Running head (shortened title):
Accounting for avoided conversion of intact forests
Title:
Avoiding deforestation: An incentive accounting mechanism for avoided conversion of
intact and non-intact forests
Author(s):
Danilo Mollicone1, Frédéric Achard1, Sandro Federici1, Hugh D. Eva1, Giacomo Grassi1, Alan
Belward1, Frank Raes1, Günther Seufert1, Giorgio Matteucci2 and Ernst-Detlef Schulze4
Affiliation(s):
1. Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Joint Research Centre of the European Commission,
CCR, TP 440, 21020 Ispra (VA), Italy
2. Institute for Mediterranean Agriculture and Forest Systems, National Research Council, Via
Cavour n. 4-6, 87036 Rende (CS), Italy
3. Max-Planck-Institute for Biogeochemistry, Hans-Knoell-Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany
Full address for correspondence, including telephone and fax number and email address:
Danilo Mollicone: now at MPI:
Address : Hans-Knoell-Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany
E-mail: [email protected]
Frédéric Achard
Address : CCR / TP 440, I-21020 Ispra (VA), Italy
tel: +39-0332-78-5545 fax: +39-0332-78-9073
E-mail: [email protected]
Mollicone et al. Accounting for avoided conversion of intact forest
Page 1
Abstract. This paper presents a new accounting mechanism in the context of the avoiding
deforestation issue of the UNFCCC, including technical options for determining baselines of forest
conversions. This proposal builds on the recent scientific achievements related to the estimation of
tropical deforestation rates and to the assessment of ‘intact’ forest areas. The distinction between
‘intact’ and ‘non intact’ forests used here arises from experience with satellite-based deforestation
measurements and allows accounting for carbon losses from forest degradation. The proposed
accounting system would use forest area conversion rates as input data. An optimal technical solution
to set baselines would be to use the time period from 1990 to 2005. The system introduces two
different schemes to account for preserved carbon: one for countries with high forest conversion rates
where the desired outcome would be a reduction in their rates, and another for countries with low
rates. A global baseline rate would be used to discriminate between these two country categories (high
and low rates). For the hypothetical accounting period 2013-2017 and considering 72% of the total
tropical forest domain for which data are available, the scenario of a 10% reduction of the high rates
and of the preservation of low rates would result in avoided emissions of approximately 1.6 billion
tCO2 and a total of 2.9 billion tCO2 accountable preserved carbon.
1. Introduction: tropical deforestation and carbon emissions
Tropical deforestation is an important issue in the debate on global carbon cycle and climate change
(Prentice et al., 2001; Houghton, 2005; Santilli et al., 2005). The release of CO2 due to tropical
deforestation can be estimated from three main parameters: i) the level of tropical deforestation and
degradation, ii) the spatial distribution of forest types, and iii) the amount of biomass and of soil
carbon for the different forest types. Our knowledge concerning the rates of change of the tropical
forests and the distribution of forest types have greatly improved in the last few years through the use
of Earth Observation technology (Mayaux et al., 2005). At the same time, more information is now
available on carbon stocks for different forest types (FAO, 2005). By using recent figures on net
change rates of the world’s tropical forest cover (Achard et al., 2002; FAO, 2001) and refereed data
on biomass, the source of atmospheric carbon from tropical deforestation is estimated to be for the
1990s between 1.1 ± 0.3 GtCyr-1 (Achard et al., 2004) and 1.6 ± 0.6 GtCyr-1 (Houghton, 2005). These
estimates include emissions from conversion of forests and loss of soil carbon after deforestation and
emissions from forest degradation. This amount has to be compared to the CO2 emissions due to fossil
fuel burning (plus a small contribution from cement production) which are estimated on average at
+6.3 ± 0.4 GtCyr-1 during 1990 to 1999 (Prentice et al., 2001). The issue of avoiding deforestation is
therefore crucial in any effort to combat climate change. Reducing deforestation has many other
positive aspects such as preserving biodiversity, maintaining indigenous rights and potentially
bringing resources to local populations.
Mollicone et al. Accounting for avoided conversion of intact forest
Page 2
The issue is even more important in the light of predicted future increases in deforestation rates.
Between 1990 and 2000, the area under agricultural or forest use decreased at a rate of 6.9 million ha
yr-1, passing from 41.9% to 41.3% (FAO, 2004). This global pattern is the sum of two opposite trends,
with land area under agricultural use increasing and land area under forest use decreasing (Lepers et
al., 2005). Furthermore, these trends are linked to development, with developed countries decreasing
their agricultural land and increasing the forest area, while developing countries show the opposite
(FAO, 2005).
Although a large number of drivers have been identified (Geist and Lambin, 2002; Williams, 2003),
three main processes explain most of these land-use changes at the global level:
-
A shift of agricultural activities from industrialized countries (decrease of cultivated area by 2.8%
between 1990 and 2004) to developing countries (increase of cultivated area by 13.8% during the
same period) with lower manpower costs, weaker legal environmental constraints and less legal
rights on available forest area;
-
Unsustainable practices causing the decrease in fertility and productivity of existing agricultural
land (leading to a shift of cultivations to forest lands) and the over-exploitation of the forest
resources;
-
Increase in demand for agriculture commodities (+13.9% between 1992 and 2003) due to the
increase of human population and its per capita needs (+6% during the same period); also the
consumption of wood and pulp (and paper) products is projected to increase by 23% and 30%,
respectively, from 1996 to 2010 (FAO, 2001).
