EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Chapter 3 focuses on Article 3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol.
Article 3.3 identifies direct human-induced (DHI) land-use change and forestry
activities for which Annex I Parties must account greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
by sources and removals by sinks in the first commitment period. These activities
are afforestation, reforestation, and deforestation (ARD). The implementation
of Article 3.3 requires definitions for several terms and decisions on carbon
accounting rules. Chapter 3, which builds on the general
concepts introduced in Chapter 2, identifies issues, describes
various options to address these issues, and summarizes the implications of
the options.
Definitions
The term "ARD land" is used in this report, for simplicity, to define areas
on which ARD activities have occurred since 1990 and for which carbon stock
changes are to be calculated. Key to the identification of ARD lands under Article
3.3 is the definition of a forest coupled with definitions of afforestation,
reforestation, and deforestation. The individual definitions of these terms
addressed in Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3
provide a basis for the discussion in this chapter.
This chapter introduces a series of definitional scenarios to illustrate the
implications of several combinations of different definitions of forest and
ARD. These scenarios were selected to illustrate the range of possible approaches
that could be used to define the key terms necessary for implementing Article
3.3 and the implications of employing these definitions. Although many definitional
scenarios could have been developed, seven have been chosen and are discussed
in detail. Two of the definitional scenarios are based on existing Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) definitions and definitions listed in the Glossary
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines. The other
five scenarios were selected to represent a broad range of plausible combinations
of definitions that could be applied under Article 3.3. All of these scenarios
are listed in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1: Descriptions and implications of definitional
scenarios. |
|
Definitional Scenario |
Description
|
|
General Implications
|
|
FAO |
Forest: Lands that have, or will have because of continued growth,
more than 10% canopy cover. Deforestation is decline of canopy cover
to below 10%, but excludes changes within the forest class; reforestation
is artificial establishment of forest on lands that had them previously
(including regeneration post-harvest); afforestation is artificial
establishment of forest on lands that were not historically forest. |
|
1) Deforestation between 1990 and 2008 followed by reforestation can
create credits.
2) Degradation/aggradation unaccounted for if canopy cover threshold
not crossed.
3) Harvest/regeneration cycle may create large areas of ARD lands. Many
countries will report a debit for harvest/regeneration cycles, unless
rotation periods are very short or if an activity-based carbon accounting
approach is used.
4) If carbon accounting starts in 2008, conversion of high carbon-density
forests, degradation, and aggradation in commitment period are covered.
5) Creates potential for inconsistency between Articles 3.3 and 3.7.
|
|
IPCC |
Forest: As in FAO definition. Reforestation and afforestation
are a land-use change from non-forest to forest through planting and differ
only in that afforested lands never contained forest. Reforestation does
not include regeneration post-harvest. Deforestation is conversion
of forest to non-forest. |
|
1 and 2 apply.
6) Harvest/regeneration cycle does not create ARD lands.
7) Only changes between forest and non-forest create ARD land<
|
|
Land Use |
Forest: Defined administratively or based on specific land-use
activities. Deforestation is conversion of forest to non-forest;
reforestation and afforestation are the activities that lead
to conversion of non-forest to forest. |
|
1, 6, and 7 apply.
8) Carbon stock changes might not be considered as ARD activities if
land-use classification remains unchanged.
|
|
Land Cover |
Forest: As in FAO definition except that regrowing stands that
are below the canopy cover threshold are not counted as forest. Deforestation
is conversion of forest to non-forest; afforestation and reforestation
are reestablishment of minimum canopy cover. |
|
1, 2, and 5 apply
9) Kyoto land created only when canopy cover threshold is crossed; therefore,
the time when ARD land is created differs from the FAO scenario.
10) Harvest/regeneration cycle may create large areas of ARD lands. Many
countries will report a debit for harvest/regeneration cycles, unless
rotation periods are very short (< 20 years).
11) Conversion of high carbon-density forests, degradation, and aggradation
in commitment period are covered.
|
|
Flexible |
Forest: As in FAO definition, but countries have flexibility in
choosing the threshold (e.g., based on carbon content of aboveground living
woody biomass (t C ha-1), tree height, and/or canopy cover).
