using Multitemporal AVHRR data 1991 NOAA 1994 ³ w 1991-1993 k w w Landsat TM 1998 w w y ³ p 1999 ³ s, x 1973-1993 Landsat JESR-1 OPS w s y vw 1997 JESR-1 OPS w ysy xy û w x w : s (1999) 1997-1999 Landsat TM 2000 ½, y s, yw 2004 y w Figure 1. Forest area change from 1980's to 1990's in North Korea. (afforestation) (reforestation) wwš. 2000 z š, k y 2005 12 31 w ww «ƒ w w. w CDM w w» «xk w y w «(CERs) 2%. 2003 9 z CDM w w w ƒ. 19/CP.9 1 œ» CDM x w wš m z z w wš. LULUCF w» w tcer/lcer w (leakage) š w «w. 2004 10 z ³ CDM ³ w k s³ 8,000 tco 2 w y w ³ w»z yx w w. CDM ³e w 2005 1 UNFCCC COP/MOP. 3. w CDM y 1) CDM ƒ w w CDM ƒ mw» w» ww y. w w e «w w y wš x xy y w ³ w. CDM ƒ w 1990 1 1 z y sy w 1989 12 31» w» sw x m w CDM ww v ƒ., 1989 12 31» ys x CDM ƒ. w w ü. <Table 2> x ¾ w w œ, œ t š.

w w CDM k 239 Table 3. Land use pattern in North Korea in 1998. ( ) : ha ys ù»k ( / / ƒ ) 12,298.6 7,534.1 1,631.7 972.0 533.5 126.2 3,132.9 : y (2004) Table 4. International cooperation sites and special economic zones in North Korea. e œ a, q 2002 66.1 km 2 KEDO w û b s, y 2001 - c 1998 - p d, 2002 132 km 2 ù p d w ù 1993 746 km 2 a) œ xy. m œ 2005.4 b) http://www.kedo.org/ c) Ÿ xy. m 2004. 5 d) ûª (2003) ƒƒ w 1990 x ùkù w ùkü <Figure 1> ùkû. xz x mw 1990 1 1 1989 z 1990 z s³w w 8,650,730 ha. w 12,298,600 ha e 370 ha 1989 12 31» ùkü CDM ƒ w. w» ƒ, sw. x ƒ w» w š w CDM ƒ w. y(2004)ƒ 1998 m xy <Table 3> k ys ƒ w œ ƒ w» (1990 ) 8,650,730 ha š 1998 7,534,100 ha» z ys y 1,116,600 haƒ. 90 ysy w j, ù w š ƒ w. 1989 ys 1998 ys 1,631,700 ha 1990 z ysy 1,116,600 ha 515,100 ha w š CDM ƒ. ³ ƒ w w ù CDM ƒ k. 2) w š w x w x w œ» ƒ mw. <Table 4> x w ü w w x. y w 1980 1990 w m v šw œ ys ƒ ùkùš ûw ƒ ƒ¾ œ mw x» y û» ƒ. y (1998) y (2004) ùkù mw w. 1992 (1991 l 1993 ) 53,000 ha š 1998 (1997 l 1999 ) 37,046 ha ùkùš. w w CDM w» 1990 59,648 ha w.» z 1998 ¾ ü ysy 22,601 ha ƒ. 1998» ü ys,, ù sww 31,455 ha ùkû» ysy ys ë š w š ƒ w» ys 8,854 haƒ. CDM ƒ. 4. CDM ù 1) ù UNFCCC(2003) w» y, r m, š. CDM ƒ

240 ªƒžª 96 «3 y (2007) Table 5. Amount of carbon sink per hectare of AR CDM project in Gae-sung. m k (tc) k (tc) ¾ ù w kƒ ù w w» z ƒ û ƒ w» y s kƒ ƒ w. 5) k w» w IPCC(2003) œw ƒ,, ù k w. w ƒ w» m ha 44.73 tc ƒ š 0. 2) ù ƒ (additionality)»z yx w ƒ (additionality test tool) w w w. ù w ëš mw ù mw w» ys w k m w š. w ys w k (tc) yk (tco 2 ) 8 25.89 7.30 33.19 121.70 13 48.84 11.87 60.71 222.61 20 83.66 18.26 101.92 373.72 CDM ƒ ƒ š. yw «v w (leakage) ƒ w «w.» 6) 20, 1,000 ha wš w ¾ ù (Robinia pseudoacacia) w. 3)» k ½ (1985) w» ¾ ù y w w. m ü k y w» w IPCC(2003) œw m ü k y w.»k m ƒ w m k 63 tc ƒ 44.73 tc k 20 x ƒw ƒ w. 7)» 20 ha w k <Table 5>. ƒ x ƒ ƒ w» ƒ w «<Figure 2>. k Figure 2. Amount of credits issued in the AR CDM project. 5) w ƒ w» w. UNEP(2003) š w w 1990 3 m3 1996 7.2 m 3 ƒw (UNEP 2003). w 1996 w 2000 w œ ƒ œ 33% 42% ƒw.(von Hippel 2006) w w œ w yr ƒ p w eƒ ys k û. 6) w z w m, w ƒ w n w ww y š, ysy CDM w ƒ ƒ. 7) ¾ ù š x ù x w x w k j j ww.

