Are forest management reference levels incompatible with robust climate outcomes? A case study on Australia

• Sedjo R, Solomon A. Climate and forests. In: Greenhouse Warming: Abatement and Adaptation. Rosenberg N, Easterling W, Crosson P, Darmstadter J (Eds.). Resources for the Future Press, Washington, DC, USA, 105–119 (1989).
   Google Scholar
• Nordhaus W. The cost of slowing climate change. Energy J.12(1),37–65 (1991).
   Google Scholar
• Winjim J, Dixon R, Schroder P. Estimating the global potential of forest and agroforest management practices to sequester carbon. Water Air Soil Pollut.64,213–227 (1992).
   Google Scholar
• Richards K, Moulton R, Birdsey R. Costs of creating carbon sinks in the US. Energy Convers. Manage.34(9–11),905–912 (1993).
   Google Scholar
• Hoen H, Solberg B. Potential and economic efficiency of carbon sequestration in forest biomass through silvicultural management. Forest Sci.40(3),429–451 (1994).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shvidenko A, Nilsson N, Roshkov V. Possibilities for increased carbon sequestration through implementation of rational forest management in Russia. Water Air Soil Pollut.94,137–162 (1997).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams D, Alig R, McCarl B, Callaway J, Winnett S. Minimum cost strategies for sequestering carbon in forests. Land Econ.75(3),360–374 (1999).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newell R, Stavins R. Climate change and forest sinks: factors affecting the costs of carbon sequestration. J. Environ. Econ. Manage.40,211–235 (2000).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richards K, Stokes C. A review of forest carbon sequestration cost studies: a dozen years of research. Climatic Change63,1–48 (2004).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United States Environmental Protection Agency. Greenhouse Mitigation Potential in US Forestry and Agriculture. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Sathaye J, Makundi W, Dale L, Chan P, Andrasko K. GHG mitigation potential, costs and benefits in global forests: a dynamic partial equilibrium approach. Energy J.3,127–162 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Sohngen B, Sedjo R. Carbon sequestration in global forests under different carbon price regimes. Energy J.3,109–126 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Lubowski R, Plantinga A, Stavins R. Land-use change and carbon sinks: econometric estimation of the carbon sequestration supply function. J. Environ. Econ. Manage.51,135–152 (2006).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stern N. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Kooten G, Sohngen B. Economics of Forest Ecosystem Carbon Sinks: A Review. University of Victoria, Department of Economics, Victoria, Canada (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Nabuurs G, Masera O, Andrasko K et al. Forestry. In: Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Metz B, Davidson O, Bosch P, Dave R, Meyer L (Eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Eliasch J. Climate Change: Financing Global Forests – The Eliasch Review. HM Stationery Office, London, UK (2008).
   Google Scholar
• Sohngen B, Brown S. Extending timber rotations: carbon and cost implications. Climate Policy8,435–451 (2008).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torres A, Marchant R, Lovett J, Smart J, Tipper R. Analysis of the carbon sequestration costs of afforestation and reforestation agroforestry practices and the use of cost curves to elevate their potential for implementation of climate change mitigation. Ecolog. Econ.69,469–477 (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Sohngen B. An Analysis of Forestry Carbon Sequestration as a Response to Climate Change. Copenhagen Consensus Center, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Sohngen B. Carbon offsets in forest and land use. In: Modeling the Economics of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation: Summary of a Workshop. Holmes J (Ed.). National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Sohngen B, Mendelsohn R. An optimal control model of forest carbon sequestration. Amer. J. Agr. Econ.85(2),448–457 (2003).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sohngen B, Mendelsohn R. A sensitivity analysis of forest carbon sequestration. In: Human-Induced Climate Change: An Interdisciplinary Assessment. Schlesinger M, Kheshgi H, Smith J et al. (Eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 227–237 (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Plantinga A, Wu J. Co-benefits from carbon sequestration in forests: evaluating reductions in agricultural externalities from an afforestation policy in Wisconsin. Land Econ.79(1),74–85 (2003).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caparrós A, Jacquemont F. Conflicts between biodiversity and carbon sequestration programs: economic and legal implications. Ecolog. Econ.46,143–157 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Imai N, Samejima J, Langner A et al. Co-benefits of sustainable forest management in biodiversity conservation and carbon sequestration. PLoS One4(12),e8267.