Afforestation, reforestation, and deforestation defined
as in IPCC scenario, but natural regeneration is included in AR. |
|
1, 2, 6, and 7 apply.
12) Gives countries flexibility in selecting a definition of forest.
Allows use of existing data, reducing costs. Countries could choose
threshold to maximize credits or minimize debits.
|
|
Degradation/
Aggradation |
Forest: Defined in carbon density or canopy cover classes (e.g.,
10 to <40%, 40 to <70% canopy cover). Deforestation is decrease in
canopy cover or carbon density at maturity from one class to another. Reforestation
is the reverse, and afforestation is establishment of forest on lands
that were non-forest for a predefined period. |
|
1, 6, and 11 apply.
13) Acknowledges differences in ecosystems by allowing creation of ARD
land in cases that would be missed by use of a uniform threshold.
14) Implementation is complex; difficult to establish geographically
specific land cover or carbon density at maturity for different times.
|
|
Biome |
Forest: As in FAO definition, but threshold in the definition of
forest is specified by biome through, for example, an international expert
panel. Afforestation, reforestation, and deforestation
defined as in IPCC scenario, but natural regeneration is included in AR. |
|
1, 2, 6, 7, and 11 apply. |
|
The definitions of ARD and forest used to implement Article 3.3
will affect the area of land covered by this Article. These definitions can
also affect the area of land on which activities covered by Article 3.4 (see
Chapter 4) could take place, assuming that no activity
is to be counted under both Articles at the same time. For example, if the definition
of reforestation does not include regeneration following clear-cut harvesting,
ARD lands would be limited and more activities related to forest management
could be considered under Article 3.4. The definitional scenarios illustrate
how the harvest/regeneration cycle could be included or excluded from coverage
under Article 3.3 through the use of different definitions of ARD and forest.
This chapter examines the implications of the definitional scenarios and identifies
the key decisions. Eight such decisions, the options for each, and the implications
of each option are outlined in Table 3-2. Although all
combinations of options are possible, some combinations will create situations
in which carbon stock changes reported under Article 3.3 will not reflect their
actual contribution to the changes in the atmospheric concentration of carbon
dioxide.
Table 3-2: Issues, options, and implications related
to definition of ARD activities. |
|
Issue |
|
Options and Implications
|
|
What should be the basis for the definition of forest? (Section
3.2, Table 3-4, and Section
2.2.2.1) |
|
Vegetation characteristics
- Compatible with some countries' methods for identifying forests.
- If based on actual vegetation characteristics, land status after
clear-cut harvest is always non-forest. If potential vegetation characteristics
are used, land status after clear-cut harvest is forest if vegetation
is expected to return above threshold.
- Assessment of forest/non-forest based on objective, measurable criteria.
Land-use or administrative characteristics
- Compatible with some countries' methods for identifying forests.
- Land-use designation would not necessarily reflect actual carbon
stocks on the land.
- Change in land-use designation will create ARD land, which may or
may not be associated with a change in carbon stocks.
|
|
Should the criterion that distinguishes forest from non-forest vary by
biome or by country, or be the same for all Annex I countries?
(Section 3.2 and Table
3-4) |
|
By biome
- Threshold values must be determined for major vegetation types and/or
ecosystems.
- Differences in vegetation types are taken into account.
- More compatible with national vegetation surveys.
By country
- One threshold value chosen by each country, allowing use of existing
data.
- Some vegetation types and land uses that would be regarded as forest
in some countries may be classified as non-forest in others.
Same for all Annex I countries
- Universal threshold would be applied for all ecosystem types and
climatic zones.
- Does not take into account differences between ecosystems and climatic
zones.
|
|
Should a maximum spatial assessment unit be specified?
(Sections 3.4.2 and 3.4.4) |
|
Yes
- If the spatial assessment unit is relatively large:
- ARD activities affecting areas within the assessment unit may
not be registered (e.g., deforestation of 89 ha within an assessment
unit of 100 ha, using a crown cover threshold of 10%). This is "conservative"
for AR, but underestimates emissions for D.
