https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3505-9427
ABSTRACT
Conserving carbon sinks is crucial to balancing anthropogenic emissions by sources and removal by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century. Here, we have explored the accounting of forest carbon sinks to leverage mitigation actions under the Paris Agreement (PA) by analyzing the relationships between countries’ national circumstances surrounding the forest sector and policy decisions under the Kyoto Protocol (KP) accounting rules. Cross-cutting literature analysis has indicated unique country circumstances affecting mitigation policies, including forest management (FM) election under Article 3.4 of the KP. Factor analysis indicated that the most significant factor influencing the election of FM was accounting advantage, including the forest cover ratio and FM cap per hectare. Therefore, countries’ policy decisions on mitigation actions in the forest sector may be driven by their interests according to various national circumstances. Although accounting rules have improved through the subsequent international negotiations, it has not yet been fully incentivized to maximize its mitigation potential from the forest sector. Future accounting should consider the trade-off between carbon sequestration through forest management and emission reductions through wood utilization. Visualizing mitigation benefits, including material and fuel substitutions for wood could be vital to incentivizing the forest sector to leverage mitigation actions under the PA.
Introduction
Climate change has caused widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people (IPCC Citation2023). The need for effective and progressive responses based on the best available scientific knowledge has been recognized (UNFCCC Citation2015). The Paris Agreement (PA) was adopted in 2015 with the aim of “holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels” (UNFCCC Citation2015).
Parties to the PA were requested to balance emissions and GHG removal by the second half of this century to attain long-term climate goals (UN Citation2015). Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is necessary to counterbalance hard-to-abate residual emissions (IPCC Citation2022). However, some of the current and potential CDR methods, including bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and direct air capture with carbon storage (DACCS), generally have uncertainty in upscaling and serious sustainability risks (IPCC Citation2018). Therefore, deploying forest carbon sink management strategies, including energy and material substitution of wood products, is vital while awaiting the practical implementation of new technologies to achieve zero emissions in the latter half of this century.
The Kyoto Protocol (KP) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), adopted in 1997, was the first international protocol that requested countries to set legally binding emission reduction targets to achieve ultimate objectives. Industrialized countries, listed in Annex-I of the Convention (Annex I countries), set the targets for the first commitment period (1st CP; 2008–2012) of the protocol (UN Citation1997). Additionally, the protocol incorporated provisions to consider the removal of GHGs that result from human-induced land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF) activities. However, the provisions for LULUCF were agreed upon under time constraints and without complete scientific evidence (Schlamadinger et al. Citation2007). In 2000, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessed the potential contributions of LULUCF activities, definitions, methodologies, and approaches for accounting and provided relevant scientific and technical information for their facilitation under the KP (IPCC Citation2000). Subsequently, the accounting framework for LULUCF was negotiated by the parties and finally adopted at COP7 in Marrakech, 2001 (UNFCCC Citation2002; Schlamadinger et al. Citation2007). The eligible activities for target achievement were limited to “direct” human-induced activities initiated since 1990 (activities under Article 3.3 of the KP), such as afforestation, reforestation, and(or) deforestation (ARD), and “additional” human-induced activities (activities under Article 3.4 of the KP), including forest management (FM). It was mandatory to account for the activities under Article 3.3 but not those under Article 3.4, including FM (UNFCCC Citation2002). Annex I countries that wish to account for any of the activities under Article 3.4, including FM, had to declare their election of these activities in its “initial report” under Article 7.4 of the KP prior to 1 January 2007, or one year after the entry into force of the KP for that Party, whichever is later (13/CMP.1). Eventually, most Annex I countries did account for GHG removal by FM. However, several countries did not elect it for the 1st CP.
After the revisions for the second commitment period, it was decided that all the Annex I countries must account for any activities under Article 3.4 elected in the 1st CP and FM (2/CMP.7). Thereafter, some of the studies analyzed the relationship between countries’ mitigation actions and accounting system. Ellison et al. (Citation2013) analyzed the sink potential of all Annex I countries and eliminated mitigation activities in the LULUCF sector as these are not fully incentivized. Additionally, several studies (Schelhaas et al. Citation2007; Paquel et al. Citation2017; Nabuurs et al. Citation2018; Böttcher and Reise Citation2020; Savaresi et al. Citation2020) have assessed the effects of LULUCF activities accounted for national and regional forest policies among the European Union (EU) member states. Nonetheless, studies have not yet comprehensively assessed the associations between a country’s forest resource conditions, including the trend of wood/biomass utilization, and mitigation policies in the forest sector adopted by the respective country, including Annex I countries other than the EU member states.
