|
3.2.1. Definitional Scenarios
From the definitions presented in Chapter 2, we assembled
seven illustrative scenarios that reflect a range of possible approaches to
implement Article 3.3 (see Table 3-4). This approach
was selected to highlight the complexity of combining definition elements and
the possible implications of these combinations. These seven scenarios are not
intended to be exhaustive of all possible scenarios. We selected two scenarios
that use definitions found in FAO publications and the IPCC Guidelines. These
two scenarios are intended to capture the existing frameworks in which Article
3.3 could be viewed.
Table 3-4: Definitional scenarios related to
Article 3.3 and defining forest, afforestation, reforestation, and deforestation.
|
|
FAO
Scenario
|
IPCC
Scenario
|
Land Use
Scenario
|
Land Cover
Scenario
|
Flexible Scenario
|
Degradation/
Aggradation Scenario
|
Biome
Scenario
|
|
| Introduction |
- Definitions of forest and ARD from Forest Resource Assessment Programme
[FRA 2000 (UN-ECE/FAO, 1992)].
- Definitions do not distinguish direct human-induced changes, other
than reforestation and afforestation that require "artificial establishment
of forest..."-an action that may be interpreted as a direct human activity.
- Planting of trees always qualifies as afforestation or reforestation,
yet the site need not be deforested prior to being reforested.
- Silvicultural planting following a harvest would qualify as reforestation,
but the harvest would usually not count as deforestation (i.e., symmetry
between deforestation and reforestation is not maintained).
|
- Based on reporting guidelines established by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 1997).
- Definitions for ARD (specific definitions below) are land use-based,
with specific activity requirements (e.g., planting versus regeneration
through silvicultural activities).
- No ambiguity in definition of deforestation, reforestation, or afforestation
in that each involves direct human-induced activity.
- Symmetry between deforestation and reforestation.
|
- Uses land use as basis for defining forest.
- Determination of land-use status of a piece of land would need to
be based on administrative procedures.
- Based on a very simple structure and approach that would leave many
decisions to national administrations.
- Does not explicitly require symmetry between harvesting and replanting
associated with forest management.
|
- Would lead to most intensive forest harvesting being considered as
deforestation, and most forest regeneration being considered as reforestation
(creates large area of ARD lands).
- Most forest management activities would create ARD lands.
- Definitions of reforestation and afforestation use the phrase "Activities
that lead to..." so that credit can be given for increase in carbon
stocks associated with reforestation and afforestation prior to reaching
the Y% cover threshold required to define an area of land as forest.
|
- Allows countries to decide on the definition of a forest that they
want to use, allowing maximum use of existing forest inventory data.
- Selection of carbon-based definition is intended to give each country
maximum flexibility in establishing its own criteria because it can
convert cover or inventory data to a carbon per unit area basis. Countries
may select threshold for crown cover, carbon, tree height, etc. Also,
countries may select how long a land must have been non-forest to qualify
as reforestation.
|
- Degradation and aggradation of a forest results in the creation of
ARD lands.
- Uses FAO definition of forest along with a forest cover class transition
definition of deforestation and reforestation, which will result in
large areas being considered ARD lands.
- Selection of cover classes is based on thresholds in widest usage.
- nclusion of regenerating forest within definition of a forest means
forest management will not result in creation of ARD lands unless there
is long-term degradation or aggradation.
|
- Adjusts definition of a forest based on the biome involved (e.g.,
a closed canopy temperate forest will be treated differently than a
woodland savanna).
- Allows deforestation to be captured more realistically across diverse
forest ecosystems and ensures consistency among countries.
- Could allow for adjustments for data availability differences among
biomes, as well as ease of data collection, both remotely and through
inventory.
- Specific biome-based thresholds could also be set to ensure that deforestation
and reforestation activities are effectively captured and that creation
of ARD lands based on cover change types is closely correlated with
land-use activities.
|
|
| Forest |
- Land with tree crown cover (or equivalent stocking level) of more
than 10% and area of more than 0.5 ha. Trees should be able to reach
a minimum height of 5 m at maturity in situ. May consist of closed forest
formations where trees of various storeys and undergrowth cover a high
proportion of ground or open forest formations with a continuous vegetation
cover in which tree crown cover exceeds 10%.a
|
- Within the Guidelines there exists no specific definition of forest;
definition is left to the discretion of reporting countries. Because
evaluating a definitional scenario without specific language defining
each term is impossible, we have assumed the FAO definition of forest
for purposes of our analysis, but acknowledge that the IPCC approach
leaves countries free to choose their own definition of forest.
|
- An area that is being managed for forest values and/or forest products,
or is designated as a forest by an appropriate governmental entity.