Although global agricultural productivity is increasing, by applying the present trends in population
growth and in per capita commodities consumption, the rate of agriculture expansion can be expected
to rise from 2.5 million ha yr-1 in the 1990s (FAO, 2004) to 4.1 million ha yr-1 in the 2000s and 6.1
million ha yr-1 in the 2010s; this can only result in higher pressures on the forest domain. Adding
these values to the global decrease of land area under agricultural or forest use (6.9 million ha yr-1) it
leads to annual estimates of net forest area loss of 9.4 million ha yr-1 during the 1990s (which matches
the FAO FRA-2000 estimate), 11 million ha yr-1 during the 2000s and 13.1 million ha yr-1 during
2010s. These estimates are based on a business as usual scenario, but if we include the expected
impact of climate change on agricultural productivity and desertification such figures will need to be
increased accordingly. Moreover, the increasing demand for bioenergy could represent an additional
demand for land currently covered by tropical forests.
As noted by a Nobel Prize for Economics (Stiglitz, 2005)
“A huge mistake was made (for a variety of reasons) at Kyoto. While countries can be
compensated for planting forests, they cannot be compensated for avoiding deforestation.
Countries like PNG (Papua New Guinea) would thus be doubly better off if they cut down
Mollicone et al. Accounting for avoided conversion of intact forest
Page 3
their ancient hardwood trees and replanted. But this makes no sense economically or socially.
These countries should be given incentives to maintain their forests.”
Stiglitz (2005) also pointed out that the technical issues to be resolved, concerning monitoring and
measurement, can be overcome easily with modern technologies; this paper addresses such technical
issues. Here we propose a potential accounting mechanism which includes options for determining
global and national baselines of forest conversions. The accounting mechanism builds on the recent
scientific achievements related to the satellite-observation-based estimation of tropical deforestation
rates (Mayaux et al., 2005; De Fries et al., 2005), their consequences on carbon emissions (Achard et
al., 2004; Ramankutty et al., 2006) and the assessment of intact forests (Askenov et al., 2002). In this
paper these scientific and technical achievements are analysed in the context of the UNFCCC
avoiding deforestation issue (UNFCCC, 2005).
2. Guiding principles in accounting for avoided deforestation
The accounting mechanism we present is based on the principle that any such method for calculating
the amount of carbon preserved from avoiding deforestation:
-
Neither competes with nor contradicts current and future provisions for mitigation. This means
that such a mechanism shall not consist of, nor be more profitable than, the whole national forest
carbon stock management - an issue currently addressed in the Art 3.3. and 3.4 of the Kyoto
Protocol (KP). Instead, such a mechanism should be an additional instrument applicable to
Countries without mitigation commitments, i.e. presently non-annex I countries.
-
Correctly documents the amount of carbon that has been “preserved”. In Tropical forests the
conversion to other land uses is often preceded by forest exploitation, with significant losses in
carbon stocks (Asner et al., 2005). Under current UNFCCC definitions a forest can contain
anything from 10% to 100% tree cover; it is only when cover falls below 10% that land is
classified as non-forest. Forest exploitation such as that outlined by Asner et al. (2005) will result
in carbon pools ranging from fully-stocked (e.g. 100% of the original forest biomass) to highly
degraded forests (e.g. 10% tree canopy) whilst the land remains classified as forest. For this
reason the degradation of fully-stocked forests (leading to the reduction of tree canopy cover to as
low as 10%) could cause a larger loss of carbon than the conversion of already degraded forests
(which may be only just above the 10% tree canopy cover threshold) to other land use (finally
falling between 0% and 10% canopy cover) as illustrated in Figure 1. Consequently, conversion
processes within the forest cover class need to be accounted for in addition to forest / non-forest
conversions.
-
Both reduces the forest conversion rates where they are high and prevents them from increasing
where they are very low or have not yet started. This will avoid the displacement of deforestation
among countries (cross boundary leakage) or perverse incentives (Schulze et al., 2003).
Mollicone et al. Accounting for avoided conversion of intact forest
Page 4
-
Be easily and widely applicable at national and global scales.
3. A measurement system to account for avoided forest conversions
3.1 Forest class definitions
As alluded to in the previous section the forest definition contained in the UNFCCC framework of
provisions (UNFCCC, 2001) does not discriminate between forests with different carbon stocks.
Consequently, any accounting mechanism based on this definition will not be effective in addressing
anthropogenic emissions from tropical forests, because it would miss all the carbon lost from forest
degradation. In order to address the forest degradation issue we first divide the forest land-use
category in two sub-categories:
- intact forests: fully-stocked (tree cover can be anything between 10% and 100% but must be
undisturbed, i.e. there has been no timber extraction)
- non-intact forests: not fully-stocked (tree cover must be higher than 10% to qualify as a
forest under the existing UNFCCC rules, but in our definition the forest has undergone some
level of timber exploitation).
This distinction allows us to account for carbon losses from forest degradation, i.e. from the
conversion of intact to non-intact forest. The adoption of the ‘intact’ criterion is also driven by
technical and practical reasons. In compliance with current UNFCCC practice it is the Parties’
responsibilities to identify forests according to the established 10% - 100% cover range rule. When
assessing the condition of such forest areas using satellite remote sensing methodologies, the
“negative approach” can be used to discriminate between intact and non-intact forests: disturbance
such as the development of roads can be easily detected, whilst the absence of such visual evidence of
disturbance can be taken as evidence that what is left is intact (Askenov et al., 2002). Disturbance is
easier to unequivocally identify from satellite imagery than the forest ecosystem characteristics which
would need to be determined if we followed the “positive approach” i.e. identifying intact forest and
then determining that the rest in non-intact (Figure 2). Following this approach forest conversions
between intact forests, non-intact forests and other land uses can be easily measured worldwide
through Earth observation satellite imagery; in contrast, any other forest definition (e.g. pristine,
virgin, primary/secondary, etc...) is not always measurable.