We aimed to consider effective international accounting systems to leverage mitigation strategies in the forestry sector under the PA, by examining the relationship between each country’s national circumstances surrounding forest sector and their decisions on the FM election at the time of the 1st CP, targeting 21 developed countries.
Materials and methods
A cross-cutting multi-country-based literature analysis and a quantitative analysis were adopted to identify the primary factors influencing the policy decisions within countries.
Cross-cutting analysis of different countries using a literature review
To identify the major factors influencing the forest carbon sink policies adopted by different countries, literature on national forest use and forestry policies prior to the 1st CP of the KP and the effects that the forest carbon sinks had on achieving the 1st CP targets were assessed. The literature analysis focused on international reports, including the Fourth National Communications (NC4), which compiles information including national GHG inventories, with detailed descriptions and estimates of the effects of policies and measures, that each country submits to the UNFCCC secretariat before the 1st CP, under Article 12 of the convention. The Global Forest Resources Assessments (FRA) series, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations based on each country’s reports, were also utilized. Furthermore, official reports compiled by the UNFCCC, including electronic formats and Final Compilation and Accounting Reports of the 1st CP of each Annex I Party published in 2016, were used to assess the results of each country after the 1st CP.
Twenty-one developed countries from Asia-Oceania (Japan, Australia, and New Zealand), North America (Canada and the US), the EU (Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the UK), and non-EU regions (Iceland, Norway, Russian Federation, and Switzerland) were selected for the analysis. These countries played a central role in the negotiation process, formulating accounting rules for the land-use sector under the KP. They submitted their views and related data to the UNFCCC in 2000 (UNFCCC Citation2000a, Citation2000b).
Among these countries, the US did not ratify the KP in the 1st CP; therefore, the KP rules did not directly affect their policy decisions on the land-use sector. However, as the accounting system for LULUCF activities was affected by the changing position of the US throughout the KP negotiations, the US was included in the analysis (Schlamadinger and Marland Citation2000).
Quantitative analysis to identify the main factors for each country’s policy decisions
To examine the associations between the countries’ national circumstances on forests and policy decisions related to forest carbon sinks in different countries and to explore the major factors that influence their considerations, especially the election of FM as a mitigation option during the 1st CP, factor analysis of 21 countries was conducted. Factor analysis is a multivariate analysis technique that estimates the essential underlying causes (factors) of n multiple items.
The data and definitions used were mainly drawn from FRA 2005 (FAO Citation2005; ), which provides data on forests and forestry at the beginning of the 1st CP of the KP, such as forest area, growing stock, annual increment, wood production, and natural disturbances, based on each countries’ report, with standard definitions. Data not available in FRA 2005 were supplementarily obtained from FRA 2010 (FAO Citation2010), FRA 2015 (FAO Citation2015), and FRA 2020 (FAO Citation2020).
Table 1. Summary of the cross-cutting analysis results among countries based on a literature review, according to the initial reports under article 7.4 of the KP, fourth national communications, and EU reports for joint fulfilment of commitments, decision 16/CMP.1 presented in the main texta).
All calculations were performed using the “factanal functions” in R 4.05 statistical software.
Accounting rules under the KP
To explain the analysis results, we summarized the background of the accounting rules under the KP. Based on previous articles (Krug Citation2018; Böttcher and Reise Citation2020), accounting rules for forest-related activities, including afforestation/reforestation and deforestation under Article 3.3 and FM under Article 3.4, were adopted as “gross-net accounting,” which considers emissions and removals from the land subjected to these activities during the CP without comparison with net emissions and removals in 1990. In addition to FM, three activities related to the LULUCF sector, namely, cropland management, grazing land management, and revegetation, were defined under Article 3.4. Emissions and removal by these three activities were accounted for using “net-net accounting,” which involves comparisons with net emissions and removal in 1990. Adopting activities under Article 3.4 was voluntary in the 1st CP; however, once land is accounted for under these activities, all anthropogenic GHG emissions and removals on this land must be accounted for throughout the subsequent CPs (UNFCCC Citation2002).
Gross-net accounting for FM under Article 3.4 was subjected to the upper limits of accountable removal units (credits) resulting from FM (FM cap) (UNFCCC Citation2002) to avoid windfall gains from indirect, natural, and pre-1990 effects. The cap was estimated for each Annex I country based on 15% of the projected removals or 3% of the base year emissions, whichever was less, but there were negotiated exceptions to this rule (UNFCCC Citation2002). Thus, the magnitude of FM caps agreed on at COP7 differed considerably among countries (UNFCCC Citation2002). Under this accounting rule, countries were obliged to indicate activities under Article 3.4 that they were willing to adopt to achieve the target.