- All ARD activities are assumed to be direct human-induced unless demonstrated
not to be the case.
|
- An area of land that has >Y% (Y between 10 and 70%) cover of woody
vegetation of (e.g., between 0 and 5 m) height.
|
- An area of land that has a minimum of Z (e.g., Z between 10 and 50)
t C ha-1 aboveground living woody biomass (carbon threshold
to be selected by each country) of woody vegetation, or would contain
such at maturity of existing vegetation with continuation of current
land use.
|
|
- An area of land that has A% cover of woody vegetation with >B m in
height, or would contain at maturity of existing vegetation with continuation
of current land use. For each biome, a minimum crown cover and tree
height would have to be established to determine what would qualify
as a forest. Determination of biome types would have to be carried out
systematically through the use of common criteria.
|
|
| Deforestation |
- Refers to change of land cover with depletion of tree crown cover
to less than 10%. Changes within the forest class (e.g., from closed
to open forest) that negatively affect the stand or site—and, in
particular, lower the production capacity—are termed forest degradation.
|
- Conversion of forest to non-forest.
- Note: No definition provided in the Glossary. However, the Reference
Manual states on page 5.6 that “forest and grassland conversion”—that
is, conversion of forests and grasslands to pasture, cropland, or other
managed uses—is referred to as “deforestation” (see footnote
7 in Guidelines).
|
- Conversion of forest to non-forest.
|
- Conversion of forest to non-forest.
|
- Conversion of forest to non-forest
|
- Decrease in potential crown cover from one cover class to another
(e.g., 0 to <10, 10 to <40, 40 to <70, >70% crown cover).
- Potential crown cover refers to state of existing vegetation at maturity
under continuation of current land use.
|
- Conversion of forest to non-forest.
|
|
| Afforestation |
- Artificial establishment of forest on lands that previously did not
carry forest within living memory.
- Note that “natural extension” (e.g., abandoning agricultural
land without direct planting), which is not included under “afforestation,”
also contributes to an increase in forest area (FAO, 1992). We have
assumed such processes to be part of “afforestation;” their
inclusion under Article 3.3 would be determined by the “direct
human-induced” clause.
|
- Glossary: Planting of new forests on lands that historically have
not contained forests. These newly created forests are included in the
category “Changes in Forest and Other Woody Biomass Stocks”
in the “Land-Use Change and Forestry” module of emissions
inventory calculations.
|
- Activities that lead to conversion of non-forest to forest on lands
that over the past X (e.g., 30, 50) years did not contain forest (30
years assumed throughout this report).
|
- Conversion of non-forest to forest on lands that over the past X (e.g.,
30, 50) years did not contain forest (30 years assumed throughout this
report).
|
- Conversion of non-forest to forest on lands that in 1990 [or over
the past X (e.g., 10, 30, 50) years] did not contain forests.
|
- Conversion of non-forest to forest on lands that did not contain forest
in 1990 [or over the past X (e.g. 30, 50) years].
|
- Conversion of non-forest to forest on lands that in 1990 [or over
the past X (e.g., 10, 30, 50) years] did not contain forests.
|
|
| Reforestation |
- Artificial establishment of forest on lands that carried forest before.
- “Artificial establishment” does not necessarily include
natural regeneration. However, we assume that activity to be included
because the separation could later be made through the "direct
human-induced" clause.
|
- Glossary: Planting of forests on lands that have previously contained
forests but that have been converted to some other use. Replanted forests
are included in the category “Changes in Forest and Other Woody
Biomass Stocks” in the “Land-Use Change and Forestry”
module of the emissions inventory calculations.
- Footnote 10 on page 5.14 of the Reference Manual implies a different
definition of reforestation, but this definition has not been used here.
|
- Activities that lead to conversion of non-forest to forest on lands
that contained forest at some time during the past X (e.g., 30, 50)
years (30 years assumed throughout this report).
|
- Conversion of non-forest to forest on lands that contained forest
at some time during the past X (e.g., 30, 50) years (30 years assumed
throughout this report).
|
- Conversion of non-forest to forest on lands that in 1990 [or over
the past X (e.g., 10, 30, 50) years] did contain forests.
|
- Increase in potential crown cover from one cover class to a higher
cover class (e.g., 0 to <10, 10 to <40, 40 to <70, >70% crown cover)
on lands that over the past X (e.g., 30, 50) years contained forest
(30 years assumed throughout this report). Potential crown cover refers
to the state of existing vegetation at maturity under continuation of
current land use.
|
- Conversion of non-forest to forest on lands that in 1990 [or over
the past X (e.g., 10, 30, 50) years] did contain forests.
|
|
|
a Young natural stands and all plantations established for forestry
purposes that have yet to reach a crown density of 10% or tree height of 5 m are
included under forest, as are areas normally forming part of the forest area that
are temporarily unstocked as a result of human intervention or natural causes
but are expected to revert to forest. Definition includes forest nurseries and
seed orchards that constitute an integral part of the forest; forest roads, cleared
tracts, firebreaks, and other small open areas; forest in national parks, nature
reserves, and other protected areas such as those of specific scientific, historical,
cultural, or spiritual interest; windbreaks and shelter belts of trees with an
area of more than 0.5 ha and width of more than 20 m; and plantations that are
used primarily for forestry purposes, including rubberwood plantations and cork
oak stands. Definition excludes land that is used predominantly for agricultural
practices.
|
|
A key difference between the FAO and most of the other scenarios is that the
FAO definition of reforestation includes artificial regeneration of tree cover
after a clearing. The State of the World's Forests 1999 report (FAO, 1999) defines
reforestation as "establishment of a tree crop on forest land." The Forest Resource
Assessment Terms and Definitions (FAO, 1998) define reforestation as "artificial
establishment of forest on lands which carried forest before" but gives this
definition under the headings "forest cover changes" and "new plantations."
