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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
Forest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
Deforestation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
Afforestation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
Reforestation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
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.
Other reports in this collection |