Negotiations regarding the accounting rules for the 2nd CP of the KP began in 2006 in Bonn and were agreed upon in Doha in 2012. Countries negotiated to amend the accounting rules for the LULUCF sector based on their shortcomings during the 1st CP, and some new provisions were added. The main change in FM accounting was the introduction of reference levels in place of “gross-net” accounting as the baseline of emissions and removals during the 2nd CP. Countries were allowed to set their reference levels for emissions and removals through FM for the 2nd CP based on the age-class structure of their forests and the effects of domestic policies adopted and implemented in or prior to 2009 (UNFCCC Citation2010).
The country-specific FM cap was also altered to an across-the-board 3.5% cap. The other main changes included accounting methodologies for carbon stored in harvested wood products (HWP) and excluding emissions and subsequent removals caused by natural disturbances (UNFCCC Citation2012). Additionally, FM was made mandatory for all Annex I countries.
In 2015, the PA was adopted by the UNFCCC at COP21. Under this agreement, all parties, including developing countries, were requested to set nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and pursue domestic mitigation actions to achieve them. The PA did not stipulate accounting rules for LULUCF activities, but Article 4.14 prescribes that “parties should take into account, as appropriate, existing methods and guidance under the convention.” This provision implies that parties can use accounting methods and guidance for LULUCF developed under the KP and any other methods agreed upon under the convention (UNFCCC Citation2015).
At the third session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement (CMA3) in 2021, the Parties adopted guidance for the enhanced transparency framework, including common reporting tables (UNFCCC Citation2022). Under the agreement, countries have been preparing for the reports under the PA. The transparency framework under the PA is different from the KP rules, as it provides built-in flexibility to accommodate a broader national capacity and circumstances inclusive of the developing countries.
Results
Cross-cutting analysis of different countries using a literature review
The national circumstances for each country related to climate change mitigation and forestry, such as overall emission trends from 1990 to 2005 (or the latest reported year before the country submitted an initial report), the contributions and trends of forest carbon sinks, overall state of forests and forestry, planned mitigation measures in the forestry sector during the 1st CP, including the election of FM, future projected removal from forests, any notable actions or policy decisions on FM, and the use of forest-related removal units for the achievement of emission reduction targets, were assessed. The results of the cross-cutting literature analysis are summarized in (Ministry of Finance Ireland Citation1999; EC Citation2002; Australian Government Citation2003; FAO Citation2005, Citation2010, Citation2015, Citation2020; Natural Resources Canada Citation2005; UNFCCC Citation2005, Citation2006; UNFCCC Citation2005–2007; Brandes et al. Citation2006; UNFCCC Citation2006–2008; Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, New Zealand Citation2009; Howard and Jones Citation2016; Forest Research UK Citation2021).
The GHG emissions in all 21 countries, except for the Russian Federation, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Sweden, and the UK, showed increasing trends. Moreover, GHG removals by the LULUCF sector also indicated an increasing trend, except in the US, Canada, Finland, and Sweden. GHG removals in Canada, Finland, and Sweden showed high fluctuation levels because of natural disturbances (Canada) and wood production (Finland and Sweden). The decreasing removal trend in the US was primarily due to a decline in the rate of net carbon accumulation in the forest carbon stocks as forests aged (U.S. Citation2006).
EU members set different emission reduction targets based on the EU joint-fulfilment agreement (EC Citation2002). Among the 21 countries, 11 (Australia, New Zealand, Finland, France, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Iceland, Norway, and the Russian Federation) had “over the base year” targets, that is, the target emission levels were ≥ 100% of their base year emissions.
The FM caps for Japan, Canada, and the Russian Federation were remarkably high, but they were also relatively high per hectare for Switzerland, Italy, and Austria when considering the total forest area. In most countries, forest-related GHG fluxes (land-use change and forestry [LUCF]) were the net sinks for GHGs from 1990 to the early 2000s, but in Australia, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal, and the UK, they were the net sources. Based on Article 3.7 of the KP, these five countries added land-use changes (deforestation) emissions to their base year emissions when determining values for their 1st CP. Except for Australia, the assessed countries projected expansions in forest areas. However, except for France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, and the Russian Federation, countries projected an increase in growing stock and wood production during the 1st CP.
