Skip to main content


Table 2 The Accra Accounting Options; advantages and disadvantages.

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