Accounting methods for carbon credits: Impacts on the minimum area of forestry projects under the Clean Development Mechanism

Climate Policy

Volumn 4, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 193-204

  Locatelli, Bruno ^a   Pedroni, Lucio ^b  

^a CIRAD   (France)

^b CATIE   (Costa Rica)

Author keywords

Carbon accounting; Clean Development Mechanism; Forestry project; Kyoto Protocol; Non permanence; Small scale project

Indexed keywords

CARBON SINK; CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM; FOREST MANAGEMENT; FORESTRY;

EID: 20644433760     PISSN: 14693062     EISSN: 17527457     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2004.9685520     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Aukland, L., Moura Costa, P., Bass, S., Huq, S., Landells-Mills, N., Tipper, R., and Carr, R., 2002. Laying the Foundations for Clean Development:Preparing the Land Use Sector. A Quick Guide to the CDM. London:IIED.
2. Chomitz, K. M., 2000a. Evaluating Carbon Offsets from Forestry and Energy Projects:How do they Compare? Development Research Group Washington, DC:World Bank.
3. Chomitz, K. M., 2000b. “Renting” Carbon Sinks:A Solution to the Permanence Problem for Forestry-based Carbon Offsets? World Bank Washington, DC
4. Chomitz, K. M., and Lecocq, F., 2004. Temporary sequestration credits:an instrument for carbon bears. Climate Policy, 4 (1)
5. Dutschke, M. 2002. Risk for Forestry Investment under the Clean Development Mechanism. Hamburg, Germany:Hamburg Institute for International Economics.
6. Dutschke, M., 2001. Permanence of CDM Forests or Non-permanence of Land Use Related Carbon Credits? HWWA Discussion Paper 134., HWWA-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung-Hamburg
7. Ellis, J., 2001. Forestry Projects:Permanence, Credit Accounting and Lifetime OECD Environment Directorate and International Energy Agency. Available at http. Information Paper, COM-ENV-EPOC-IEASLT(2001)11.://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/4/58/2467909.pdf
8. Fearnside, P. M., Lashof, D. A., and Moura-Costa, P., 2000. Accounting for time in mitigating global warming. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 5 (3):230–270.
9. 2Fix V.3. Working Paper, Alterra The Netherlands:Wageningen University.
10. Grütter, J. M., 2002. Greenhouse Gases Market Trends:Third Quarter 2002. Grütter Consulting. see WWW.ghgmarket.info
11. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2000. Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry. Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Edited by:Watson, R. T., Noble, I. R., Bolin, B., Ravindranath, N. H., Verardo, D. J., and Dokken, D. J., Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
12. Marland, G., Fruit, K., and Sedjo, R., 2001. Accounting for sequestered carbon:the question of permanence. Environmental Science and Policy, 4:259–268.
13. Michaelowa, A., Stronzik, M., Eckermann, F., and Hunt, A., 2003. Transaction costs of the Kyoto Mechanisms. Climate Policy, 3 (3):261–278.
14. 2 avoided emissions and sequestration:description and applications in forestry. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 5 (1):51–60.
15. Orlando, B., Baldock, D., Canger, S., Mackensen, J., Maginnis, S., Socorro, M., Rietbergen, S., Robledo, C., and Schneider, N., 2002. Carbon, Forests and People:Towards the Integrated Management of Carbon Sequestration, the Environment and Sustainable Livelihoods. Gland, Switzerland:IUCN.
16. PCF. 2000. Validation, Verification and Certification for PCF Projects. Prototype Carbon Fund, Implementation Note No. 4. Washington, DC:World Bank.
17. Smith, J., and Scherr, S. J., 2002. Forest Carbon and Local Livelihoods:Assessment of Opportunities and Policy Recommendations. CIFOR, Occasional Paper No. 37 Bogor, Indonesia
18. Subak, S., 2003. Replacing carbon lost from forests:an assessment of insurance, reserves, and expiring credits. Climate Policy, 3 (2):107–122.
19. UNFCCC. 1997. Decision 2/CP3 Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Third Session, held at Kyoto, 1–11 December 1997. Addendum. Part Two:Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its Third Session, p. 31. Available at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop3/07a01.pdf
20. UNFCCC. 2000. Paper 5:Colombia 23–26. Land-use, land-use change and forestry (LUCF) projects in the CDM:expiring CERs, a proposal to addressing the permanence issues. In:Methodological Issues, FCCC/SBSTA/2000/Misc.8, pp. Available at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2000/sbsta/misc08.pdf
21. UNFCCC. 2002. Paper 8:Denmark on behalf of the European Community and its Member States 38–48. Views from Parties on Issues Related to Modalities for the Inclusion of Afforestation and Reforestation Project Activities Under the CDM in the First Commitment Period, FCCC/SBSTA/2002/Misc.22, pp. Available at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2002/sbsta/misc22.pdf
22. UNFCCC. 2003. Paper 4:Canada Issues related to definitions and modalities for including afforestation and reforestation project activities under the CDM in the first commitment period. In:Methodological Issues:Land use, Land-use Change and Forestry:Definitions and Modalities for Including Afforestation and Reforestation Activities Under Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol, FCCC/SBSTA/2003/L.13. Available at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2003/sbsta/misc05.pdf
23. UNFCCC. 2004. Decision 19/CP9 13–31. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Ninth Session, held at Milan from 1 to 12 December, 2003. Addendum. Part Two:Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its Ninth Session, Bonn, pp. Available at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop9/06a02.pdf
24. Vine, E., Sathaye, J., and Makundi, W., 1999. Guidelines for the Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting, Verification, and Certification of Forestry Projects for Climate Change Mitigation. Report for the US EPA Berkeley, California:Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.