TBFRA 2000 (UN, 1999, p. 157) explains regeneration of forest land as "reforestation
of land that has recently been forested." Such regeneration includes natural
regeneration, natural regeneration enhanced by planting, coppice sprouting,
and planting or seeding. We interpret the FAO definition of reforestation to
include regeneration after clearing.
The IPCC scenario is extracted from the Glossary of the IPCC Reporting Guidelines.
These guidelines do not include a definition of a forest, however, which limits
their direct applicability. For the purposes of the IPCC scenario, we have assumed
the FAO definition of forests. Neither FAO nor IPCC designed their definitions
of forest, afforestation, reforestation, and deforestation with the Kyoto Protocol
in mind; thus, the definitions are not necessarily optimal for meeting the requirements
of Article 3.3.
To ensure that a full range of possible definitional approaches was explored,
we developed five additional scenarios on the basis of the definitional framework
for the terms forest, afforestation, reforestation, and deforestation, as outlined
in Chapter 2. The Land Use scenario employs a land-use
definition of a forest and bases the definitions of afforestation and reforestation
on activities undertaken on a piece of land. Three of the scenarios-Land Cover,
Flexible, and Biome-use different definitions of a forest but similar definitions
of afforestation, reforestation, and deforestation. The differences in carbon
amounts associated with differences in the definition of what is and is not
a forest are very large, reflecting fundamental differences about how Article
3.3 could be implemented and the amount of credits or debits it would create.
The Land Cover scenario uses a fixed threshold for what is a forest; the Flexible
scenario entails a country-based definition that utilizes carbon or crown-cover
criteria; and the Biome scenario uses a biome-based fixed criterion. The remaining
definitional scenario, Degradation/Aggradation, attempts to capture in the definitions
of deforestation and reforestation the incremental nature of many deforestation
and reforestation events.
The differences among these definitional scenarios are summarized in Table
3-5. Note that the definitional scenarios are not intended to be discrete
but illustrative. It is possible to combine definitional elements from one scenario
with those from another. In combining definitional elements, it is important
to recognize that the implications are not always transparent.
| Table 3-5: Main attributes of the seven definitional
scenarios utilized to illustrate choices associated with implementing Article
3.3. Six criteria are examined, as is how each scenario does or does not
address these issues. |
|
Definitional
Scenario |
Is Afforestation
a Land-Use
Change?
|
Is Reforestation
a Non-Forest/
Forest Change?
|
Is Deforestation
a Forest/
Non-Forest Change?
|
Does Clear-Cutting
Create ARD
Land?
|
Does Regeneration
after Clear-Cutting
Create ARD Lands?
|
Can Articles
3.3 and 3.7 be
Compatible?a
|
|
| FAO |
In most cases
|
Not if regenerating following harvest
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
Nob
|
|
| IPCC |
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
| Land Use |
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
| Land Cover |
In most cases
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Noc
|
|
| Flexible |
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
Degradation/
Aggradatio |
In most cases
|
Not always if change from one forest class to another
|
Not always if change from one forest class to another
|
No
|
No
|
Nod
|
|
| Biome |
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
a See also Section 3.3.2.8.
b Reforestation is not always a land-use change,
and comparability between Articles 3.3 and 3.7 is more difficult to achieve.
For example, harvest/regeneration in the commitment period would create
debits under land-based approaches, but would not be counted in the 1990
baseline because it is not a land-use change. Hence, more emissions would
be included in the commitment period than in the baseline.
c For example, deforestation includes harvest
activities in which the 40% crown-cover threshold is crossed. Emissions
from such harvests are counted in the commitment period but not in the 1990
baseline, because harvest does not constitute a land-use change.
d For example, degradation counts fully in the
commitment period. However, it does not enter the 1990 baseline if degradation
is not a land-use change.
|
|
The definitional scenarios imply activities and conditions that invoke the
creation of ARD lands under Article 3.3, as well as which activities are left
for Article 3.4 if double-counting is to be avoided. For example, if ARD and
forests are defined broadly to include the harvest/regeneration cycle (e.g.,
FAO or Land Cover scenarios), few if any forestry activities will be left for
inclusion under Article 3.4. The Degradation/Aggradation scenario might also
somewhat reduce the choice of activities under Article 3.4, though not as much.
With the IPCC, Flexible, Biome, and Land Use scenarios, most forestry activities
would fall outside Article 3.3 and thus would be candidates for Article 3.4.
In analyzing the implications of the definitional scenarios, the assumption
has been made that all activities are DHI unless they have been demonstrated
to be otherwise. The remainder of this chapter discusses how the definitional
scenarios interact with a wide range of activities and conditions.
|