   Google Scholar
• Huston M, Marland G. Carbon management and biodiversity. J. Environ. Manage.67,77–86 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lippke B, Oneil E, Harrison R, Skog K, Gustavsson L, Sathre R. Life cycle impacts of forest management and wood utilization on carbon mitigation: knowns and unknowns. Carbon Management2(3),303–333 (2011).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlamadinger B, Marland G. Land Use and Global Climate Change: Forests, Land Management, and the Kyoto Protocol. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, VA, USA (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Fry I. Twists and turns in the jungle: exploring the evolution of land use, land-use change and forestry decisions within the Kyoto Protocol. RECIEL11(2),159–168 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Fry I. More twists, turns and stumbles in the jungle: a further exploration of land use, land-use change and forestry decisions within the Kyoto Protocol. RECIEL16(3),341–355 (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Schlamadinger B et al. A synopsis of land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) under the Kyoto Protocol and Marrakech Accords. Environ. Sci. Policy10,271–282 (2007).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macintosh A. LULUCF in the post-2012 regime: fixing the problems of the past? Climate Policy doi:10.1080/14693062.2011.605711 (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Schlamadinger B, Johns T, Ciccarese L et al. Options for including land use in a climate agreement post-2012: improving the Kyoto Protocol approach. Environ. Sci. Policy10,295–305 (2007).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKibbin W, Wilcoxen P. The role of economics in climate change policy. J. Econ. Perspect.16(2),107–129 (2002).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenglass N, Funk J, Chaum M, Houghton R. Fixing a flawed approach to forest accounting in the next round of the Kyoto Protocol. Carbon Management1(2),179–182 (2010).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reichert G, Vobwinkel J. Climate Policy Post-Copenhagen. Centrum für Europäische Politik, Freiburg, Germany (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Global Forest Coalition. LULUCF: No offsets, no false accounting. Global Forest Coalition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Tuvalu Government. Submission by Tuvalu with Respect to Consideration of Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol: Land Use, Land-use Change and Forestry (AWG-KP). UNFCCC Secretariat, Bonn, Germany (2011).
   Google Scholar
• IPCC. Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry. Watson R, Noble I, Bolin B, Ravindranath N, Verardo D, Dokken D (Eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Coppock R, Johnson S. Direct and Indirect Human Contributions to Terrestrial Carbon Fluxes: A Workshop Summary. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Canadell J, Kirschbaum M, Kurz W, Sanz M, Schlamadinger B, Yamagata Y. Factoring out natural and indirect human effects on terrestrial carbon sources and sinks. Environ. Sci. Policy10,370–384 (2007).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Höhne N, Wartman S, Herold A, Freibauer A. The rules for land use, land use change and forestry under the Kyoto Protocol – lessons learned for the future climate negotiations. Environ. Sci. Policy10,353–369 (2007).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Institute for Global Environmental Strategies. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Eggleston S, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K (Eds). Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama, Japan (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Kirschbaum M, Schlamadinger B, Cannell M et al. A generalised approach of accounting for biospheric carbon stock changes under the Kyoto Protocol. Environ. Sci. Policy4(2–3),73–85 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Ford-Robertson J. Implications of Harvested Wood Products Accounting: Analysis of issues raised by Parties to the UNFCCC and Development of a Simple Decay Approach. New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Wellington, New Zealand (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Kirschbaum M, Cowie A. Giving credit where credit is due: a practical method to distinguish between human and natural factors in carbon accounting. Climatic Change67,417–436 (2004).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nilsson S, Shvidenko A, Jonas M, McCallum I, Thomson A, Balzter H. Uncertainties of a regional terrestrial biota full carbon account: a systems analysis. Water Air Soil Pollut. Focus7,425–441 (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Cowie A, Kirschbaum M, Ward M. Options for including all lands in a future greenhouse gas accounting framework. Environ. Sci. Policy10,306–321 (2007).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tonosaki M. Harvested wood products accounting in the post Kyoto commitment period. J. Wood Sci.55,390–394 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Australian Government. Submission to the SBI and SBSTA: Forest Management Reference Level Submission, 14 March 2011. UNFCCC Secretariat, Bonn, Germany (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Australian Government. Submission to the AWG-KP: September 2011, Forest Management Reference Level Submission. UNFCCC Secretariat, Bonn, Germany (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Fry I. If a tree falls in a Kyoto Forest and nobody is there to hear it, will it be accounted for? an insider’s view of the negotiations surrounding land use, land-use change and forestry for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. RECIEL (2011) (In press).
