AUTHORS AND REVIEW EDITORS
Coordinating Lead Authors
Timo Karjalainen (Finland) and Gary Richards (Australia)
Tomas Hernandez (Mexico), Samuel Kainja (Malawi), Gerry Lawson (UK), Shirong Liu (China), and Steve
Prisley (USA)

Lead Authors
Juan Ivar Arana Pardo (Bolivia), Richard Birdsey (USA), Marie Boehm (Canada), Julius Daka (Zambia), Shigeo
Kobayashi (Japan), H. Gyde Lund (USA), Roman Michalak (Poland), and Masamichi Takahashi (Japan)

Review Editors
Dhari Al-Ajmi (Kuwait), Evgeniy Botman (Uzbekistan), Sergio Gonzalez-Martineaux (Chile), Art Jaques(Canada), Ignatius Oluka-Akileng (Uganda), Helen Plume (New Zealand), and Andreas Schulte (Germany)

IPCC Report on Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from
Direct Human-induced Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types

3

Contents

Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

7

PREFACE

8

1

OVERVIEW

91.1

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 9

1.2

Structure of the Report ...................................................................................................................... 10

1.3

Key Findings ..................................................................................................................................... 11

2

OPTIONS FOR DEFINITIONS OF FOREST DEGRADATION AND
DEVEGETATION OF OTHER VEGETATION TYPES

13

2.1

Elements of Definitions..................................................................................................................... 13

2.2

Definitions of Forest Degradation..................................................................................................... 13
2.2.1

Possible Definitions of Forest Degradation and Their Key Features........................................... 13

2.2.2

Example Applications of Definitions of Forest Degradation....................................................... 16

2.3

3

Definitions of Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types................................................................... 17
2.3.1

Possible Definitions of Devegetation and Their Key Features .................................................... 17

2.3.2

Example Applications of Definitions of Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types..................... 20
METHODOLOGICAL OPTIONS FOR ESTIMATING EMISSIONS FROMFOREST DEGRADATION AND DEVEGETATION

21

3.1

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 21

3.2

Approaches to Identification of Land Areas Subject to Forest Degradation and Devegetation ........ 21

3.3

Estimation of Carbon Stock Changes and non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................. 22

3.4

Approaches and Tiers........................................................................................................................ 22

3.5

Quality Assurance / Quality Control ................................................................................................. 22

3.6

Reporting and Documentation .......................................................................................................... 23

4

IMPLICATIONS OF THE DEFINITIONAL OPTIONS FOR FOREST
DEGRADATION AND DEVEGETATION UNDER ARTICLE 3.4 OF
THE KYOTO PROTOCOL

24

4.1

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 24

4.2

Forest Degradation ............................................................................................................................ 24

4.3

Devegetation ..................................................................................................................................... 27

4.4

Methodological Implications of Costs, Scale of Application and Accuracy ..................................... 27

REFERENCES

30

LIST OF REVIEWERS

31

IPCC Report on Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from
Direct Human-induced Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types

5

Figures, Tables, Boxes

FiguresFigure 4.1

Symmetric and incomplete accounting (Case 1) ............................................................... 25

Figure 4.2

Symmetric and incomplete accounting (Case 2) ............................................................... 25

Figure 4.3

Symmetric and incomplete accounting (Case 3) ............................................................... 26

Figure 4.4

Symmetric and complete accounting................................................................................. 26

Figure 4.5

Symmetric and incomplete accounting (Case 4) ............................................................... 27

TablesTable 2.1

Alternative definitions of direct human-induced forest degradation ................................. 14

Table 2.2

Alternative definitions of direct human-induced devegetation of other vegetation types . 18

Boxes

6

Box 2.1

Hypothetical cases illustrating potential forest degradation .............................................. 16

Box 2.2

Hypothetical cases illustrating potential devegetation of other vegetation types .............. 20

IPCC Report on Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from
Direct Human-induced Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types

