|
3.2. Definitional Scenarios and Their General Implications
There are hundreds of variations of definitions for each term (e.g., forest,
afforestation, reforestation, and deforestation-see Lund, 1999, 2000) that are
relevant to implementing Article 3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol (see Sections
2.2.2 and 2.2.3 for discussions of the options). Examining
the implications of each variant would not be fruitful; the result would be
greater confusion, rather than the clarity we are seeking. Instead, the key
to exploring the implications of these definitions is to classify them into
broad groupings. Each of the groupings can then be explored in terms of the
strengths and weaknesses of the broad approach. Section 2.2.2.1
discusses the broad categories of forest definitions (administrative, land use,
and land cover), which are key to understanding the implications of different
definitions of afforestation, reforestation, and deforestation. Sections
2.2.2 and 2.2.3 detail the range of plausible options
for defining afforestation, reforestation, and deforestation. To facilitate
discussion of the implications of different options for defining afforestation,
reforestation, and deforestation, we have identified seven definitional scenarios
that cover the range of definitions of forest, afforestation, reforestation,
and deforestation. These scenarios are designed to provide a wide range of plausible
combinations of definitions through which the implications of different options
can be explored. We have explicitly avoided customizing definitions on the basis
of biome type, specific management regimes, or socioeconomic conditions; instead,
we explore definitions that are sufficiently robust to address diverse conditions
over long periods of time.
This chapter explores how changes in land use and land cover influence carbon
emissions and sequestration. The land-use status of an area of land characterizes
how it is utilized to meet a human need; it represents a socioeconomic perspective
on the status of the land. In contrast, land-cover characterizations of an area
of land focus on what vegetation is, or is not, present. Land use-based definitions
of afforestation, reforestation, and deforestation are difficult to measure
and verify because the intended use of the land may not be the same as the actual
use. For example, if a nation designates a piece of land as a location where
forest management should take place, is that designation sufficient to define
the land as forest, even in the absence of trees? Land use can be determined
administratively and culturally, further complicating the employment of land
use-based definitions. Land cover, on the other hand, is easier to measure and
verify, but transitions from one cover class to another can easily be misinterpreted.
For example, following a clear felling, the lack of a forest canopy cover could
be assumed to represent deforestation, when in fact tree regeneration is taking
place. The use of existing land cover as the sole basis for defining afforestation,
reforestation, and deforestation would cause harvest/regeneration cycles to
be accounted under Article 3.3. This situation can be avoided by instead using
the potential land cover of the existing vegetation at maturity.
A variant of the land-cover approach to define a forest is based on the carbon
status of the land. Such an approach acknowledges that a carbon-based definition
may avoid the geographical complexities and varying intents of the existing
array of definitions of a forest. Given the variability in existing inventory
data, any new approach to define a forest will need to consider regional/national
differences in available data. Carbon-based definitions can rely on a variety
of data (e.g., timber volume, basal area, stocking density and age) from which
afforestation, reforestation, and deforestation events can be determined.
As Section 2.3.4.1 notes, it is not clear whether the
term "direct human-induced" refers only to the ARD activities or also to the
stock changes resulting from ARD activities; this issue is further discussed
in Section 3.3.2.1. Here we discuss the difficulty in
defining direct human-induced ARD activities. Implementation of ARD would be
easier and unnecessary ambiguities could be avoided if any change in vegetation
resulting from a decision by a land manager to change land-use practices were
regarded as DHI. Another way of dealing with "direct human-induced" is to assume
that ARD activities on certain lands (e.g., managed lands) are always DHI and
that activities on the remaining lands (unmanaged lands) are not DHI. This rule
has at least two logical exceptions. First, if afforestation or reforestation
takes place on unmanaged lands, the burden of proof for "direct human-induced"
is with the party who wants to claim credits. The land would subsequently become
managed land. Second, if forest regeneration does not follow a natural disturbance
on managed lands (e.g., hurricanes or landslides), one must decide whether this
deforestation qualifies as DHI. With a subsequent agricultural or residential
use, for example, the deforestation could be regarded as DHI.
|