The decision about which activities should be included and the decision as to how broadly those activities should be defined are interdependent (see Figure 4-5).
|Figure 4-5: Decision tree to assist in determining which additional activities to include under Article 3.4 of Kyoto Protocol.|
The Parties have two broad choices with respect to including activities under Article 3.4:
A limited set of activities will be easier to implement and verify; if activities are narrowly defined (see Section 4.3.2), however, only a fraction of the true atmospheric impact of LULUCF will be included within inventories and reported amounts. A narrow definition could also result in displacement of atmospheric impact from activities that are included into activities that are not included. Because specific, narrowly defined activities are typically concentrated within particular geographic areas, a short, limited list may favor some regions over other regions. Precise definition of what is meant by each specific activity would be more critical under this option.
Including all possible activities would encourage Parties to increase the land area that would likely be measured and reported, leading toward full carbon accounting. The potential for undetected leakage would be reduced-as would the consequences of leakage if it does occur because an impact created in another land area would be measured wherever it occurred. For this reason, precision of definition of activities is less critical under this option.
Other reports in this collection