Thirteen countries elected FM, whereas the other eight (Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Austria, Ireland, the Netherlands, Iceland, and the US) did not (in the case of US, it did not ratify the KP). While most countries emphasized additional measures related to afforestation and reforestation (AR), only a few (Japan, Portugal, Spain, and Switzerland) formulated additional policies and measures to enhance GHG removals using FM. Furthermore, many EU countries and North American countries introduced woody biomass energy use as a future mitigation measure, and some countries, including Finland, France, Germany, and Switzerland, have already emphasized the importance of carbon storage in wood products and the substitutional effects of wood use. Considering the election of activities under Article 3.4 of the KP, it was assumed that future projections for GHG emissions from source sectors and the potential contributions of LULUCF activities would influence each country’s decisions.
Quantitative analysis to identify the main factors for each country’s policy decisions
Seven sets of quantitative data on the country’s national circumstances related to forests and forestry were summarized to conduct a factor analysis for 21 countries. ()
Table 2. Countries’ national circumstances in relation to forests and forestry.
Although the coverage and accuracy of forest data in each country have improved significantly since the early 2000s, we used FRA2005, which was published in 2005 by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), as the primary data source, to focus on each country’s policy decisions before the 1st CP. Besides basic statistical data from FRA, “FM caps per area” were also included and computed by dividing each country’s FM cap agreed at COP by the country’s forested area, determined from FRA 2005. The data show the availability of FM removal units derived from each unit of forested area.
Additionally, to avoid the effects of different scales of the national area between big states and small countries, all variables were converted into percent or per unit area (ha). Natural disturbances as a variable were estimated as the percentage of the total forested area affected by forest fire, diseases, insects, and climate-related disasters.
In this study, the number of factors was determined using the eigenvalues. The first three factors had initial eigenvalues of 2.62, 1.80, and 1.04. The fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh factors had eigenvalues below one. According to the eigenvalues-greater-than-one rule, the initial number of factors was determined to be three. Maximum likelihood and regression methods were used to examine the scores and extract factors. Three factors were found to influence the forest and forestry policies of the participating countries.
Solutions for the three factors were examined using promax rotations of the factor loading matrix (). Based on factor loading, Factor 1 was termed as “productivity” as it included “growing stock per area,” “annual change in growing stock,” and “wood production per area,” which had the highest loading. Factor 2 was termed as “risk controllability” as it included “planted forest ratio” and “average annual forest area disturbed,” which had the highest loading. These two variables were related to the feasibility of countries avoiding damage due to natural disturbances, with “planted forest ratio” and “average annual forest area disturbed” assigned positive and negative values, respectively. Factor 3 was termed as “accounting advantage” as “forest cover ratio” and “FM cap per area” had the highest loading. This factor was considered the fixed precondition that qualifies each country’s maximum availability to account for the FM removal units. These factors accounted for 65.4% of the total factor loading.
Table 3. Factor loadings and communalities based on a principal components’ analysis with promax rotation for seven data sets.
Furthermore, scatter diagrams based on the factor scores plotted to identify the relationships between these factors and the policy decisions of each country about FM. First, a scatter diagram of “risk controllability” was plotted against “forest productivity” (). The relationship between these factors and the FM election was not identified.
Figure 1. Results of factor analysis (a) scatterplot of the factor scores with factor 1: forest productivity and factor 2: risk controllability. (b) Scatterplot of factor scores with factor 2: risk controllability and factor 3: accounting advantage.
Subsequently, “risk controllability” scores were plotted against “accounting advantage” (). The results showed that the countries were roughly divided into three groups. Group A included Austria, Germany, France, the Russian Federation, and Japan. In this group, 10 out of 11 countries elected FM. The other 10 countries were divided into two groups; one included countries with low-risk controllability scores, such as Australia, Canada, the US, New Zealand, and Switzerland (Group B). The other group included countries with high-risk controllability scores, such as Denmark, Ireland, Iceland, the Netherlands, and the UK (Group C). Only 3 of the 10 countries in Groups B and C elected FM. The results show that the productivity of forests in the target countries was not significantly linked to FM election. In other words, the accounting rules of the 1st CP did not necessarily provide incentives for implementing additional policies and measures for forest carbon sinks in countries with prosperous and bountiful forest-growing stocks.