- Monitoring costs would be low.
- If the spatial assessment unit is relatively small:
- Most ARD activities will be captured.
- Monitoring costs could be high.
No
- The same issues will arise as under Yes, but countries' data will
not be comparable because their decisions on the size of assessment
units may vary.
|
|
Should the definition of "reforestation" include or exclude reestablishment
of tree cover after clear-cut harvesting?
(Section 3.2, Table 3-4,
and Section 2.2.3.2)
|
|
Include
- Area of ARD land will be large because areas will be added as they
undergo a harvest/regeneration cycle.
- Will result in unbalanced accounting at stand and landscape levels
if harvesting is not considered deforestation; actual carbon stock changes
will not match reported changes (see "Landscape Level"
subsection in Executive Summary).
Exclude
- Relatively small areas of most Annex I countries will become ARD
land.
- There will be balanced accounting at stand and landscape levels.
|
|
Should (re)establishment of forests through natural means be considered
a form of afforestation or reforestation?
(Section 3.2, Table 3-4,
and Section 2.2.3.2) |
|
Yes
- Allows for consideration of natural regeneration, which accounts
for 60% of all areas restocked in Annex I countries (82% when regeneration
enhanced by planting is included; the rest is planting).
- Will result in more ARD area compared to the No option.
- May encourage natural regeneration methods, which lead to improved
biodiversity.
No
- Restricts afforestation and reforestation to planting activities
only.
- Problems in distinguishing direct human-induced reforestation/afforestation
are reduced because any planting or seeding activity is likely to be
called direct human-induced.
- Results in less ARD area compared to the Yes option.
|
|
Should Article 3.3 include degradation/aggradation of forest land?
(Section 3.2, Table 3-4,
and Sections 2.2.3.4 and 2.2.3.5) |
|
Yes
- Accounts for stock changes that otherwise would not be reported.
- Encourages sustainable forest management.
- Distinguishing silvicultural measures (e.g., thinning) from degradation/aggradation
may be difficult, increasing the possibility that stock changes will
be double-counted (under both Articles 3.3 and 3.4).
No
- Implementation is simplified.
- Activities that significantly affect long-term forest cover without
crossing a single crown-cover threshold, as well as associated stock
changes, are ignored under Article 3.3.
- These activities may still be covered by Article 3.4.
|
|
Should the qualifier "direct human-induced" refer only to ARD activities,
or also to stock changes resulting from these ARD activities?
(Sections 3.3.2.1, 2.3.3.1,
and 2.3.3.2) |
|
Refer only to ARD activities
- All stock changes on ARD land are accounted.
- Easier to implement.
Refer to ARD activities and resultant stock changes
- Only a part of the stock changes on ARD land are accounted.
- Changes in stocks are very difficult to attribute to direct human-induced
activities vs. indirect or natural effects (e.g., CO2
fertilization, N deposition).
- Large uncertainty associated with stock changes and great difficulty
verifying them because estimates would heavily rely on the use of models.
|
|
How should "land-use change" in Article 3.7 be defined in relation to
definition of ARD in Article 3.3?
(Section 3.3.2.8) |
|
Define both ARD and "land-use change" as transitions between "forest"
and "non-forest"
- Net-net approach (emissions and removals counted in commitment period
and compared against those in 1990) for Article 3.3 activities for LULUCF
source countries.
Define ARD as transition between "forest" and "non-forest;" define
"land-use change" as transition between, for example, the 15 land categories
in Chapter 2 (see Table
2-1)
- Net-net approach for Article 3.3 activities for LULUCF source countries.
- Net-net approach for Article 3.4 activities possible for LULUCF source
countries, if Article 3.4 activities are defined as "land-use changes."
Define ARD broadly to include regeneration after harvest; define "land-use
change" to include conversions either between "forest" and "non-forest"
or between the 15 land categories
- Net-net approach for ARD activities that are a forest/non-forest transition.
- Gross-net approach (emissions and removals counted in commitment period
but not compared against those in 1990) for all other ARD activities,
such as regeneration after harvest.
|
|
|