3.2 Forest conversions
The avoiding deforestation issue is implemented under an avoided forest conversion mechanism, and
the technical options for the accounting system of such mechanism are presented in the context of the
following working definitions:
-
The intact forest areas are defined according to the following six criteria (Askenov et al., 2002;
GFW, 2006): situated within the forest zone according to current UNFCCC definitions; larger
than 50,000 hectares and with a smallest width of 10 kilometres; containing a contiguous mosaic
Mollicone et al. Accounting for avoided conversion of intact forest
Page 5
of natural ecosystems; not fragmented by infrastructure; without signs of significant human
transformation; and excluding burnt lands and young tree sites adjacent to infrastructure objects
(with one km wide buffer zones).
-
Forest conversion is defined as one of the three potential changes illustrated in Figure 1, i.e. from
(i) intact forests to other land use, (ii) non-intact forests to other land use and (iii) intact forests to
non-intact forests.
-
For each potential change, avoided forest conversion is defined as the reduction of the conversion
rates below a global or national baseline.
-
Avoided deforestation is then defined as the sum of the preserved forest carbon stocks arising
from the three avoided forest conversion processes.
In order to counteract the displacement of deforestation from countries with high forest conversion
rates towards countries with low rates (cross boundary leakage), remuneration for avoiding forest
conversion should be applicable to both situations. With this aim in mind, we propose to use a global
baseline rate to discriminate between countries with low forest conversion rates and those with high
rates. If a hypothetical remuneration mechanism is based only on national baselines those countries
with low forest conversion rates will see little or no benefit in making further reductions – if indeed
such reductions are even possible; a country with no forest conversion processes at present cannot
gain credits from avoided forest conversion if there is no conversion to avoid! Such countries could
easily import deforestation, and the mechanism would fail in reducing deforestation worldwide.
Furthermore, in order to apply such a mechanism equally to all countries, data should be compared in
a relative context, i.e. relative to each country’s forest area. This would be possible by reporting forest
conversion measures as rates of change. The annual changes in area of intact / non-intact / non-forest
land relative to the total intact or non-intact forest area is a parameter which allows direct comparisons
to be made between different countries.
3.3 Determining forest conversion rates
Tropical deforestation rates have been high since the 1960s (FAO, 2001), though can show a large
inter-annual variability (Figure 3) and furthermore we know rates of deforestation to vary from
geographical region to region (Achard et al., 2002). Establishing a reference value for a baseline
deforestation rate is therefore to some extent an open question, but should certainly be obtained from
a representative time period of at least a few years duration - but how many years? The monitoring of
tropical deforestation through satellite imagery has been carried out systematically from the early
1990s (Mayaux et al., 2005). This past experience has highlighted methodological and technical
constraints. For example, whilst the spatial resolution of the satellite observing systems used
(typically 30 metre) is appropriate for recording land cover changes occurring over a one year period
(Townshend and Justice, 1988) persistent cloud cover can reduce the chances of actually obtaining a
useable image at a given period for a given location. Thus we need to select a time period where we
Mollicone et al. Accounting for avoided conversion of intact forest
Page 6
can guarantee acquisition of enough cloud free imagery to establish a globally consistent baseline rate.
Analysis of existing on-line archives for suitable satellite imagery suggests that an optimal solution to
set baselines would be to use the time period from 1990 to 2005 (Schulze et al., 2003, Mollicone et
al., 2003). Such a long period offers the opportunity to use a large part of existing satellite image
archives, thus allowing the collection of representative and independent historical data on forest
conversion, taking into account regional variations in inter-annual rates, not just regional variability in
overall rates of deforestation. Using satellite imagery to fix a baseline has the added advantages of
global consistency (the same measurement protocols and basic observation data can be used
everywhere), completeness (the forest inventories and change statistics held by different Parties vary
in terms of both geographical completeness and the time period over which they are held – the global
satellite image archives can be used to harmonise this) and neutrality (the same measurements applied
to the same data could avoid variations arising from regional differences in inventory and the like).
The average forest conversion rates can be calculated with only two satellite imagery surveys at the
start and at the end of the selected period, as Earth observation techniques allow tracking spatially and
accurately conversions between different forest cover types (Achard et al., 2002); see Figure 2 as
illustration. That would make the method easily and everywhere applicable across the Tropics. Other
solutions, like the identification of baselines based on temporal trends, require more data (i.e. long
time series) and appropriate models, making them very difficult to be implemented everywhere.
One additional consideration when establishing the baseline is the need to counter in-country leakage.
If measures for avoiding deforestation are implemented only in part of a country, it is likely that a
higher pressure will be exerted elsewhere, resulting in a displacement of deforestation rather than in a
reduction. In order to avoid such leakage within a country, we propose to set baselines at the national
level.
Once the country baseline conversion rate is set this can be used as a benchmark against which
avoided forest conversions can be measured for any subsequently defined accounting period. In
addition to their use for establishing baseline rates of change, the conversion rates between intact
forest, non-intact forest and other land use can also be measured through Earth observation techniques
for any such accounting period.
3.4 Assigning carbon stocks to forest classes
Figures of total carbon stocks in intact forests could be taken from the literature (e.g., Achard et al.,
2004; FAO, 2005; Houghton, 2005). Considering that changes in forest carbon stocks are largely
driven by changes in tree density manifest as changes in % canopy cover, and given that direct
measures of carbon stocks are often not possible or very difficult on a large scale, and that there are
currently no published figures for forests falling into our non-intact forest cover class we propose to
Mollicone et al. Accounting for avoided conversion of intact forest
Page 7
set the carbon stock of the non-intact forests as half of the carbon stock of the intact forests for the
purposes of this paper. In practice of course, when available, countries may use figures of carbon
stocks based on forest inventory methodologies or other country-specific data. Carbon stock figures
would have to be determined prior to the start of the accounting period.
Once established carbon stock figures are then used to calculate three Carbon Preserving Factors
(CPF), expressed in tC ha-1, one for each of the three forest conversion categories (intact to nonintact, intact to non-forest, non-intact to non-forest). CPFs will vary according to forest cover type,
i.e. humid tropical, dry tropical etc.
3.5 Determining accountable preserved carbon quantities
The backbone of the accounting mechanism we propose is the Reduced Conversion Rate (RCR, in %
year-1), i.e. a quantitative expression of any given country’s efforts to reduce deforestation rates where
they are high, or maintain low rates of deforestation where applicable. RCRs are calculated for each of
our three conversion categories. To calculate RCR three parameters to be assessed for each forest
conversion type:
•
The Global Conversion Baseline rate (GCB) is the average annual rate (in % year-1) of forest
area conversion measured during the baseline period (1990-2005) at global scale. GCB is held
constant into and throughout any subsequent accounting period;
•
The National Conversion Baseline rate (NCB) is the average annual rate (in % year-1) of
forest area conversion measured during the baseline period (1990-2005) at country level.
Again we consider this as constant into and during the accounting period;
•
The National Conversion Accounting rate (NCA) is the average annual rate (in % year-1) of
forest area conversion during the accounting period at country level.
The proposed accounting mechanism introduces two different schemes for the accounting of
preserved carbon: one for countries with high conversion rates, where the desired outcome is that they
reduce their rates, and another for countries with low conversion rates who do not need to reduce their
rates (Figure 4). We discriminate between these two conditions on the basis of the relationship
between NCB and GCB/2 (half the global conversion rate during the baseline period): if NCB ≥
GCB/2, then the country has to reduce its conversion rates in order to be able to account for preserved
carbon; if NCB < GCB/2, then the country shall keep its conversion rate below half of the global rate
in order to be able to account for preserved carbon. The Reduced Conversion Rate is then calculated
as follows:
if NCB ≥ GCB/2
RCR = NCB - NCA
if NCB < GCB/2
RCR = GCB/2 - NCA (Figure 5b)
Mollicone et al. Accounting for avoided conversion of intact forest
(Figure 5a)
Page 8
Once the RCRs of a country have been determined for each of the three forest conversion types, these
can be used to calculate the area of intact forest and non-intact forest “preserved” by multiplying the
RCRs by the corresponding forest sub-category. The preserved forest area for each category can then
be converted to preserved carbon by multiplying by the appropriate Carbon Preserving Factors. The
sum of the resulting values (Preserved Carbon per conversion type) is then multiplied by the number
of years (ny) of the accounting period to represent the total amount of Accountable Preserved Carbon
(APCft) expressed in tCO2.
APCft = ny × Σfct [RCR(fct) × CPF(fct) × Area(fc)]
Where ‘ft’ is the forest type (e.g. humid tropical, dry tropical, etc), ‘fc’ is the forest sub-category
(intact, non-intact) and ‘fct’ is the forest conversion type (intact to non-intact, intact to non-forest,
non-intact to non-forest). This calculation procedure is applied for each forest type present in the
country and the total amount of Accountable Preserved Carbon (APC) of the Country results from the
sum of every APCft.
3.6. Theoretical application of the accounting mechanism
An example of estimates of the potential for preserved carbon related to avoiding forest conversion
calculated with the previous equations is provided in table 1 for Brazil, Congo and Papua New Guinea
(PNG). All input parameters (forest areas, forest conversion rates, carbon preserving factors) will have
to be assessed by combining Earth Observation techniques with field surveys for the baseline and
accounting periods for all forest types (e.g. humid, dry) and sub-categories (intact and non-intact
forests). The hypothesis of a 10% relative reduction for all forest conversion rates for Brazil and for
the intact forest to other types conversion rates for PNG, and of no change for all conversion rates for
Congo and for the non intact to non-forest conversion rate for PNG leads to the following estimates of
Accountable Preserved Carbon at the end of the accounting period: 720 and 52 million tCO2 for Brazil
and PNG respectively related to the reduction of their high conversion rates, and 120 and 11 million
tCO2 for Congo and PNG respectively related to the preservation of their low conversion rates (nonintact to non-forest for PNG). For the hypothetical accounting period 2013-2017, the scenario of a
10% reduction of high forest conversion rates and the preservation of low conversion rates would
result in avoided emissions of approximately 1.6 billion tCO2 leading to a total of 2.9 billion tCO2 of
Accountable Preserved Carbon including 1.3 billion tCO2 from preservation of low conversion rates
(table 2a). A test was made with the discriminating factors being a third (⅓) of the global conversion
rates (instead of half) leading to 0.7 billions tCO2 from the preservation of low conversion rates and to
a total of 2.3 billions tCO2 of Accountable Preserved Carbon (table 2b). It has to be noted that these
figures are calculated only for the part of the tropical forest domain for which FAO data (2005) are
Mollicone et al. Accounting for avoided conversion of intact forest
Page 9
available, i.e. for a region of 1,303 million ha forests in 2005 which corresponds to 72% of the total
tropical forest domain (1,810 million ha).
The timing of this accounting system would be periodical, i.e. APC would be accounted only at the
end of the accounting period. In any mechanism considering reduced emissions (or carbon preserved)
from avoided deforestation, the carbon stocks are temporarily preserved, since there are no guaranties
that these APC will be not released in the future. Therefore, any mechanism, including the one
presented in this paper, can only account for avoided emission on a temporary basis. That is, the
preservation of carbon stocks (the avoidance of emissions) needs to be continuously checked in space
and time. At the same time, any linked provision should be renewed according to the verified status of
carbon stocks.
4. Conclusions
In this paper, a mechanism is proposed in the context of the avoiding deforestation issue (UNFCCC,
2005). The present proposal represents one of the first attempts at an operational tool based on
scientific grounds that, in our opinion, is suitable to account for the amount of carbon that would be
preserved from avoiding deforestation. The mechanism has been developed according to the main
principles of the Rio Convention (e.g. global baselines to pursue the equity principle, accounting of
conversion from intact to non-intact forest to practise the effectiveness principle) and of UNFCCC
(e.g., the use of a conservative technical option to calculate the baselines - based on rates and not on
parameters such as area or trends – which guarantees the additionality of actions). Furthermore, the
presented approach responds to the issues raised at COP-11 by a few tropical countries to consider
proactive moves to reduce deforestation rates in their territories (UNFCCC, 2005).
The proposed accounting mechanism is not in contrast nor in competition with the current set of
provisions for mitigation (e.g., the Kyoto Protocol). By distinguishing two forest sub-categories
(intact and non-intact), accounting on a national basis and applying a global baseline for forest
conversions, this proposal realistically accounts for preserved carbon stocks, considering also the
possible carbon losses related to forest degradation and the displacement of deforestation within and
among countries (cross country leakage).
This proposal has been developed on the basis of recent scientific achievements related to the
estimation of tropical deforestation rates, to their consequences on carbon emissions and to the
assessment of intact forests.. The current state of Earth observation techniques using satellite sensors
now allows us to measure rapidly and widely, at national and global scale, forest conversion rates. It
is important however to stress that whilst the data set is certainly global and a single universally
agreed measurement protocol could be adopted there is no need for centralised analysis once a global
Mollicone et al. Accounting for avoided conversion of intact forest
Page 10
baseline conversion rate has been agreed. The calculation of the Reduced Conversion Rates and the
resulting Accountable Preserved Carbon would firmly remain the responsibility of individual Parties;
common data, common methodology, but independent implementation.
The technological basis of the accounting mechanism presented here is a reality. Driven in part by the
desire to achieve verified reductions in deforestation rates, such an approach has been demonstrated
recently in Brazil, where a 30% reduction in deforestation rates has been measured and in part brought
about using Earth observation technology (INPE, 2005). Furthermore, as data from ground surveys
become increasingly available, the Carbon Preserving Factor will be calculated from more reliable
forest type and country-specific data. Therefore, this proposal shows that a mechanism for avoiding
deforestation could be implemented operationally, as the science to support it is mature and the
required technical capabilities already exist.
Acknowledgements and disclaimer
We thank Zoltán Rakonczay, Directorate General for Environment of the European Commission for
useful comments on the manuscript. The views expressed in this paper may not in any circumstances
be regarded as stating an official position of any of the authors’ home institutions including the
European Commission.
References
Achard, F., Eva, H. D., Stibig, H. J., Mayaux, P., Gallego, J., Richards, T., and Malingreau, J. P.:
2002, ‘Determination of deforestation rates of the world’s humid tropical forests’, Science 297, 999–
1002.
Achard, F., Eva, H., Mayaux, P., Stibig, H. J. and Belward, A.:2004, ‘Improved estimates of net
carbon emissions from land cover change in the Tropics for the 1990's’, Global Biogeochemical
Cycles 18, GB2008, doi:10.1029/2003GB002142.
Aksenov, D., Dobrynin, D., Dubinin, M., Egorov, A., Isaev, A., Karpachevskiy, M., Laestadius, L.,
Potapov, P., Purekhovskiy, A., Turubanova, S. and Yaroshenko, A.: 2002, Atlas of Russia’s intact
forest
landscapes.
Global
Forest
Watch
Russia,
Moscow.
p.
184.
available
at:
http://forest.ru/eng/publications/intact/
Asner, G. P., Knapp, D. E., Broadbent, E. N., Oliveiri, P. J. C., Keller, M. and Silva, J. N.: 2005,
‘Selective Logging in the Brazilian Amazon’, Science 310, 480-482.
Mollicone et al. Accounting for avoided conversion of intact forest
Page 11
DeFries, R., Asner, G., Achard, F., Justice, C., Laporte, N., Price, K., Small, C. and Townshend, J.:
2005, ‘Monitoring Tropical Deforestation for Emerging Carbon Markets’ in Mountinho, P. and
Schwartzman, S. (eds.), Tropical Deforestation and Climate Change, IPAM, Belem, Brazil. pp 35-44.
FAO: 2001, Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000, FAO, Rome, Italy, p. 479.
FAO: 2004, Summary of World food and agricultural statistics, FAO, Rome, Italy.
FAO: 2005, FAOSTAT database, available on line at http://faostat.fao.org/
Geist, H. and Lambin, E.: 2002, ‘Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical
deforestation’, BioScience 52, 143-150.
GFW: 2006, World map of intact forest landscapes, Global Forest Watch Russia, Moscow, Russia.
Houghton, R.A.: 2005, ‘Aboveground Forest Biomass and the Global Carbon Balance’, Global
Change Biology, 11, 945–958.
INPE: 2005, Monitoramento da Floresta Amazônica Brasileira por Satelite, Projeto PRODES,
available on line at http://www.obt.inpe.br/prodes/index.html
Lepers, E., Lambin, E. F., Janetos, A. C., DeFries, R., Achard, F., Ramankutty, N. and Scholes, R. J.:
2005, ‘A synthesis of rapid land-cover change information for the 1981-2000 period’, BioScience 55,
115-124.
Mayaux, P., Holmgren, P., Achard, F., Eva, H., Stibig, H.-J. and Branthomme, A.: 2005, ‘Tropical
forest cover change in the 1990s and options for future monitoring’, Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society B 360, 373-384.
Mollicone, D., Achard, F., Eva, H., Belward, A.S., Federici, S., Lumicisi, A., Rizzo, V.C., Stibig, H.J. and Valentini, R.: 2003, Land Use Change Monitoring in the framework of the UNFCCCC and its
Kyoto Protocol: Report on Current Capabilities of Satellite Remote Sensing Technology. European
Communities, Luxembourg, p. 48. available at: www-gem.jrc.it/tem/PDF_publis/publications.htm
Prentice, I. C., Farquhar, G. D., Fasham, M. J. R., Goulden, M. L., Heimann, M., Jaramillo, V. J.,
Kheshgi, H. S., Le Quéré, C., Scholes, R. J., andWallace, D.W. R.: 2001, ‘The carbon cycle and
Atmospheric carbon dioxide’, in Houghton, J. T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D. J., Noguer, M., van der Linden,
Mollicone et al. Accounting for avoided conversion of intact forest
Page 12
P. J., Dai, X., Maskell, K., and Johnson, C. A. (eds.), Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis:
Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 183–237.
Santilli, M., Moutinho, P., Schwartzman, S., Nepstad, D. C., Curran, L. M. and Nobre, C. A.: 2005
‘Tropical deforestation and the Kyoto Protocol: an editorial essay’, Climatic Change 71, 267–276.
Ramankutty, N., Gibbs, H. K., Foley, J., Houghton, R. A., Achard, F. and DeFries, R.: 2006, ‘Carbon
emissions from tropical deforestation: Setting the terms of the debate’ Global Change Biology,
submitted.
Schulze, E.-D., Mollicone, D., Achard, F., Matteucci, G., Federici, S., Eva, H. D., and Valentini, R.:
2003 ‘Making deforestation pay under the Kyoto Protocol?’ Science 299, 1669.
Stiglitz, J.E.: 2005, ‘Cleaning Up Economic Growth’, Project Syndicate Print Commentary. Available
at: http:///www.project-syndicate.org/print_commentary/stiglitz59/English 7/8/2005
Townshend, J. R. G., and Justice, C. O.: 1988, ‘Selecting the spatial resolution of satellite sensors
required for global monitoring of land transformations’ International Journal of Remote Sensing 9,
187–236.
UNFCCC: 1997, Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change:
Annex to Decision 1/CP.3, UNFCCC Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, available at http://www.unfccc.int
UNFCCC: 2001, Seventh Conference of Parties: The Marrakech Accords, UNFCCC Secretariat,
Bonn, Germany, available at http://www.unfccc.int
UNFCCC: 2005, Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries: approaches to
stimulate action - Draft conclusions proposed by the President. UNFCCC Secretariat, Bonn,
Germany, available at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2005/cop11/eng/l02.pdf
Williams, M.:2003, Deforesting the Earth, The University of Chicago Press, USA. p. 689.
Mollicone et al. Accounting for avoided conversion of intact forest
Page 13
Figure 1: Forest conversions types considered in the accounting system
intact forests
other land use
non-intact forest
Intact or fully-stocked forests (e.g. 100% of the original forest biomass) and non-intact or degraded
forests (down to 10% tree canopy) are classified as forests under the UNFCCC scheme.
Mollicone et al. Accounting for avoided conversion of intact forest
Page 14
Figure 2: Example of intact forest delineation in Brazilian Amazonia
a) Landsat Satellite image (TM sensor) acquired on July 27 1991
b) Landsat Satellite image (ETM+ sensor) acquired on July 27 2000
These two satellite images, acquired along a 9-years interval, represent the same portion of the
Amazon forest (area size 28 x 16 km) closed to the Rio Branco city in Brazil (Latitude: 9.56 degree
South, Longitude: 66.96 degree East). The patterned green areas are delineating the intact forest as
defined in the paper. These two images illustrate the feasibility of assessing conversions between
forest sub-categories (from intact forest areas to other categories). Deforested areas (from intact or
non intact forest to non forest) are displayed in purple.
Mollicone et al. Accounting for avoided conversion of intact forest
Page 15
Figure 3: Inter-annual variability of annual deforested areas in Brazilian Amazonia
3,0
2,8
2,6
2,4
Mha
2,2
2,0
1,8
1,6
1,4
1,2
2003-2004
2002-2003
2001-2002
2000-2001
1999-2000
1998-1999
1997-1998
1996-1997
1995-1996
1994-1995
1992-1994
1991-1992
1990-1991
1989-1990
1988-1989
1977-1988
1,0
Time
Deforested areas are taken from the Brazilian INPE’s PRODES project (INPE, 2005).
