Definitions & Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from Direct Human- Induced Degradation of Forests & Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types Co-ordinating Lead Authors Tomas Hernandez (Mexico), Samuel Kainja (Malawi), Timo Karjalainen (Finland), Gerald Lawson (UK), Shirong Liu (China), Steve Prisley (US), Gary Richards (Australia) Lead Authors Juan Ivar Arana Pardo (Bolivia), Richard Birdsey (US), Marie Boehm (Canada), Julius Daka (Zambia), Shigeo Kobayashi (Japan), Gyde Lund (US), Roman Michalak (Poland), Robert Scholes (South Africa), Masamichi Takahashi (Japan)

June 6, 2003Task 22 Responds to the SBSTA Invitiation To develop definitions for direct human- induced ‘degradation’ of forests and ‘devegetation’ of other vegetation types and methodological options to inventory and report on emissions resulting from these activities,…

June 6, 2003Task 23 Terms of Reference requested  definitions for degradation of forests & devegetation of other vegetation types;  methodological options to inventory emissions from direct human-induced degradation & devegetation activities;  approaches to reporting & documentation;  discussion of implications of methodological options re. the provisions of Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol (including issues of scale, costs and accuracy).

June 6, 2003Task 24 The report is organised as: Chapter 1 Overview: - introduction, context, structure and policy relevance Chapter 2 Definitions of Forest Degradation and Devegetation, and Scale of Direct Human Influences Upon Them: - defines and describes degradation of forests and devegetation of other vegetation types and provides examples of potential direct human-induced activities

June 6, 2003Task 25 continued Chapter 3 Methodological Options for Estimating Emissions from Forest Degradation and Devegetation: - provides approaches to identification of relevant land areas to estimate carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions, and also provides reporting tables Chapter 4 Implications of Methodological Options to Accounting under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol: - discusses circumstances in which LULUCF accounting and reporting could be unbalanced and how the proposed accounting for forest degradation and devegetation may address this, the costs of accounting and the potential scale of any unbalanced accounting

June 6, 2003Task 26 Consultation: first order draft Purpose of the report Reinforced that consideration of degradation and devegetation are in the context of Kyoto Protocol accounting Report should deal with Kyoto Protocol accounting Reporting category eg under Art 3.3, 3.4 or elsewhere is a policy determination beyond this report Suggested introductions of agradation and avegetation are beyond TOR Should consider only direct human induced activities as per TOR Definitions for degradation and devegetation Sought definition options for degradation and devegetation

June 6, 2003Task 27 Linkage to GPG report Task 2 report refers to GPG report where relevant Policy-prescriptive content Avoids reference to accounting approaches eg net-net Degradation refers to forest lands only – Harvested Wood Products generated beyond TOR (other SBSTA processes) Redrafting text maintains a neutral tone Readability and understandability Progressively addressed in refining text Focus on practical application/descriptions continued

June 6, 2003Task 28 continued Recommended definitions Forest Degradation The overuse or poor management of forests that leads to a long-term reduction in (biomass density) carbon stocks Devegetation of other vegetation types The direct human-induced conversion of other vegetated land to non-vegetated land

June 6, 2003Task 29  Tables describe processes that may lead to forest degradation or devegetation of other vegetation types  Methodological options to inventory emissions and removals from forest degradation and devegetation are largely provided in the GPG- LULUCF  Little guidance on the scale of either forest degradation or devegetation can be provided continued

June 6, 2003Task 210  forest degradation to consider if potential “unbalanced” accounting may be created due to the election/non-election of activities under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol, noting relevant only to Annex I Parties Annex I Parties generally report the overall sustainability of forest management on a national scale Annex I Parties generally have Forest Codes of Practice for sustainability  no similar international reporting framework applies to devegetation no indication of the scale or extent of activity, however the net-net approach for reporting emissions and removals applied to revegetation (and presumably to devegetation) limits the potential for significant emissions to be reportable at a national scale Findings to date

June 6, 2003Task 211  Concerning forest management : if forest management is elected then all emissions and removals on relevant land will be reported in a balanced way; for areas of forest not included as forest management, no emissions or removals are reported. A net emission or removal may occur, but this will not effect the balanced reporting of land drawn into the accounting framework; if forest management is not elected then no emissions and removals are reported (outside of those reported under Article 3.3) and balanced reporting is achieved; with election or non-election of forest management, balanced reporting always occur for lands within the accounting framework; emissions or removals may occur outside the accounting framework and this is entirely consistent with the voluntary election of Article 3.4 activities. Conclusions to date

June 6, 2003Task 212 Concerning devegetation : if revegetation is not elected then no emissions or removals associated with such activity are reported and reporting is balanced; if revegetation is elected then all emissions and removals from relevant land units are reported in a balanced way; as the inclusion of lands is based on “direct human-induced activity that increases carbon stock” the reporting may be influenced towards removals; if devegetation reporting parallels revegetation reporting activity that decreases carbon stock will influence reporting towards emissions; the compulsory introduction of devegetation in parallel to revegetation (otherwise it is unlikely to be elected) the potential greenhouse gas related incentives to engage in revegetation (restoration, rehabilitation) activities are likely to be impaired. Conclusions to date

June 6, 2003Task 213 Thank you