Acknowledgement

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The success in the preparation of the report on Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions
from Direct Human-Induced Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types has depended
foremost on the knowledge, enthusiasm and co-operation of the 15 Co-ordinating Authors and Lead Authors
worldwide. We wish to thank the authors for the time and effort devoted to the task, as well as the commitment
to the IPCC process.
Review editors have ensured that the process for consideration of the comments has been appropriate. We would
like to thank them for this important task.
UNFCCC Secretariat staff, Roberto Acosta, Claudio Forner and Heikki Granholm participated in the preparationof the report giving background and guidance on issues related to the Convention, the Kyoto Protocol and the
Marrakesh Accords. We wish to thank them for their valuable input.
The Steering Group, consisting of the IPCC TFI Co-chairs Taka Hiraishi and Thelma Krug, and Michael
Gytarsky (Russian Federation), Dina Kruger (USA) and Jim Penman (UK), has guided the work and ensured
internal consistency within the report as well as consistency with the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories. We would like to express our gratitude for their skilful leadership and guidance
throughout the preparation of the report.
Four authors/experts meetings were held in Tampere, Finland; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia;
and Sydney, Australia during the course of preparation of the report. We wish to thank the host countries andhosting organisations for co-organising these meetings.
Two combined government/expert reviews were organised during the preparation report; the first during theperiod 2 December 2002 to 27 January 2003, and the second during 2 May 2003 to 27 June 2003. The comments
have provided additional expertise to the work in a constructive way, and consideration of the comments
improved the drafts considerably. We wish to thank all reviewers for their comments.
The NGGIP Technical Support Unit (TSU Head Riitta Pipatti, Programme Officers Leandro Buendia, Kyoko
Miwa, Todd Ngara, Kiyoto Tanabe and Fabian Wagner, Administrative Assistant Ayako Hongo, Project
Secretary Akiko Kawase, and IT Officer John Lane) provided guidance as well as technical and organisational
support for the project. They worked tirelessly with the authors as they managed the final editing of the report.
We wish to thank them for their hard and competent work.
IPCC Secretariat (Rudie Bourgeois, Annie Courtin and Chantal Ettori) provided assistance for organising themeetings and for the reviews. We wish to thank them for their effort and flexibility in responding to the needs tothe authors and the TSU during the tight schedule.
Last but not least, we wish to thank the IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC Secretary Geoff Love (until
August 2003), Acting Secretary Renate Christ and the Task Force Bureau on Inventories (Co-chairs, and Ian
Carruthers, Soobaraj N. Sok Appadu, Kirit Parikh, Dhari Al-Ajimi, Jamidu Katima, Javier Hanna Figueroa (until
June 2003), Sergio Gonzalez-Martineaux, Art Jaques, Dina Kruger, Helen Plume, Audun Rosland and Saad
Khorfan) for their support, advice and encouragement. We would also like to express our gratitude separately to
the Acting Secretary Renate Christ for her contribution and guidance to the authors during the first two meetingsin preparing this report.

G.O.P. Obasi

K. Töpfer

Secretary-General
World Meteorological Organisation

Executive Director
United Nations Environmental Programme

IPCC Report on Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from
Direct Human-induced Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types

7

Preface

PREFACEThis report on Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from Direct Human-Induced
Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types is the response from the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)1 to an invitation from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC)2 . The report was prepared in cooperation with the preparation of the other report under the
IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme (IPCC-NGGIP), on Good Practice Guidance for Land
Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (GPG-LULUCF).
The report discusses:•

Alternative definitions and provides possible framework definitions for countries to consider;•

Methodological options to inventory emissions from degradation and devegetation activities;•

Approaches to reporting and documentation; and•Implications of methodological and definitional options for accounting under the provisions of Article 3.4 of
the Kyoto Protocol (including issues of scale, costs and accuracy).

Guidance on possible methodologies for estimation of greenhouse gas emissions or removals provided in thisreport draws substantively on the GPG-LULUCF.