Mollicone et al. Accounting for avoided conversion of intact forest
Page 16
Figure 4: Procedure for the accounting of preserved carbon
Setting of GCB/2, NCB and CPF for each forest conversion type
(intact to non-intact, intact to non-forest, non-intact to non-forest)
And for the Baseline period
Beginning of the accounting period
Measure of NCA
if NCB ≥ GCB/2
(high conversion rate),
then
RCR = NCB – NCA
(see figure 4A)
if NCB < GCB/2
(low conversion rate),
then
RCR = GCB/2 – NCA
(see figure 4B)
APCft = Ny . Σfct [RCR(fct) . CPF(fct) . Area(fc)]
Where:
GCB = Global Conversion rate during the Baseline period
NCB = National Conversion rate during the Baseline period
CPF = Carbon Preserving Factors
NCA = National Conversion rate measured during the Accounting period
RCR = Reduced Conversion Rate
APC = Accountable Preserved Carbon.
ft = forest type (e.g. humid tropic, dry tropic, etc)
fc = forest sub-category (intact, non-intact)
fct = forest conversion type (intact to non-intact, intact to non-forest, non-intact to nonforest).
Ny = number of years of the of the accounting period.
Mollicone et al. Accounting for avoided conversion of intact forest
Page 17
Figure 5: Examples of “high” (a) and “low” (b) conversion rates during baseline period.
a: high conversion rate (NCB > GCB / 2 and RCR = NCB – NCA)
b: low conversion rate (NCB < GCB / 2 and RCR = GCB / 2 – NCA)
Acronyms are the same as in figure 4.
Mollicone et al. Accounting for avoided conversion of intact forest
Page 18
Table 1: Example1 of calculation of preserved carbon
by accounting for avoided forest conversion
Brazil
Cerrado
Congo
PNG 2
Global 3
7.5
15.0
22.4
25.2
4.1
29.3
765
475
1,303
143
71.5
71.5
151
75.5
75.5
0
-10
0
-130
-10
-140
-2,800
-5,000
-2,900
Annual conversion rates during baseline period 1990-2005 : NCB
Intact to non-forest
-0.31%
-0.43%
-0.35%
Non-intact to non-forest
-2.16%
-2.98%
-2.39%
Intact to non-intact
-0.32%
-0.44%
-0.34%
-0.04%
-0.10%
-0.04%
-0.48%
0.00%
-0.52%
½ GCB
-0.19%
-0.51%
-0.12%
Annual conversion rates during accounting period 2013-2017 : NCA6
Intact to non-forest
-0.28%
-0.39%
Non-intact to non-forest
-1.94%
-2.68%
Intact to non-intact
-0.29%
-0.40%
-0.04%
-0.10%
-0.04%
-0.44%
0.00%
-0.47%
Reduced forest conversion rates : RCR1 ( NCA – NCB) or RCR2 (NCA - ½ GCB)
Intact to non-forest
0.03%
0.04%
0.15%
Non-intact to non-forest
0.22%
0.30%
0.43%
Intact to non-intact
0.03%
0.04%
0.08%
0.05%
0.52%
0.05%
Annual Accountable Preserved Carbon (103 tCO2 yr-1)
Intact to non-forest
64,000
8,600
Non-intact to non-forest
30,000
4,000
Intact to non-intact
32,900
4,400
5,900
16,700
1,500
6,800
2,400
3,700
285,000
191,000
100,000
Total APC for the 5-years commitment period (MtCO2)
720
121
64
2,900
Country
Humid
Forest Area in 2005 (106 ha) 4
Intact (FAO Primary)
301
Non-intact (FAO Secondary)
41
Total
341
Carbon Preserving Factors : (tC ha-1)
Intact to non-forest
186
Non-intact to non-forest
93
Intact to non-intact
93
44
16
131
Total
416
56
472
47
23.5
23.5
Annual forest area changes during baseline period 1990-2005 (103 ha yr-1) 5
Intact to non-forest
-980
-520
-1,500
Non-intact to non-forest
-880
-470
-1,350
Intact to non-intact
-970
-510
-1,480
Notes:
1. These estimates are extrapolated from FAO data and should be considered as indicative.
2. PNG = Papua New Guinea
3. In FAO (2005) primary/secondary forest areas are not reported for a number of countries (e.g. Venezuela and
India). Consequently the global estimates of areas, change areas and rates correspond only to part of the tropical
forest domain: 1,303 million ha of forests to be compared to the total tropical forest domain: 1,810 million ha in
2005.
4. National forest areas and change rates for the period 1990-2005 are derived from FAO (2005).
5. Intact and non-intact forest areas are taken as FAO’s primary and secondary forest areas (FAO, 2005). The
annual change areas from intact forests to non-intact forests are approximated using the 2002 ratio between
gross deforestation (INPE, 2005) and logging rate estimate in Brazilian Amazonia (Asner et al., 2005) at 0.52.
6. These change rates for the period 2013-2017 are hypothetical.
7. The global APC figures are estimated from all countries with available data (i.e. for 1,303 million ha forest
domain) and are corresponding to an hypothesis of a 10% reduction for high rates and the preservation of low
rates.
Mollicone et al. Accounting for avoided conversion of intact forest
Page 19
Table 2: Estimates1 of potential preserved carbon with the accounting mechanism
a) With the discriminating factors between the two accounting schemes being half (½) of the global
conversion rates and with 10% reduction of high rates and preservation of low rates.