The results indicate that the accounting advantage was the most significant factor in electing FM. Accounting advantage was not determined by the ultimate size of the forest area and FM cap but by the relative size, such as the forest cover ratio and FM cap per area. However, the results did not explain the decision taken by Austria, which had a relatively high accounting advantage but did not elect FM to mitigate GHG emissions. In contrast, Switzerland, Denmark, and the UK elected FM despite their relatively low accounting advantages. These exceptional cases may imply that other factors influence FM’s election. Based on these results, it was assumed that the KP’s rules and agreements contained incentives and disincentives under a country’s national circumstances, influencing their FM decisions.
Discussion and conclusions
Relationship between the accounting rule and a nation’s decisions under the KP
Based on literature and quantitative analyses, 21 countries were roughly characterized into three groups (). Group A comprised Austria, Japan, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Portuguese, Russia, Spain, and Sweden. These 11 countries, except for Austria, elected FM. Furthermore, they maintained or increased their forest areas and growing stock and eight of them had an increasing gross emission trend. This indicates that these countries were in a favorable situation to account for LULUCF activities to achieve their emission reduction targets.
Table 4. Factor analysis and characteristics of three groups of countries based on the cross-cutting analysis.
However, all countries, except Italy and Japan, had relatively small FM caps per forest area (<20 t-C/ha). In contrast, wood production in most countries in Group A (except for France, Italy, Norway, and the Russian Federation) increased, such that countries with a small cap did not have incentives to implement additional measures to enhance removals from FM.
Japan provides an extreme case in Group A. The high FM caps per forest area is assumed to have motivated the country to use removal units from FM under gross-net accounting. According to the literature review, some of the Group A countries with mature forests, including Finland, Germany, France, and Austria, have already started to shift their mitigation policy focus from enhancing the sink capacity of forests to carbon storage by harvested wood products (HWPs), thereby enhancing domestic wood production.
For the 1st CP of the KP, carbon stored in woody biomass had to be reported as if it was instantly oxidized when the biomass was removed from the forest area. This means that accounting rules for the 1st CP did not consider a trade-off relation between removal by forest carbon sinks and emission reductions by wood use. Germany and Switzerland mentioned this “trade-off” in their NC (SAEFL Citation2005; Government of the Federal Republic of Germany Citation2006). Germany emphasized additional climate change mitigation benefits related to the forestry sector besides CO2 removal, including the substitution effects of wood used as material and fuel. Switzerland stated in NC4 (SAEFL Citation2005) that there was a particular discrepancy between the election of FM and the main objectives of the forest policy.
Group B comprised five countries with a relatively higher risk for FM accounting. Countries that have large forest areas with a high ratio of natural forests, such as Canada and Australia, are considered to have a high risk for emissions caused by natural disturbances. In the 1st CP, countries had to account for all emissions and removals in the area subjected to FM, regardless of those caused by natural disturbances. Opportunities to gain removal units from forests and risk accounting for uncontrollable emissions from natural disturbances were two sides of the same coin when countries elected FM. New Zealand had higher forest increments in planted forests but due to its short rotation of the management system and uneven forest age structure, electing FM would increase future risks of uncontrollable emissions under sustainable forest management policy.
Group C comprised five countries (Denmark, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands, and the UK) with relatively small areas and thus small forest areas. It was assumed that these countries could intensively manage their forests, but the absolute volume of the sink and FM cap was considerably smaller. Three of these five countries (Iceland, Ireland, and the Netherlands) did not elect FM.
The results obtained from the cross-cutting analysis assumed that countries made policy decisions toward the 1st CP of the KP in the forest sector, considering both accounting benefits determined by the FM cap and the forest area ratio and accounting for risks caused by natural disturbances and(or) future wood production. Accounting rules for the 1st CP of the KP worked positively in countries in the forest growth stage, such as Group A countries. However, countries understood that the rules might negatively work if they promoted timber production when their forests reached harvesting age. Additionally, for Group B countries, it was assumed that the accounting rules for the 1st CP did not motivate them to elect FM, as they considered the future provability of emissions from the forest, including the effect of natural disturbances or planned harvesting cycles, which could cause a high risk for accounting.
These lapses in the accounting rules described above were partially improved toward the 2nd CP of the KP, as the reference levels for FM (with a 3.5% cap), accounting rules for HWPs, and rules to exclude emissions from natural disturbances were introduced. These amendments were considered to motivate more countries to enhance mitigation actions by FM taking their respective national circumstances around forests and forestry, including the age-class structures of forests, into consideration.
However, for countries with mature forests, accounting rules may still work negatively to enhance mitigation actions through wood use as the reference levels for FM only focus on the carbon stock change in the forest and HWPs’, and mitigation benefits generated by HWPs may not be enough to offset the adverse effects of the harvest.