1 IPCC was established jointly by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment

Programme (UNEP) to:•

Make periodic assessments of the science, impacts and the socio-economic aspects of climate change and of
adaptation and mitigation options to address it;•
Assess, and develop as necessary, methodologies such as the IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories; and•Provide, on request, scientific/technical/socio-economic advice to the Conference of the Parties to the Unite nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its bodies.
2 Decision 11/CP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) in FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1, paragraph 3(c), page 55.

8

IPCC Report on Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from
Direct Human-induced Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types

Chapter 1: Overview

1 OVERVIEW
1.1

INTRODUCTION

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) at its XIX Session on 17-20 April 2002 responded tothe decision on land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) adopted by the Conference of the Parties(COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at its seventh session(Decision 11/CP.7; Land use, land-use change and forestry) in the Marrakesh Accords (paragraph 3(c))3 which
invites the IPCC:
To develop definitions for direct human-induced ‘degradation’ of forests and ‘devegetation’ of othervegetation types and methodological options to inventory and report on emissions resulting from these
activities, to be submitted for consideration and possible adoption to the Conference of the Parties at its
ninth session.
The IPCC Panel indicated that the work was to produce a methodology report prepared in close cooperation withthe preparation of the report on Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (GPGLULUCF).
The purpose of this report, as indicated by the IPCC Panel in the Terms of Reference for the work (Appendix Jof the Report of the Nineteenth Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), is to “…respond toconcerns that selection of eligible activities under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol could give rise to an
unbalanced accounting if certain types of degradation or devegetation activities are not included. The report
would develop definitions for direct human-induced degradation of forests and devegetation of other vegetation
types, develop methods to inventory emissions from these activities and analyse the implications of different
options to include the accounting of these activities under the provisions of Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol,
including the relation to forest management and revegetation.”
In sum, the report would provide:•

Definitions for direct human-induced degradation of forests and devegetation of other vegetation types4;•

Methodological options to inventory emissions from degradation and devegetation activities;•

Approaches to reporting and documentation; and•Discussion of implications of methodological and definitional options for accounting under the provisions ofArticle 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol (including issues of scale, costs and accuracy).

The report provides advice on alternative definitions that may be applied to the degradation of forests anddevegetation of other vegetation types and their implications. These are specific in the context of reporting ofgreenhouse gas emissions from land use, land-use change and forestry activities under the Kyoto Protocol but
recognise that the final form of the definitions will need to encapsulate policy choices that are yet to be made byParties (e.g. on parameter choices and whether only carbon or a range of forest values may be ‘degraded’).
Key features of the definitions should:•

Enable the identification of relevant land areas;•

Specify the values to be considered (e.g. carbon only or broader values) and therefore relevant practices;•

Be harmonised with definitions in the GPG-LULUCF and, to the extent possible, other international
reporting frameworks;•

Be measurable and quantifiable; and•Be unambiguous and as free of subjective interpretation as possible.

3 Seeparagraph 3 (c) in the decision 11/CP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in
FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1, p.55.

4 In this Report, "degradation of forests" may be referred to as "forest degradation" or simply "degradation" where no

confusion is likely to occur. Similarly "devegetation of other vegetation types" may be referred to as "devegetation". These
shortened forms have been adopted to improve readability and are not intended to modify the scope of the phrases includedin the Marrakesh Accords.

IPCC Report on Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from
Direct Human-induced Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types

