Accounting Approaches

The purpose of this matrix (when elaborated) is to help answer questions that are important for Parties and other interested stakeholders to fully understand the consequences and complexities of different proposed approaches for the accounting of emissions from harvesting and harvested wood products.

An important point about this matrix is that its two dimensional nature does not fully serve the practical reality that answers to many of the questions posed will differ depending on the nature of the international climate change management regime – for example whether the regime is the same or similar to the Kyoto Protocol first commitment period regime, or whether it is broader in its coverage of countries and sources of emissions and removals.

So in practice, to fully serve the purpose for which this is intended, i.e. a comprehensive aid to discussions by Parties, it will be necessary to complete a matrix of this type for each of a range of regime scenarios – or at a minimum identify in the matrix how answers would differ under different regime scenarios.

The issues and questions posed below are often directly inter-related. However to help reveal what might otherwise just be implicit or intuitive (but perhaps not fully obvious or transparent), questions are posed under each of the various issues even if they may stem from the same underlying point.

Issues are divided into four categories:

Environmental outcomes. The significance to the primary objective of the Convention.
Data needs.
Economic outcomes.
Other issues.

The matrix covers five possible inventory/accounting approaches:

IPCC "Default".
Atmospheric Flow.
Change in stocks (forest stocks and wood products stocks).
Production.
Simple decay – producer responsibility.

Issues/questions	IPCC "Default"	Atmospheric Flow	Stock change	Production	Simple Decay
Environmental outcomes (What is the significance to the primary objective of the Convention.) How will the approach change decisions and behaviours of producers and consumers towards more "climate friendly" outcomes (relative to 1990 or a baseline scenario)? e.g. (1) increased use of sustainably produced wood products, (2) reduced use of fossil fuels and emissions intensive product alternatives (3) enhanced lifetimes of wood products i.e. delayed release of CO₂. Does the accounting approach lead to possible increases or decreases in "allowed emissions" either for individual countries or in aggregate – in particular when wood products move across country borders? Does the accounting approach lead to changes in timing of "allowed emissions"? How is this significant in terms of environmental outcomes?
Data needs What data are necessary? How accurate/robust do they need to be (including in terms of environmental outcomes)? Are data available? In all countries? If not currently available, is it reasonable to assume data can be available (in time) with additional efforts? Efforts by whom? What are the cost implications of achieving and maintaining the required level of data collection and reporting? If the data are now only partially available, and this may still be the case in the future, what are the implications of this in terms of the comprehensiveness of the international climate change regime? Put another way, how significant is it to have data gaps (including in terms of environmental outcomes)?
Economic outcomes Does/how does the approach transmit economic signals to support desired environmental outcomes? What other complementary policies and measures might be necessary or helpful to support desired environmental outcomes? Are there economic winners and losers, in particular when wood products cross borders? If so, will this likely be seen as unreasonable or unfair? Can such concerns be mitigated in the negotiations of the overall climate change management regime? What competitiveness issues are raised? Might concerns lead to possible restrictions in the trade of wood products or product alternatives?
Other issues How is the approach consistent with, or different to, how other emission sources are treated? Is this important? How is the approach consistent with, or different to, how other elements of LULUCF or how non-wood products are treated? Is this important? What are the key transition issues? – i.e. in terms of moving from the current situation to a future regime where this approach may be applied? What are the challenges likely to be faced in successfully negotiating an agreement to apply this approach?

Contact for Enquiries

Policy Analyst - Forestry
Innovation and Research
MAF Policy
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND

Tel: +64 4 894 0100
Fax: +64 4 894 0741
Contact this person

Appendix 1: Matrix for Exploring Key Harvesting/Harvested Wood Products Issues Against Various Inventory/Accounting Approaches

Contact for Enquiries

Search Forestry