Options for improving the treatment of LULUCF in a Copenhagen agreement: forest and wetland degradation, factoring out, harvested wood products, and approaches for fuller accounting

The working paper by the Graz Group outlines strategies to enhance the environmental integrity and completeness of LULUCF accounting. It suggests moving toward 'fuller accounting' through activities-based, emissions/removals-based, or land-use-based approaches. Key recommendations include mandatory accounting for forest and peatland degradation, a 'restricted stock-change approach' for harvested wood products to prevent false credits, and policy-based methods for 'factoring out' natural disturbances. The authors argue that current Kyoto Protocol rules allow significant emissions from degradation to go uncounted, particularly in Annex I countries that did not elect Article 3.4.

• The authors propose three distinct conceptual approaches to achieve 'fuller accounting' of LULUCF: Activities-based fuller accounting (ABFA), which expands the current 'bottom-up' activity list; Reporting of emissions/removals-based fuller accounting (RERBFA), a 'top-down minus' approach starting with full UNFCCC reporting; and Land use-based fuller accounting (LUBFA), which focuses on changes in long-term average carbon stocks within or between land-use classes.
• Current Kyoto Protocol rules result in a failure to account for emissions from forest degradation because nearly half of Annex I countries elected not to account for emissions and removals under Article 3.4. The authors recommend making the accounting of emissions from forest degradation mandatory, defining it as any "direct human-induced activity that leads to a long-term reduction in forest carbon stocks."
• Peatland degradation is a major global source of greenhouse gas emissions, yet it often remains unaccounted for in Annex I countries because most did not elect the necessary Article 3.4 activities. The authors propose mandatory accounting for all activities that decrease long-term carbon stocks in peatlands and note that some countries, including Estonia, France, Germany, Latvia, Poland, and Romania, do not report emissions from peatlands or organic soils under the Convention.
• To include harvested wood products (HWP) without creating 'false credits' or rewarding business-as-usual, the authors suggest a 'restricted stock-change approach.' This would limit HWP accounting to countries that also account for forest management effects (Article 3.4) and only for products produced by countries accounting for activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4.
• The document suggests a policy-based approach to 'factoring out' natural and indirect human effects. For emissions, this involves mandatory accounting only for activities that degrade long-term carbon stocks, while excluding natural disturbances. For removals, it suggests voluntary accounting based on carbon response curves or benchmarks to ensure only direct anthropogenic effects are credited.
• There is a systemic risk of underestimating emissions from the conversion of natural forests to managed forests or plantations because national inventories often rely on measurements from younger managed forests rather than older, carbon-rich natural forests.

APA

Henschel, C., Ward, M., Rueter, S., Ashton, R., Bird, N., Frieden, D., Lehtonen, A., Schlamadinger, B., Silvius, M., Tuerk, A., & Zanchi, G. (2008). Options for improving the treatment of LULUCF in a Copenhagen agreement: forest and wetland degradation, factoring out, harvested wood products, and approaches for fuller accounting. Climate Strategies. https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/3-options-for-improving-the-treatment-of-lulucf-in-a-copenhagen-agreement-august-18-2008.pdf

Chicago

Henschel, Chris, Murray Ward, Sebastian Rueter, Ralph Ashton, Neil Bird, Dorian Frieden, Aleksi Lehtonen, et al. Options for improving the treatment of LULUCF in a Copenhagen agreement: forest and wetland degradation, factoring out, harvested wood products, and approaches for fuller accounting. Climate Strategies, 2008. https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/3-options-for-improving-the-treatment-of-lulucf-in-a-copenhagen-agreement-august-18-2008.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Henschel |first1=Chris |last2=Ward |first2=Murray |last3=Rueter |first3=Sebastian |last4=Ashton |first4=Ralph |last5=Bird |first5=Neil |last6=Frieden |first6=Dorian |last7=Lehtonen |first7=Aleksi |last8=Schlamadinger |first8=Bernhard |last9=Silvius |first9=Marcel |display-authors=etal |title=Options for improving the treatment of LULUCF in a Copenhagen agreement: forest and wetland degradation, factoring out, harvested wood products, and approaches for fuller accounting |publisher=Climate Strategies |date=18 August 2008 |url=https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/3-options-for-improving-the-treatment-of-lulucf-in-a-copenhagen-agreement-august-18-2008.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{henschel2008options, author = {Henschel, Chris and Ward, Murray and Rueter, Sebastian and Ashton, Ralph and Bird, Neil and Frieden, Dorian and Lehtonen, Aleksi and Schlamadinger, Bernhard and Silvius, Marcel and Tuerk, Andreas and Zanchi, Giuliana}, title = {{Options for improving the treatment of LULUCF in a Copenhagen agreement: forest and wetland degradation, factoring out, harvested wood products, and approaches for fuller accounting}}, institution = {Climate Strategies}, year = {2008}, month = aug, url = {https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/3-options-for-improving-the-treatment-of-lulucf-in-a-copenhagen-agreement-august-18-2008.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }