A synopsis of land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) under the Kyoto Protocol and Marrakech Accords

The complexities inherent in land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) activities have led to contentious and prolonged debates about the merits of their inclusion in the 2008–2012 first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. Yet the inclusion of these activities played a key role in agreement on the general framework of the Kyoto Protocol, and LULUCF will likely continue to play a substantial part in negotiations on national commitments post-2012. The Marrakech Accords dictate which LULUCF activities are to be included under the Kyoto Protocol and provide rules on how they are to be accounted in the first commitment period. However, these rules have limitations and drawbacks that may be avoided in the structure of future commitments beyond 2012. Through adherence to the objectives of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the incorporation of several critical features, a future framework can more effectively address the mitigation challenges and opportunities of this sector.

[1]  Unfccc Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change , 1997 .

[2]  B. McCarl,et al.  Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in U.S. Agriculture and Forestry , 2001, Science.

[3]  Aviel Verbruggen,et al.  Barriers , Opportunities , and Market Potential of Technologies and Practices , 2001 .

[4]  P. Sands The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change , 1992 .

[5]  Robert J. Scholes,et al.  The Carbon Cycle and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide , 2001 .

[6]  Pete Smith,et al.  Europe's Terrestrial Biosphere Absorbs 7 to 12% of European Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions , 2003, Science.

[7]  Louise Aukland,et al.  A conceptual framework and its application for addressing leakage: the case of avoided deforestation , 2003 .

[8]  K. Lindsay,et al.  Evolution of carbon sinks in a changing climate. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  Pekka E. Kauppi,et al.  Technological and Economic Potential of Options to Enhance , Maintain , and Manage Biological Carbon Reservoirs and Geoengineering , 2022 .

[10]  Sandra A. Brown,et al.  Issues and challenges for forest-based carbon-offset projects: A case study of the Noel Kempff climate action project in Bolivia , 2000 .

[11]  O. Davidson,et al.  Climate change 2001 : mitigation , 2001 .

[12]  L. Greene EHPnet: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change , 2000, Environmental Health Perspectives.

[13]  C. Nobre,et al.  Tropical Deforestation and the Kyoto Protocol , 2005 .

[14]  Rattan Lal,et al.  Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry , 2015 .

[15]  Bruce A. McCarl,et al.  Implications of a Carbon-Based Energy Tax for U.S. Agriculture , 2005, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review.

[16]  R. Betts,et al.  Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model , 2000, Nature.

[17]  Kauppi Technological and Economic Potential of Options to Enhance , Maintain , and Manage Biological Carbon Reservoirs and Geoengineering , 2022 .

[18]  Will Steffen,et al.  Saturation of the terrestrial carbon sink , 2007 .

[19]  Caroline King,et al.  Agriculture and Forestry , 1992 .