   Google Scholar
• Benndorf R, Federici S, Forner C et al. Including land use, land-use change and forestry in future climate change agreements: thinking outside the box. Environ. Sci. Policy10,283–294 (2007).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeFries R, Achard F, Brown S et al. Earth observations for estimating greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation in developing countries. Environ. Sci. Policy10,385–394 (2007).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denman K, Brasseur G, Chidthaisong A et al. Couplings between changes in the climate system and biogeochemistry. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M et al. (Eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Anderson K, Evans T, Richards K. National forest carbon inventories: policy needs and assessment capacity. Climatic Change93,69–101 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Shvidenko A, Schepaschenko D, McCallum I, Nilsson S. Can the uncertainty of full carbon accounting of forest ecosystems be made acceptable to policymakers? Climatic Change103,137–157 (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Goetz S, Dubayah R. Advances in remote sensing technology and implications for measuring and monitoring forest carbon stocks and change. Carbon Management2(3),231–244 (2011).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stephens B. Greenhouse gas emissions: how to manage what cannot be measured? Carbon Management2(1),1–4 (2011).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richards G, Brack C. A modeled carbon account for Australia’s post-1990 plantation estate. Australian Forestry67(4),289–300 (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Richards G, Evans D. Development of a carbon accounting model (FullCAM vers. 1.0) for the Australian continent. Australian Forestry67(4),277–283 (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Brack C, Richards G, Waterworth R. Integrated and comprehensive emissions estimation for greenhouse gases. Sustain. Sci.1,91–106 (2006).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richards G, Borough C, Evans D, Reddin A, Ximenes F, Gardner D. Developing a carbon stocks and flows model for Australian wood products. Australian Forestry70(2),108–119 (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Australian Government. National Inventory Report 2009. Australian Government, Canberra, Australia (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences. Australian Forest and Wood Products Statistics. Australian Government, Canberra, Australia (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Elhassan N, Grassi G, Hassan R, Korotkov V, Kim R, Black K. Report of the Technical Assessment of the Forest Management Reference Level Submission of Australia Submitted in 2011. FCCC/TAR/2011/AUS. UNFCCC Secretariat, Bonn, Germany (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Ryan M, Spencer R, Keenan R. Private native forests in Australia: what did we learn from the Regional Forest Agreement program? Australian Forestry65(3),141–152 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Montreal Process Implementation Group. Australia’s State of the Forests Report: Five-yearly Report 2008. Australian Government, Canberra, Australia (2008).
   Google Scholar
• Thompson D. Private native forestry in NSW: environmentally benign, economically important but silviculturally challenged? Small-scale Forestry6,157–175 (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Jay V, Nichols J, Vanclay J. Social and ecological issues for private native forestry in north-eastern New South Wales, Australia. Small-scale Forestry6,115–126 (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences. Australian Commodity Statistics 2010. Australian Government, Canberra, Australia (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Ellis S, Kanowski P, Whelan R. National Inquiry on Bushfire Mitigation and Management. Council of Australian Governments, Canberra, Australia (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Australian Government. Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme: Australia’s Low Pollution Future – White Paper. Australian Government, Canberra, Australia (2008).
   Google Scholar
• Australian Government. Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) Sector: Submission to the AWG-KP and AWG-LCA. Australian Government, Canberra, Australia (2008).
   Google Scholar
• Gould J, Cheney P. Fire management in Australian forests. In: Forest Management in Australia: Implications for Carbon Budgets, Raison R, Squire R (Eds). Australian Greenhouse Office, Canberra, Australia (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Davidson J, Davey S, Singh S, Parsons M, Stokes B, Gerrand A. The Changing Face of Australia’s Forests. Australian Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra, Australia (2008).
   Google Scholar
• Ajani J. Australia’s transition from native forests to plantations: the implications for woodchips, pulpmills, tax breaks and climate change. Agenda15(3),21–38 (2008).
