Assessing the contribution of harvested wood products under greenhouse gas estimation: accounting under the Paris Agreement and the potential for double-counting among the choice of approaches

Abstract

Background: There are multiple approaches for estimating emissions and removals arising from harvested wood products (HWP) based on differences between when and where a given carbon stock change is calculated. At this moment, countries are free to use any HWP approach to prepare their annual greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory and determine emission reduction targets for their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), although under the Paris Agreement (PA), the production approach is used for standard reporting in GHG inventories. Global double-counting and non-counting of HWP might occur depending on the HWP approach each country uses; however, the impact of such double-counting and non-counting has not been thoroughly evaluated. Results: We identified all cases of global double-counting and non-counting of HWP for combinations of the six HWP approaches: 'instantaneous oxidation' , 'stock-change' , 'production' , 'stock-changes approach for HWP of domestic origin (SCAD)' , 'simple-decay' and 'atmospheric-flow' approaches. In Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), forest land is often partly or completely excluded, especially by developing countries. In such cases, HWP approaches that require comprehensive national data on wood harvesting and trade are not suitable for estimating HWP contributions. In addition, most developing countries apply the 'instantaneous oxidation' at the time of harvesting. Recent GHG inventories from Annex I countries show the averaged contribution of annual HWP emissions or removals to national total emissions is nearly 1%; therefore, the potential contribution of HWP to the accounted emission reduction volume is assumed to be a smaller value. Conclusions: Instantaneous oxidation remains a pragmatic approach for countries in which wood production is not a dominant part of the economy. The combination of 'instantaneous oxidation' with the 'production' , 'SCAD' or 'simpledecay' approaches could be a practical solution to realize a global HWP accounting approach the eliminates doublecounting. Regardless of how global double-counting and non-counting occur, the amount is not large. To improve the accuracy of the global assessment, it is important to reduce the uncertainty of estimation regarding when and how much HWP-related emissions occur at national level.

Applying a science‐based systems perspective to dispel misconceptions about climate effects of forest bioenergy

“…Norton et al, 2019; Searchinger et al, 2009). Decisions on the approach to reporting and accounting for bioenergy and other wood products were informed by consideration of impacts on incentives for forest harvest and trade in wood products, practicality of calculation and data availability (Cowie et al, 2006; Höhne et al, 2007; Houghton et al, 1997 Vol 3; Lim et al, 1999; Penman et al, 2003; Sato & Nojiri, 2019; Schlamadinger et al, 2007). As explained by Rüter et al (2019), emissions associated with wood products including bioenergy may be reported by the producing or consuming country, and may be based on carbon stock change in the forest or in the wood products pool, depending on the approach chosen by each party for reporting of harvested wood products (HWP).…”

“…The issue of incomplete coverage for accounting could potentially have been overcome under the Paris Agreement, as all parties now have targets (their nationally determined contributions, NDCs) against which they are required to account. However, the disparity in sectors and emission sources covered in countries' NDCs, and inconsistency in the HWP accounting approach applied, perpetuates risks of double‐counting or omissions (Rüter et al, 2019; Sato & Nojiri, 2019). Within a country, the forest accounting approach used in the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (2013–2020) allowed a policy‐driven increase in harvest, such as resulting from an increase in bioenergy, to be included in a country's ‘forest management reference level’, and therefore not counted as a debit in the land sector (Grassi et al, 2018).…”

“…We suggest that improvements are required to achieve greater transparency in GHG reporting and accounting related to bioenergy, so that the connections between forest carbon stock change and use of biomass for energy are not overlooked (Cowie et al, 2017; Kurz et al, 2018; Searchinger et al, 2018). But rather than counting bioenergy emissions at the point of combustion, which would inhibit the beneficial use of wood products and forest bioenergy for climate change mitigation, we suggest that rules should ensure that all parties include the land sector comprehensively and transparently in reporting and accounting with respect to their emissions reduction commitments, and apply consistent approaches to ensure that omissions and double‐counting are avoided (Sato & Nojiri, 2019; Schlamadinger et al, 2007). Transparency and measures to prevent double‐counting and perverse incentives are also important considerations in formulation of domestic policies to support national targets for climate action, to avoid bioenergy incentives causing ‘leakage’, inadvertently stimulating loss of forest carbon stock domestically or abroad (Fingerman et al, 2019; Searchinger et al, 2018), or indirectly increasing fossil fuel emissions (Cowie & Gardner, 2007).…”

The climate change mitigation effect of bioenergy from sustainably managed forests in Central Europe

“…Despite this, it remains unclear how the forest sector could be credited for this contribution to climate change mitigation. The Kyoto Protocol allowed accounting for changes in forest carbon stocks as a sink (UNFCCC‐COP3, ) and this was extended in the Durban conference of the parties (UNFCCC‐COP17, ) as well as the Paris Agreement to an additional accounting for carbon in wood products of wood industries (Sato & Nojiri, ; UNFCCC‐COP21, ). Following the definitions of the IPCC Guidelines for carbon sinks and products, the accounting of bioenergy remained a separate issue.…”

Analysis of the Factors Affecting the Choice of Whether to Internalize or Outsource the Task of Greenhouse Gas Inventory Calculations: The Cases of Indonesia, Vietnam, and Thailand

“…Agriculture, forestry, and other land use (AFOLU) sectors are often the primary focus. For example, manure from American dairy farms [3], forest degradation in developing countries [4], broiler husbandry in Portugal [5], coastal wetlands in the United States [6], Canadian managed forest [7], harvested wood products in several countries [8], and drained organic soils in Germany [9] have been recently studied. Analysis in this first subdivision often focuses on developed countries.…”