9

Chapter 1: Overview

Methodologies can be refined once Parties clarify the preferred final form of the definition on the basis of theframework set out here. In general, the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories(IPCC Guidelines)5, the IPCC Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories (GPG2000)6 and the GPG-LULUCF should already provide the basis for methodologies oncethe policy choices have been made. The scale of effect will clearly vary with the final choice of definitions;however, there appears to be little available information upon which to determine the potential scale of
implications, though this may change as Parties’ elected choices become clear.
The degree of unbalanced or incomplete accounting will also affect the implications of methodological options
for forest degradation and devegetation. In general unbalanced accounting may occur if all emissions andremovals are not reported. This may be due to incomplete accounting, which occurs if the area (e.g. of managed
forest elected under Articles 3.3 and 3.4) is different from the area where relevant activities occur (e.g. the full
extent of managed forest), or asymmetric accounting (where some emissions and/or removals are not accounted
within the area included); the former may have implications for area coverage whilst the latter does not.
A specific issue raised by the IPCC Panel was a need to consider the potential for “unbalanced” accounting tooccur through an election/non-election of eligible activities under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol. Unbalanced
accounting refers to a situation where emissions and removals from relevant pools and lands are not all reported.
Asymmetric accounting refers to unbalance only within an accounting framework, and includes also incomplete
accounting that may occur by exclusion of emissions or removals outside of an accounting framework.
Situations that may have the potential for unbalanced accounting include:•

Where emissions and removals are selectively reported from lands within the accounting framework. (Theresultant emissions and removals occurring outside the framework do not impact on balance within theaccounting framework.) This would lead to asymmetric accounting7.

•

Where selective application of the accounting framework leads to net resultant emissions or removals thatare not reported. This is incomplete accounting.

In sum, “unbalanced accounting” could occur if the accounting is “asymmetric” or “incomplete” or both.
However, the “incompleteness” is not a sufficient condition for “unbalanced accounting”, since the accounting
could be incomplete but balanced where no selective bias has been introduced.

1.2

STRUCTURE OF THE REPORTThe chapters of this report are organised as follows:
Chapter 1 Overview
This chapter provides a summary of the key findings of this report.
Chapter 2 Options for Definitions of Forest Degradation and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types
This chapter provides a discussion on the elements of definitions (Section 2.1) leading to fivealternative definitions of forest degradation (Section 2.2) and four alternatives for devegetation of othervegetation types (Section 2.3). Examples are provided and framework definitions are suggested for
discussion by Parties.
Chapter 3 Methodological Options for Estimating Emissions from Forest Degradation and Devegetation
This chapter provides a discussion on methodological approaches that may be used to estimate annualchanges in carbon stocks and emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases caused by direct human-induced
forest degradation and devegetation activities, and then considers possible methodologies for such
estimation, substantively drawing upon Chapter 3 of the GPG-LULUCF. This chapter covers

5 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (1997). J.T. Houghton, L.G. Meira Filho, B. Lim, K. Treanton, I.

Mamaty, Y. Bonduki, D.J. Griggs and B.A. Callander (Eds). Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Inventories. IPCC/OECD/IEA, Paris, France.
6 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2000). J. Penman, D. Kruger, I. Galbally, T. Hiraishi, B. Nyenzi, S.

Emmanuel, L. Buendia, R. Hoppaus, T. Martinsen, J. Meijer, K. Miwa and K. Tanabe (Eds). Good Practice Guidance andUncertainty Management. IPCC/OECD/IEA, Hayama, Japan.
7 See page 55, “Chapter 2 – Implications of Relevant Definitions and Generic Issues” Executive Summary;Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2000). Land use, Land-use Change, and Forestry: A Special Report,
R. Watson et al. (Eds.), Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK.

10

IPCC Report on Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from
Direct Human-induced Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types

Chapter 1: Overview

approaches to identification of land areas subject to forest degradation and devegetation (Section 3.2),
estimation methods (Sections 3.3), approaches and tiers (Section 3.4), quality assurance/quality control(Section 3.5) and reporting and documentation (Section 3.6).
Chapter 4 Implications of Definitional Options for Forest Degradation and Devegetation under Article 3.4 of
the Kyoto Protocol
This chapter discusses circumstances in which LULUCF accounting and reporting could be unbalanced
and how the proposed accounting for forest degradation and devegetation of other vegetation types may
address this, and the costs of accounting (including inventorying and reporting) for forest degradationand devegetation of other vegetation types. The potential scale of any unbalanced accounting for Annex
I Parties under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol, and therefore the potential scale of emissions andremovals reported under forest degradation and devegetation of other vegetation types are also
discussed.