   Google Scholar
• Ajani J. Australia’s Wood and Wood Products Industry Situation and Outlook – Working Paper. Australian National University Fenner School of Environment and Society, Canberra, Australia (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Low K, Mahendrarajah S. Future Directions for the Australian Forestry Industry. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Canberra, Australia (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Parsons M, Frakes I, Gavran M. Australia’s Plantation Log Supply 2005–2049. Australian Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra, Australia (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Beer T, Williams A. Estimating Australian forest fire danger under conditions of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations. Climatic Change29,169–188 (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Beeton R, Buckley K, Jones G, Morgan D, Reichelt R, Trewin D. Australia State of the Environment 2006. Australian Government, Canberra, Australia (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Nicholls N, Lucas C. Interannual variations of area burnt in Tasmanian bushfires: relationships with climate and predictability. Int. J. Wildland Fire16,540–546 (2007).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams A, Karoly D. Extreme fire weather in Australia and the impact of the El Niño-southern oscillation. Aust. Met. Mag.48,15–22 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Australian Bureau of Meteorology. Special Climate Statement 22. Australian Government, Canberra, Australia (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Williams A, Karoly D, Tapper N. The sensitivity of Australian fire danger to climate change. Climatic Change49,171–191 (2001).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pitman A, Narisma G, McAneney J. The impact of climate change on the risk of forest and grassland fires in Australia. Climatic Change84,383–401 (2007).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke H, Smith P, Pitman A. Regional signatures of future fire weather over eastern Australia from global climate models. Int. J. Wildland Fire20,550–562 (2011).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King K, de Ligt R, Cary G. Fire and carbon dynamics under climate change in south-eastern Australia: insights from FullCAM and FIRESCAPE modeling. Int. J. Wildland Fire20,563–577 (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Keith H, Barrett D, Keenan R. Review of Allometric Relationships for Estimating Woody Biomass for New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia. National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report No. 5b. Australian Government, Canberra, Australia (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Snowdon P, Eamus D, Gibbons P et al. Synthesis of Allometrics, Review of Root Biomass and Design of Future Woody Biomass Sampling Strategies. National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report No. 17. Australian Government, Canberra, Australia (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Woldendorp G, Keenan R. Coarse woody debris in Australian forest ecosystems: a review. Austral Ecology30,834–843.
   Google Scholar
• Mackey B, Keith H, Berry S, Lindenmayer D. Green Carbon: The Role of Natural Forests in Carbon Storage. ANU E-Press, Canberra, Australia (2008).
   Google Scholar
• Keith H, Mackay B, Lindenmayer D. Re-evaluation of forest biomass carbon stocks and lessons from the world’s most carbon-dense forests. PNAS106(28),11635–11640 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keith H, Mackay B, Berry S, Lindenmayer D, Gibbons P. Estimating the carbon carrying capacity in natural forest ecosystems across heterogeneous landscapes: addressing sources of error. Glob. Change Biol.16,2971–2989 (2010).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forest Practices Authority Tasmania. Annual Reports. 1999/2000 to 2009/2010. Tasmanian Government, Hobart, Tasmania (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management – Forest Products. Cypress Sawlog, unpublished data. Queensland Government, Brisbane, Australia (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Forests NSW. NSW Cypress Sawlog Cut, unpublished data. Forests NSW, Dubbo, Australia (2011).
   Google Scholar

▪ Websites

• UNFCCC Secretariat. Report of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol on its first session. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2005/cmp1/eng/08a03.pdf (Accessed October 2011)
   Google Scholar
• UNFCCC Secretariat. Report of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol on its sixth session. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cmp6/eng/12a01.pdf (Accessed October 2011)
   Google Scholar
• UNFCCC Secretariat. Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) – forest management reference levels. http://unfccc.int/meetings/ad_hoc_working_groups/kp/items/5896.php (Accessed October 2011)
   Google Scholar
• UNFCCC Secretariat. Report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol on its fifteenth session. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/awg15/eng/18a01.pdf (Accessed October 2011)
   Google Scholar
• Australian National University Centre for Climate Law and Policy. Potential carbon credits from reducing native forest harvesting in Australia. http://law.anu.edu.au/cclp/working_papers.asp (Accessed October 2011)
   Google Scholar