Additional rules could be used to avert some of the type I and type II discrepancies described in Section 126.96.36.199, where actual and reported stock changes do not match. Two possible ways of doing this are as follows:
The amount of land included in the "reforestation" category would not be affected by these two rules. Their main effect is on carbon stock changes, not all of which would necessarily count even if an area is "reforested since 1990."
The carbon discrepancies in items a1 and c1 could be avoided through the use of the Degradation/Aggradation definitional scenario or possibly the Biome scenario. The discrepancy in item a2 could be minimized through contiguous commitment periods. The problem outlined in b4 could be avoided by defining "reforestation" to include planting or regrowth of individual trees in an existing stand. Issue d1 could be addressed through the way a forest is defined.
Other reports in this collection