Forest carbon accounting in the future
The PA requested all parties to submit their emission reduction or limitation targets (NDCs) and implement mitigation actions. Additionally, the agreement required parties to consider existing methods and guidance under the convention when they report their contributions (UNFCCC Citation2015). These provisions are reasonable as they require reporting mitigation actions, the GHG emissions, and removal by the land sector for all countries, including developed and developing countries. In contrast, as the details of the accounting method are to be left to the countries’ discretion, Annex I countries can obtain higher flexibility from the PA than the KP to use the mitigation potentials of the land-use sector following their national circumstances.
To maximize the mitigation potential of the land sector under the PA, what accounting should be considered in the future? Grassi et al. (Citation2018) emphasized credibility, transparency, and comparability with other GHG sectors as future accounting parameters that should be considered. Krug (Citation2018) indicated the importance of incentives for mitigation actions. Ellison et al. (Citation2014) and Nabuurs et al. (Citation2017) emphasized that the current international climate change policy framework has not yet fully provided incentives for activities that maximize the overall mitigation potential in the forest sector. Ellison et al. (Citation2014) also concluded that abolishing the FM cap, forest management reference levels set by the average growth rate over the most recent commitment period, and the carbon credits tradable between other sectors could maximize the incentives for mitigation actions of the forest sector. However, considering the trade-off between GHG removal by forest and emission reduction by wood use, these changes may not fully generate incentives for mitigation actions of the forest sector in countries with mature forests where GHG removal by forest biomass will eventually reach saturation.
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) discussed mitigation options in the forest sector intensively and listed the following options (IPCC Citation2007).
Option 1: Maintaining or increasing forest area: Reducing deforestation and degradation,
Option 2: Maintaining or increasing forest area: afforestation/reforestation,
Option 3: Forest management to increase stand- and landscape-level carbon density,
Option 4: Increasing off-site carbon stocks in wood products and enhancing product and fuel substitution.
These mitigation options have been carried over to a series of IPCC reports published after that (IPCC Citation2014; IPCC Citation2019; IPCC Citation2023) and are recognized universally. Accounting rules for the forest sector under the UNFCCC have been developed considering these options. Among these options, Options 2 and 3 have been covered under FM and AR since the 1st CP. Off-site carbon stocks in wood products mentioned in Option 4 were included under FM since the 2nd CP accounting. ARD has covered option 1 for developed countries under the KP, and also covered by result-based payments for REDD+ under the PA (UNFCCC Citation2015). However, the contributions of wood products and fuel substitutions (Option 4), recently referred to as “material and energy substitutions,” are not included in the GHG reporting and accounting for the forest sector.
Several studies have been conducted regarding material and energy substitutions, indicating that the mitigation effects of material and energy substitutions may be larger than enhancing carbon removal via forest conservation in the long term. Werner et al. (Citation2010), Smyth et al. (Citation2014), and Matsumoto et al. (Citation2015) conducted some model analyses for Switzerland, Canada, and Japan and concluded that a better wood utilization strategy was found to provide the greatest climate change mitigation for most of the cases in the long term. Petersson et al. (Citation2022) also indicated that forest resource use has potentially large climate benefits in the long term and criticized current accounting frameworks under the UNFCCC and EU.
As shown in the cross-cutting literature and quantitative analysis in this study, the social and natural backgrounds for forests and forestry differ between countries. Effective mitigation options also differ with national circumstances. Forest management to increase stand- and landscape-level carbon density is effective in countries with forests with relatively younger age-class structures. However, once they mature, enhancing wood use under sustainable forest management could cause a trade-off between enhancement of removal by forest and emission reduction by wood use. Not only the Group A countries in this study but also many of the developed and some of the developing countries are expected to have mature forests soon. Therefore, an accounting system that leverages the country’s strategies for maximizing the total mitigation effects of removal by sustainable forest management and emission reduction by wood use, such as HWP and material and energy substitution, is essential.
Although removal by forest and carbon in HWP is reported and accounted for in existing national GHG inventories, emission reductions by material and energy substitutions of wood use are reported in the energy sector in an invisible form as an internal number. Therefore, visualizing mitigation benefits, including material and energy substitutions in the LULUCF sector, could be crucial to leveraging mitigation actions by providing incentives in the forestry sector, considering the trade-off between the removal by forest and emission reductions by wood use. Besides, a practical solution to avoid double counting between the LULUCF and energy sectors in the national GHG inventory, emission reductions achieved by material and energy substitution should be added as reference information in the inventory. The reference information provided in the GHG inventory could help countries design and adjust their national mitigation strategies, thus effectively providing incentives for mitigation actions to achieve the net zero emission target under the PA.
