In implementing the Kyoto Protocol, the Parties are likely to make a series
of policy decisions on definitions, accounting procedures, and methods for accounting
for carbon stocks and changes in stocks. This chapter addresses the core definitional,
accounting, and
In implementing the Kyoto Protocol, the Parties are likely to make a series
of policy decisions on definitions, accounting procedures, and methods for accounting
for carbon stocks and changes in stocks. This chapter addresses the core definitional,
accounting, and methodological issues that may be relevant to the interpretation
of several Articles in the Protocol. It introduces many issues that cut across
other chapters in this report.
This chapter has four main sections. Section 2.2 deals
with definitional issues; Section 2.3 with accounting
issues; Section 2.4 with methods available for measuring
and verifying carbon stocks, emissions, and sinks; and Section
2.5 with sustainability issues.
Definitions and Their Implications
In a given land area, a "full" carbon accounting system would consist of a
complete accounting for changes in carbon stocks across all carbon pools in
a given time period. In principle, applying full carbon accounting to all land
in each country would yield the net carbon exchange between terrestrial ecosystems
and the atmosphere. However, the Kyoto Protocol specifies, among other things,
that attention be restricted to land areas subject to "direct human-induced"
(Article 3.3) or human-induced (Article 3.4) activities.
The Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
may wish to make decisions about the definitions of terms used in Articles 3.3
and 3.4-in particular, "land-use change," "forestry activities," "human-induced"
and "direct human-induced," "afforestation," "reforestation," "deforestation,"
and "carbon stocks"-because these definitions may affect carbon accounting under
the Protocol. These definitions are critical to the accounting of sources and
sinks under the Protocol: They determine the scope of human activities that
are accounted under Article 3.3 and which may be eligible under other Articles
(such as Article 3.4) of the Protocol.
Definitions that already exist to serve other purposes will not necessarily
suffice for the particular needs of Articles 3.3 and 3.4; therefore, this Special
Report provides a series of definitional scenarios to illustrate the implications
of possible sets of definitions. The basis of the definitional scenarios is
described in this chapter; the scenarios are presented and analyzed in Chapter
The revised Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories-hereafter referred
to as the IPCC Guidelines (IPCC, 1997)-describe a methodology for a comprehensive
approach to measuring "anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks
of greenhouse gases" that is feasible to implement in most nations. These guidelines
include suggested definitions for many important terms and can form a starting
point for reporting compliance with the Kyoto Protocol. Article 5.2 of the Kyoto
Protocol and a decision (Decision 2/CP.3) at the Third Conference of Parties
(COP) refers to the IPCC Guidelines; Article 5.2 notes that where the IPCC Guidelines
are not used "appropriate adjustments shall be applied according to methodologies
agreed upon by the" first COP.
Most definitions of "forest" used at the national and regional levels are based
on land-use status or a minimum threshold of canopy cover and/or tree height.
Definitions based solely on either land use or canopy cover have limitations
for carbon accounting. Land use, for example, may be defined in terms of administrative
or cultural purposes and may bear little relation to the actual vegetation or
amount of carbon on a site. Similarly, there are times (e.g., during regeneration
after disturbance or harvesting) when the canopy cover of forests may be negligible.
Deforestation can be defined (e.g., in the IPCC Guidelines) as the conversion
of forest to non-forest; reforestation and afforestation are the conversion
of non-forested lands to forest. Issues arise with respect to the timing, sequencing,
and causes of these activities. However, some operational forestry definitions
of reforestation include the regeneration of trees after harvesting. When such
definitions of reforestation are used but the accompanying definition of deforestation
does not include disturbance or harvesting, asymmetric accounting occurs. Under
such definitions of reforestation, many forestry management practices would
create large areas of lands under Article 3.3.
Definitions of ARD that are based only on canopy cover may allow activities
that lead to significant carbon fluxes to remain unaccounted. For instance,
definitions that are based on a single threshold for canopy cover alone may
allow changes in carbon stocks to remain unaccounted under Article 3.3. If a
high threshold for canopy cover (e.g., 70-percent canopy cover) is used in the
definition of a forest, many areas of sparse forest and woodland could be cleared
without the losses in carbon being counted under Article 3.3. If a low threshold
is set (e.g., 10-percent canopy cover), dense forest could be heavily degraded
and significant amounts of carbon released and the actions would not be designated
as deforestation. This problem could be addressed by using national, regional,
or biome-specific thresholds-for example, a low canopy cover for savannas and
a high canopy cover for moist forests-or by definitions based on degradation
or aggradation criteria.
Definitions that are based strictly on a c