w w CDM k 241 Table 6. Category of costs for implementing AR CDM project. w CDM v w m y w,, ù m m xk n e ù m w w ù m»z v w,,»k ƒ ù v w ù a CDM w * CDM w» w v w «a) Michaelowa et al. (2003), Michaelowa et al. (2005) Table 7. Forest management cost for AR CDM project in Gae-sung. ù x ù ù e n ù z (Validation cost) ù (Registration cost) ù l ù «(Verification cost) ù «(Certification cost) : US$/ha w Man*Day ƒ ƒ a b t»(2 ) 7.25 2.52 18.27 13.47 30.18 3.02 1.30 66.24 t»(3 ) 7.25 2.65 19.18 13.47 30.18 3.02 1.32 67.17 t»(4 ) 7.25 2.78 20.14 13.47 30.18 3.02 1.34 68.15 ƒ e»(6 ) 3.66 3.06 11.21 13.47 15.24 1.52 0.83 42.27 a) 10%, b) ƒ 2% * 1,000=1US$ š» CDM 5 «w w ƒ w. x 5» ƒ» «y w ƒ ««w» w ùkú. 5. k 1) CDM w v w sww y CDM j» w, «CDM w ù. <Table 6> w ü. «w z q w. m w m yƒ ƒ CDM w m y ( ) mw CDM m y z r m œw z ƒ w.» û d m ƒ w ƒ (van Kooten et al., 1992; Xu, 1995). w. w» w w ƒ v w. ûw» ha 3,000» w w, wš. ù 2,000-2,500 wš œ Š 1,600 wš ( s, 1999). w 2004 x w ¾ ù ha 4,000, 10,000, y 6,000, w t ù m 7,000-8,000 ùkû (, 2004). ù w û ha 5,000 y w ƒ ( s, 1999). w, wš» w ù œ» w ƒ q w»ƒ. ûw ww ha 3,000 w ƒ w. ha 3,000» 2005 w x w w. œ ƒ œ w US$ 57.5» 5% ww w w w y w. Man*Day

242 ªƒžª 96 «3 y (2007) Table 8. Project negotiation cost for AR CDM project. (1,000 /project) a x 250 (324.25) 125 (162.13) 366 (474.70) ƒ 40 ( 51.88) 35 ( 45.40) 207 (268.48) 35 ( 45.40) 30 ( 38.91) 40 ( 51.88) z 30 ( 38.91) 30 ( 38.91) 35 ( 45.40) (10%) 36 ( 46.69) 22 ( 28.53) 65 ( 84.31) w 391 (507.13) 242 (313.87) 713 (924.76) a) ( ) US$ e,» : 1 = 1.297 US$ Table 9. Registration cost of AR CDM project. ³ ( s³, tco 2 e) (US$) < 15,000 5,000 15,000-50,000 10,000 50,000-100,000 15,000 100,000-200,000 20,000 > 200,000 30,000 : UNFCCC, http://cdm.unfccc.int/ ùküš w 24» 24 Man*Dayƒ. Man*Day ƒ US$ 2.40.» w ha US$ 1,275 8). z t» ƒ e» w w 2005» œ w w (Table 7). œ US$ 57.5 w û w 5% ƒ w. ¾ ù» t» 2-4 (3 ) w ƒ w. Michaelowa & Jotzo(2005) w Prototype Carbon Fund y w (Table 8). 9) Michaelowa et al.(2003) CDM mw l z 10,000 wš w w sw g. «w w «2% x û w w w» w s³ GHG» CDM w z wš (Table 9). w» w CDM <Table 10>. 2) n w k, w <Table 11>. <Table 11> ùkù k z w k w š w Table 10. Cost of AR CDM project scenario in Gae-sung. w n» CDM w 1 1,275,000 2,3,4,5,6 243,830 x 0 324,250 0 45,400 e n 0 51,880 z (Validation cost) 0 38,910 (Registration cost) 0 5,000 l 5,10,15 ƒ 4,500 «(Verification cost) 5,10,15 ƒ 12,970 ( 1 = US$ 1.297) «(Certification cost) 5,10,15 w «2% 8) US$ 1 = 1,000» 9) ƒ 30,000-40,000 /project( 35,000 /project), w ys CDM», w š w 35,000 /project j. w ys CDM w.