Forest Area in 2005
Intact to non intact
Intact to non forest
Primary
area
Secondary
forest area
NCB
rate (%)
Annual
APC 2
NCB
rate (%)
Annual
APC 2
7,500
10,300
300
13,500
37,100
48,700
3,800
25,200
6,500
62,900
200
9,100
32,900
29,400
300,600
115,300
53,100
61,100
14,200
597,300
764,500
15,000
2,200
10,400
48,600
193,300
36,400
15,500
4,100
5,000
104,800
2,200
13,000
30,300
29,400
40,800
15,600
7,300
6,900
600
129,200
474,800
-0.04
-0.05
-5.79
-0.43
-0.35
-1.35
0.00
-0.52
0.00
-1.10
-1.44
-0.42
-0.48
-0.23
-0.32
-0.44
-0.05
-0.10
0.00
-0.16
-0.24
1,500
600
500
500
4,700
18,100
1,200
3,700
700
20,600
100
2,900
1,300
2,300
32,900
4,400
12,100
3,200
5,700
66,900
100,200
-0.04
-0.05
-5.35
-0.40
-0.21
-1.24
0.00
-0.48
0.00
-1.13
-1.33
-0.39
-0.66
-0.22
-0.31
-0.43
-0.05
-0.09
0.00
-0.16
-0.37
5,900
2,500
900
900
15,400
33,500
3,900
6,800
2,100
40,900
200
7,400
3,700
4,300
64,000
8,600
50,300
38,100
18,100
210,300
284,500
(106 ha)
Congo
Madagascar
Nigeria
Sudan
Total Africa
Indonesia
Malaysia
PNG
Thailand
SE Asia
Costa Rica
Cent. America
Mexico
Bolivia
Brazil Humid
Brazil Dry
Colombia
Peru
Suriname
South America
Total Tropics
Non Intact to non
forest
NCB
Annual
rate (%) APC 2
-0.10
-2.37
-3.62
-1.00
-0.36
-3.45
-0.47
-0.31
-2.55
-1.66
-0.42
-2.50
-0.29
-0.70
-2.16
-2.98
-0.48
-0.98
0.00
-1.57
-1.03
16,700
400
9,900
4,200
53,900
34,800
2,100
2,400
1,100
48,500
800
16,000
5,900
7,000
30,000
4,000
1,100
2,300
1,000
64,600
191,300
Total
carbon2
over
5 years
121,000
18,000
56,000
28,000
370,000
432,000
37,000
64,000
19,000
550,000
5,000
0
55,000
68,000
635,000
85,000
317,000
218,000
124,000
1,710,000
2,880,000
b) Same as a) except the discriminating factors being a third (⅓) of the global conversion rates
Forest Area in 2005
(106 ha)
Congo
Madagascar
Nigeria
Sudan
Total Africa
Indonesia
Malaysia
PNG
Thailand
SE Asia
Costa Rica
Cent. America
Mexico
Bolivia
Brazil Humid
Brazil Dry
Colombia
Peru
Suriname
South America
Total Tropics
Intact to non intact
Intact to non forest
Primary
forests
Secondary
forests
Rate
(%)
Carbon2
Rate
(%)
Carbon2
7,500
10,300
300
13,500
37,100
48,700
3,800
25,200
6,500
62,900
200
9,100
32,900
29,400
300,600
115,300
53,100
61,100
14,200
597,300
764,500
15,000
2,200
10,400
48,600
193,300
36,400
15,500
4,100
5,000
104,800
2,200
13,000
30,300
29,400
40,800
15,600
7,300
6,900
600
129,200
474,800
-0.04
-0.05
-5.79
-0.43
-0.35
-1.35
0.00
-0.52
0.00
-1.10
-1.44
-0.42
-0.48
-0.23
-0.32
-0.44
-0.05
-0.10
0.00
-0.16
-0.24
800
200
500
500
3,000
18,100
800
3,700
400
19,800
100
2,400
1,300
2,300
32,900
4,400
4,900
2,100
3,800
54,900
85,200
-0.04
-0.05
-5.35
-0.40
-0.21
-1.24
0.00
-0.48
0.00
-1.13
-1.33
-0.39
-0.66
-0.22
-0.31
-0.43
-0.05
-0.09
0.00
-0.16
-0.38
3,400
1,400
900
900
10,000
33,500
2,600
6,800
1,400
38,600
200
5,700
3,700
4,300
64,000
8,600
27,800
12,200
12,000
146,500
211,300
Non Intact to non
forest
Rate
Carbon2
(%)
-0.10
-2.37
-3.62
-1.00
-0.36
-3.45
-0.47
-0.31
-2.55
-1.66
-0.42
-2.50
-0.29
-0.70
-2.16
-2.98
-0.48
-0.98
0.00
-1.57
-1.03
9,900
400
9,900
4,200
42,000
34,800
2,000
400
1,100
46,400
300
14,200
1,400
7,000
30,000
4,000
1,200
2,300
700
60,800
165,100
Total
carbon2
over
5 years
71,000
10,000
56,000
28,000
275,000
432,000
27,000
54,000
15,000
524,000
3,000
0
32,000
68,000
635,000
85,000
170,000
83,000
83,000
1,311,000
2,308,000
1. These estimates are extrapolated from FAO data and should be considered as indicative.
2. Potential preserved carbon are reported in 103 tCO2 yr-1
Mollicone et al. Accounting for avoided conversion of intact forest
Page 20