Geo location info rmation
The authors did not use any geolocation information.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Dr. Masahiro Amano and Mr. Satoshi Akahori for their long-term support. We thank Mr. Kouji Hongo, former Director General of Forestry Agency Japan for permission to conduct the study.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Data availability statement
All data are available in the article.
References
- Australian Government, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. 2003. Australia’s Australia’s State of the Forests Report 2003.
- Böttcher H, Reise J 2020. The climate impact of forest and land management in the EU and the role of current reporting and accounting rules – an investigation into the incentives provided by LULUCF reporting and accounting and their implications. Institute for Applied Ecology: Berlin.
- Ellison D, Lundblad M, Petersson H. 2014. Reforming the EU approach to LULUCF and the climate policy framework. Environ Sci Policy. 40:1–15. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2014.03.004.
- Ellison D, Petersson H, Lundblad M, Wikberg PE. 2013. The incentive gap: LULUCF and the Kyoto mechanism before and after Durban. Glob Change Biol Bioenergy. 5(6):599–622. doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12034.
- European Council. 2002. Council decision of 25 April 2002: concerning the approval, on behalf of the European community, of the Kyoto protocol to the United nations framework convention on climate change and the joint fulfilment of commitments thereunder (2002/358/CE). Brussels, Bergium. [accessed April 29, 2023].
- FAO. 2005. Global forest resources assessment 2005: Main report.
- FAO. 2010. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010: Main report.
- FAO. 2015. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015: Main report.
- FAO. 2020. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020: Main report.
- Forest Research UK. 2021. Forestry statistics 2021 a compendium of statistics about woodland, forestry and primary wood processing in the United Kingdom. Edinburgh (UK). [accessed 2023 April 29].
- Government of the Federal Republic of Germany. 2006. Fourth national report by the government of the Federal Republic of Germany.
- Grassi G, Pilli R, House J, Federici S, Kurz WA. 2018. Science-based approach for credible accounting of mitigation in managed forests. Carbon Balance Manag. 13(1):8. doi: 10.1186/s13021-018-0096-2.
- Howard JL, Jones KC. 2016. U.S.SS timber production, trade, consumption, and price statistics 1965–2013. USDA forest service, forest products laboratory. Res Pap. FPL-RP–679. doi: 10.2737/FPL-RP-679.
- IPCC. 2000. Land use, land-use change, and forestry. https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/land_use/index.php?idp=0.
- IPCC. 2007. Climate change 2007: mitigation. Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Chapter 9 Forestry. 549–551.
- IPCC. 2014. 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on climate change.
- IPCC. 2018. Global warming of 1.5°C: summary for policymakers. 3–24.
- IPCC. 2019. Summary for policymakers. In: climate change and land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems.
- IPCC. 2022. Climate change 2022: mitigation of climate change. Summary for Policymakers.
- IPCC. 2023. Summary for policymakers. In: climate change 2023: synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change
- Krug JHA. 2018. Accounting of GHG emissions and removals from forest management: a long road from Kyoto to Paris. Carbon Balance Manag. 13(1):1. doi: 10.1186/s13021-017-0089-6.
- Matsumoto M, Oka H, Mitsuda Y, Hashimoto S, Kayo C, Tsunetsugu Y, Tonosaki M. 2015. Potential contributions of forestry and wood use to climate change mitigation in Japan. J For Res. 21(5):211–222. doi: 10.1007/s10310-016-0527-4.
- Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. New Zealand. 2009. Sustainable management of New Zealand forests, the 2008 New Zealand country report on the Montreal process criteria and indicators. October 2009. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.
- Ministry of Finance. 1999. Ireland national. Ireland. Journal Development Plan: 2000–2006.
- Nabuurs GJ, Arets EJMM, Schelhaas MJ. 2018. Understanding the implications of the EU-LULUCF regulation for the wood supply from EU forests to the EU. Carbon Balance Manag. 13:18. doi: 10.1186/s13021-018-0107-3.
- Nabuurs G-J, Delacote P, Ellison D, Hanewinkel M, Hetemäki L, Lindner M. 2017. By 2050 the mitigation effects of EU forests could nearly double through climate smart forestry. Forests. 8(12):484. doi: 10.3390/f8120484.
- Natural Resources Canada. 2005. The State of Canada’s Canada’s Forests 2004–2005, the Boreal Forest. [accessed April 29, 2023]. Ottawa: Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service.
- Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. 2006. Greenhouse gas emissions in the Netherlands 1990–2004 national inventory report 2006.
- Paquel K, Bowyer C, Allen B, Nesbit M, Martineau H, Lesschen JP, Arets E. 2017. Analysis of LULUCF actions in EU member states as reported under art. 10 of the LULUCF decision. Final Rep. doi: 10.2834/571578.
- Petersson H, Ellison D, Appiah Mensah AA, Berndes G, Egnell G, Lundblad M, Lundmark T, Lundström A, Stendahl J, Wikberg P-E, et al. 2022. On the role of forests and the forest sector for climate change mitigation in Sweden. Gcb Bioenergy. 14(7):793–813. doi:10.1111/gcbb.12943.
- Savaresi A, Perugini L, Chiriacò MV. 2020. Making sense of the LULUCF regulation: much ado about nothing? RECIEL. 29(2):212–220. doi: 10.1111/reel.12332.
- Schelhaas MJ, Cienciala E, Lindner M, Nabuurs GJ, Zianchi G 2007. Selection and quantification of forestry measures targeted at the Kyoto protocol and the convention convention on biodiversity. Alterra-report 1508.
- Schlamadinger B, Bird N, Johns T, Brown S, Canadell J, Ciccarese L, Dutschke M, Fiedler J, Fischlin A, Fearnside P, et al. 2007. A synopsis of land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF) under the Kyoto protocol and Marrakech accords. Environ Sci Policy. 10(4):271–282. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2006.11.002.
- Schlamadinger B, Marland G. 2000. Land Use & Global Climate Change : Forests, Land Management, and Kyoto Protocol; Prepared for the Pew Center in Global Climate Change. Arlington, VA: C2ES of University of Pensilvania.
- Smyth CE, Stinson G, Neilson E, Lemprière TC, Hafer M, Rampley GJ, Kurz WA. 2014. Quantifying the biophysical climate change mitigation potential of Canada’s Canada’s forest sector. Biogeosciences. 11(13):3515–3529. doi: 10.5194/bg-11-3515-2014.
- Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape. 2005. Switzerland’s Switzerland’s fourth national communication under the UNFCCC, first national communication under the Kyoto protocol to the UNFCCC. https://unfccc.int/documents/198639.
- UNFCCC. 2000a. Methodological issues land-use, land-use change and forestry, consolidated synthesis of proposals made by parties, addendum, compilation of country-specific data and information as submitted by parties, note by the chairman. UNFCCC.
- UNFCCC. 2000b. Methodological issues land-use, land-use change and forestry, consolidated synthesis of proposals made by parties, note by the chairman. UNFCCC.
- UNFCCC. 2002. Decision 11/CP.7 land use, land-use change, and forestry.
- UNFCCC. 2005. Decision 16/CMP.1 land use, land-use change, and forestry.
- UNFCCC. 2005–2007. Fourth National communications and reports demonstrating progress under the Kyoto protocol - annex I. UNFCCC.
- UNFCCC. 2006. Decision 8/CMP.2 forest management under article 3, paragraph 4, of the Kyoto protocol: Italy. UNFCCC.
- UNFCCC. 2006–2008. Initial reports under article 7, paragraph 4, of the Kyoto protocol and initial review reports. UNFCCC.
- UNFCCC. 2010. Decision 2/CMP.6 the Cancun agreements: land use, land-use change and forestry. UNFCCC.
- UNFCCC. 2012. Decision 2/CMP.7 land use, land-use change and forestry. UNFCCC.
- UNFCCC. 2015. Decision 1/CP21 adoption of the Paris agreement. UNFCCC.
- UNFCCC. 2022. Decision 5/CMA.3 guidance for operationalizing the modalities, procedures and guidelines for the enhanced transparency framework referred to in article 13 of the Paris agreement. UNFCCC.
- United Nations. 1997. Kyoto protocol to the United Nations framework convention on climate change.
- United Nations. 2015. Paris agreement.
- The U.S. 2006. U.S. climate action report-2006, Fourth National communication of the United States of America under the United Nations framework convention on climate change. https://unfccc.int/documents/198641.
- Werner F, Taverna R, Hofer P, Thürig E, Kaufmann E. 2010. National and global greenhouse gas dynamics of different forest management and wood use scenarios: a model-based assessment. Environ Sci Policy. 13(1):72–85. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2009.10.004.