Forest carbon accounting to leverage mitigation actions: implications for the Paris Agreement based on the analysis of countries’ decision under the Kyoto Protocol

References

• Australian Government, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. 2003. Australia’s Australia’s State of the Forests Report 2003.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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].
   Google Scholar
• FAO. 2005. Global forest resources assessment 2005: Main report.
   Google Scholar
• FAO. 2010. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010: Main report.
   Google Scholar
• FAO. 2015. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015: Main report.
   Google Scholar
• FAO. 2020. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020: Main report.
   Google Scholar
• 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].
   Google Scholar
• Government of the Federal Republic of Germany. 2006. Fourth national report by the government of the Federal Republic of Germany.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• IPCC. 2000. Land use, land-use change, and forestry. https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/land_use/index.php?idp=0.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• IPCC. 2018. Global warming of 1.5°C: summary for policymakers. 3–24.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• IPCC. 2022. Climate change 2022: mitigation of climate change. Summary for Policymakers.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Finance. 1999. Ireland national. Ireland. Journal Development Plan: 2000–2006.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. 2006. Greenhouse gas emissions in the Netherlands 1990–2004 national inventory report 2006.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• UNFCCC. 2000b. Methodological issues land-use, land-use change and forestry, consolidated synthesis of proposals made by parties, note by the chairman. UNFCCC.
   Google Scholar
• UNFCCC. 2002. Decision 11/CP.7 land use, land-use change, and forestry.
   Google Scholar
• UNFCCC. 2005. Decision 16/CMP.1 land use, land-use change, and forestry.
   Google Scholar
• UNFCCC. 2005–2007. Fourth National communications and reports demonstrating progress under the Kyoto protocol - annex I. UNFCCC.
   Google Scholar
• UNFCCC. 2006. Decision 8/CMP.2 forest management under article 3, paragraph 4, of the Kyoto protocol: Italy. UNFCCC.
   Google Scholar
• UNFCCC. 2006–2008. Initial reports under article 7, paragraph 4, of the Kyoto protocol and initial review reports. UNFCCC.
   Google Scholar
• UNFCCC. 2010. Decision 2/CMP.6 the Cancun agreements: land use, land-use change and forestry. UNFCCC.
   Google Scholar
• UNFCCC. 2012. Decision 2/CMP.7 land use, land-use change and forestry. UNFCCC.
   Google Scholar
• UNFCCC. 2015. Decision 1/CP21 adoption of the Paris agreement. UNFCCC.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations. 1997. Kyoto protocol to the United Nations framework convention on climate change.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations. 2015. Paris agreement.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar