Table 15 - uploaded by Krister P Andersson
Content may be subject to copyright.
Similar publications
Citations
... In comparison, the California Forest Protocol, the California Carbon Trading system and also New Zealand, impose no such limitations on the eligibility for forest-based carbon credits. Further, the exemption of important carbon pools from accounting (such as those contained in unmanaged forests, peatlands, and permafrost) fails to encourage preservation and conservation practices, potentially contributing to increased climate changerelated emissions from these sources (Cowie et al. 2007;Anderson et al. 2009;Ellison et al. 2011Ellison et al. , 2013. ...
The absence of boreal forests from global policy agendas on sustainable development and climate change mitigation represents a massive missed opportunity for environmental protection. The boreal zone contains some of the world's largest pools of terrestrial carbon that, if not safeguarded from a conversion to a net source of greenhouse gases, could seriously exacerbate global climate change. At the same time, boreal countries have a strong tradition of forest management – expertise that could be effectively leveraged towards global and national carbon mitigation targets and sustainable development. Current obstacles against such contributions include weak incentives for carbon sequestration and a reluctance to embrace change by forest managers and policy makers. We discuss possible solutions to overcome these obstacles, including the improvement of ineffective incentives, the development of alternative forest management strategies, and the need to maintain ecosystem resilience through the pursuit of policy and management options.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
... We do not wish to diminish such efforts. Further, attempts to promote an all-encompassing, land-based, carbon-accounting framework utilizing national LULUCF inventories and to expand accounting practices to include all major carbon pools point in the right direction (Cowie et al., 2007; Plantinga and Richards, 2008; Andersson et al., 2009). However, further incentivizing forests and forest-based resources in fully accounting for all LULUCF activities could significantly contribute to a framework that either lacks adequate resources (REDD+) or is under-utilized by international investors (the forest component of the clean development mechanism or CDM). ...
Many proposals have been made for the more successful inclusion of LULUCF (Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry) in the Kyoto framework. Though the positions of individual states or the goal of avoided deforestation guide many approaches, our model sets cost-effective strategies for climate change mitigation and the efficient and balanced use of forest resources at its center. Current approaches to forest resource-based carbon accounting consider only a fraction of its potential and fail to adequately mobilize the LULUCF sector for the successful stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations. The presence of a significantly large “incentive gap” justifies the urgency of reforming the current LULUCF carbon accounting framework. In addition to significantly broadening the scope of carbon pools accounted under LULUCF, we recommend paying far greater attention to the troika of competing but potentially compatible interests surrounding the promotion of standing forests (in particular for the purposes of carbon sequestration, biodiversity protection and ecosystem promotion/preservation), harvested wood products (HWP) and bioenergy use. The successful balancing of competing interests, the enhancement of efficiency and effectiveness and the balanced use of forest resources require an accounting mechanism that weighs and rewards each component according to its real climate mitigation potential. Further, our data suggest the benefits of such a broadly based carbon accounting strategy and the inclusion of LULUCF in national and international accounting and emission trading mechanisms far outweigh potential disadvantages. Political arguments suggesting countries could take advantage of LULUCF accounting to reduce their commitments are not supported by the evidence we present.
In the second and final part of this series, we review ten prominent standards and protocols for how they address three key issues - leakage, wood products and validation/verification. On all of these dimensions and across all programs we find problems that call into question the credibility of the programs’ certified projects and offset credits. The problems are compounded by the issues raised in the companion article (Part A), which examines additionality, baselines and permanence. The pervasive nature of the flaws raises the question of the feasibility of designing a forest carbon-offset protocol that provides both reasonable credibility and low transactions costs. We suggest some possible approaches to forest carbon-offset protocols and their alternatives.
The use of forests as natural carbon capture and storage sinks is considered by introducing carbon sequestration benefits’ accounting in a multi-vintage partial equilibrium land-use model, under different carbon price scenarios. The consequences to timber and land markets and to the profile of the carbon sequestration time path are examined in the short-run, long-run, and transition. Following IPCC, three carbon accounting methods are considered: the carbon flow, the ton-year crediting and the average storage. A full proof of long-run optimality of steady-state forest is provided. Numerical simulations are performed and results discussed illustrating the setup's potential.
