From: Options for accounting carbon sequestration in German forests
option | Art. 3.3 | Art. 3.4 | advantage (+)/disadvantage (-) |
---|---|---|---|
0 (KP rules) | mandatory GNA | voluntary, FM: GNA with fixed cap, other 3.4: NNA | + simple, no complicated accounting rules |
+ uncertainties and disturbances can be left out (voluntary) | |||
+ almost no incentives for increasing biospheric GHG removals | |||
- factoring out arbitrarily dealt with by cap | |||
- unfair treatment of windfalls/liabilities | |||
- 'voluntary excuse' and cap reduces incentives to do more | |||
- Complicated rules, different in the LULUCF sector to other sectors | |||
1 | mandatory GNA | 1A: voluntary 1B: mandatory FM: GNA with discount factor, other 3.4: NNA | + incentives increased by discount factor |
- high opportunity costs for (100-df) stock increase | |||
2 | mandatory GNA | mandatory NNA | + stronger incentives for mitigation action |
+ pragmatic factoring out by cancelling out | |||
+ a base period can diminish the random impact of a base year | |||
+ HWPs fully accounted | |||
+ same NNA accounting rules across all sectors | |||
+ accounting for 'what the atmosphere sees' | |||
+(FM for a stable level of optimum forest carbon stock: incentive for SFM up to a certain level) | |||
3 | mandatory GNA | FM: NNA with forward looking baseline | + ex-post adjustment allows factoring out of natural disturbances |
- complicated review of baseline setting and ex-post adjustments | |||
- unclear methodological process for baseline setting | |||
4 | land based NNA accounting according to the convention (FL, CL, GL, WL, S, OL) | + land-based for all managed lands | |
+ LULUCF as any other sector | |||
+ simplification and broader coverage on mandatory basis | |||
+ reduced uncertainties | |||
+ remove any perverse incentives arising from partial or inconsistent accounting rules | |||
- potential of compliance risks and the issue of effects due to natural disturbances, age structure and harvesting cycles |