w w CDM k 243 Table 11. Cost-effectiveness of AR CDM project in Gae-sung. (1,000 ha» ) ( ) «a ( ) k z «z a) ««2% w tcer/lcer w ƒ. Richards and Stokes(2004) 1990 l ƒ w z w. z l»¾ US$1- US$100/tCO 2 w ùkùš. z d w w CDM US$ 5.44/ tco 2 w ù k w û. «z mw w «w sƒw. tcer lcer» û ùkùš. w, 5 «w tcer lcer w z š q w. w tcer lcer w «ƒ z q w». CDM w w 21% 5% w 26% w ùkû. 6. š w ys mw «y k mw. tcer/ lcer z CDM w «y v w.» ù» w «v w. w, ƒƒ «w w»ƒ š w w «w» w z «w w wz» «ƒ y (US$/ha) 1,275.00 (US$/ha) 243.83 (, US$) 421,530 CDM w (, US$) 96,320 2,036,680 tco 2 /ha 373.72 tc/ha 101.92 tcer/ha 503 lcer/ha 265 US$ / tco 2 5.44 US$ / tc 19.93 US$ / tcer 4.04 US$ / lcer 7.67 š CDM w v w., tcer lcer k CDM w w 20 60» w «w w ¼.» «ƒ û x «lcer y mw» w w «ƒ n w ù y» «wš «w w ƒ ƒ w tcer w. wr w ys w CDM ƒ w 21%ù w, w» w w ys CDM w» w. CDM ƒ wš x ¾ y ³ w ù w. w CDM ƒ w 51 ha 8,000 haƒ ƒ w ùkû. d CDM, CDM w sww 1,000 ha ƒ w w 26% ùkû. 20» CDM mw w y k ¾ ù ƒ w ha 376 tco 2 ù w mw

244 ªƒžª 96 «3 y (2007) tcer 503 tcer/ha, lcer 265 lcer/ha ùkû. n» tcer w w n US$ 4.04 ùkûš lcer w w US$ 7.67 ùkû. «x p j v w w w. ù tcer lcer «y»ƒ» ƒ «ƒ w». œ» k» m mw ü y(internalization) x p. j, CDM k m»z yx m p w.» p š w»z yx m x w w w k sww w v w. x CDM w ³ 1 œ» 2012 ¾ z w w x x w. w,»z yx LULUCF(Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry) AFOLU(Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use) š. ù ƒ m»k x (CBD: Convention on Biological Diversity) y x (UNCCD: UN Convention to Combat Desertification) CDM «d wì š w w v»wš. w w ƒ w w ys CDM k mw, w œ j CDM ƒ w w ƒ ƒ. w w w tw.. x 1. ½, ½k,, ½. 1985. ¾ ù w. w wz 68: 60-68. 2. ½. 1997. w Á. œ. pp. 181 3. ûª. 2003. w p : p. 99: 143-168. 4. s. 1999. û x.. 5.,. 2004. w w.. pp. 195 6.,. 2004.»z yx w» w ( 1 ).. pp. 901 7. ³. 1994. Vegetation Cover Type Mapping over Korean Peninsula Using Multitemporal AVHRR data. w wz 83(4): 441-449. 8. ³,,. 1999. w y ³ p. w wz 88(3): 352-363. 9. y, w, y. 1998. k w w. w 58: 1-13. 10. y. 2004. w ysy xy ûá w x w. w 38(3): 101-113. 11. IPCC. 2003. Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry. IGES. 12. Michaelowa, A., Stronzik, M., Eckermann, F.,G and Hunt, A. 2003. Transaction costs of the Kyoto Mechanism. Climate Policy 3: 261-278. 13. Michaelowa, A. and Jotzo, F. 2005. Transaction costs, institutional rigidities and the size of the clean development mechanism. Energy Policy 33: 511-523. 14. Richards, K. R. and Stokes, C. 2004. A Review of Forest Carbon Sequestration Cost Studies: A Dozen Years of Research. Climatic Change 63; 1-48. 15. Von Hippel, D. Sage T., and P. Hayes. 2006. Estimated DPRK energy sector: Estimated energy balance and suggested approach to sectoral development. A report prepared by Natalius Institute for Security and Sustainable Development for Korean Energy Economics Institute. 16. UNEP. 2003. State of the Environment - DPR Korea. 17. UNFCCC. 1998. Decision 9/CP.4 Land-use, land-use change and forestry. available http://www.unfccc.int/. 18. UNFCCC. 2001. Decision 17/CP.7 Modalities and procedures for a clean development mechanism, as defined in Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol. available http://www.unfccc. int/. 19. UNFCCC. 2006. List of Signatories & Ratification of the Convention Parties http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/ convention/status_of_ratification/application/pdf/ratlist.pdf (2006. 9. 1). 20. van Kooten, G., Arthur, L., and Wilson, W. 1992. Potential to Sequester Carbon in Canadian Forests: Some Economic Considerations. Canadian Public Policy XVIII (2)a 127-138. 21. Xu, D. 1995. The Potential for Reducing Atmospheric Carbon by Large-Scale Afforestation in China and Related Cost/Benefit Analysis. Biomass Bioenergy 8(5)a 337-344. (2007 1 19 ; 2007 4 19 k)