1.3

KEY FINDINGSThis report provides the principles and the framework for the development of final definitions of forest
degradation and devegetation of other vegetation types. There are numerous definitions of degradation in use;nearly 50 published definitions were reviewed in this work. Only three published definitions of devegetation
could be found. None of these existing definitions was found to be directly suitable for operational use in thecontext of the Kyoto Protocol, because they either lacked quantifiable thresholds or were not applicable todescribing changes in carbon stocks.
Specific guidance on methodological options and the scale of forest degradation and devegetation of othervegetation types cannot be provided in advance of determination of finalised definitions, mainly because:i.

The intensity of emissions per unit of land will depend on the carbon stocks available for release andthe degree and nature of application of the process that causes either emissions or removals.

ii.

Despite review of the extensive range of international reporting instruments, none contain reporting ofactivities similar to those described as forest degradation and devegetation of other vegetation types inthis report.

iii.

It is not known what land areas may fall outside of any countries’ accounting framework. This depends
on the election of eligible activities under Article 3.4 and the extent of land covered by the elected
activities.

Nevertheless, some conclusions regarding scale were drawn:i.

Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol affects only Annex I Parties that are generally otherwise involved in arange of international initiatives and reporting arrangements for forests, e.g. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Forest Resources Assessments, Montreal Process and PanEuropean Process. Most report the overall sustainability of forest management on a national scale andhave in place Forest Codes of Practice that provide for sustainability at stand and regional scales andthis is likely to limit the scale of forest degradation in this context.

ii.

No similar consistent reporting or policy framework exists that is relevant to devegetation of othervegetation types to help to indicate the scale or extent of activity, though the focus on Forest Codes ofPractice will limit the former.

Regarding the potential for unbalanced accounting to arise from the election of eligible activities under Article
3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol and the potential role for forest degradation and devegetation of other vegetation types
reporting, the following conclusions were drawn:i.

If forest management is elected then all emissions and removals on the areas of land covered will bereported in a symmetrical way. For areas of forest not included in the area of land reported for forest
management or activities under Article 3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol, no emissions or removals arereported. A net emission or removal on these lands may occur, but this will not affect the symmetrical
reporting of land drawn into the accounting framework.

ii.

If forest management is not elected then no forest emissions or removals are reported (outside of thosereported under Article 3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol) and balanced reporting within the accounting
framework is achieved. The result of emissions and removals from forests not included under Article
3.3 or not elected under Article 3.4 will not be included in the accounting framework.

IPCC Report on Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from
Direct Human-induced Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types

11

Chapter 1: Overview

iii.

In regard to the election or non-election of forest management, any emissions or removals occurring on
managed land outside the accounting framework would be reported in national inventories under the
UNFCCC.

iv.

If revegetation is not elected then no emissions or removals associated with this activity are reported
and reporting is balanced within the accounting framework.

v.

If revegetation is elected then all emissions and removals from the areas of land covered are reported ina symmetrical way. However, as the inclusion of lands is based on “direct human-induced activity that
increases carbon stock” the reporting will, at least initially, be influenced towards removals, giving rise
to potential unbalanced accounting in the short term.

vi.

Approaches exist to identify areas of land subject to forest degradation and devegetation.

12

IPCC Report on Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from
Direct Human-induced Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types

Chapter 2: Options for Definitions of Forest Degradation and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types

2 OPTIONS FOR DEFINITIONS OF FOREST
DEGRADATION AND DEVEGETATION OF
OTHER VEGETATION TYPESThis chapter discusses and describes options for defining direct human-induced forest degradation anddevegetation of other vegetation types and provides examples of activities that may lead to forest degradation or
devegetation of other vegetation types. Hypothetical situations will be framed to illustrate the implications ofdifferent definitional options.
The options for definitions of forestry and land use terms discussed in this document are of course meant to be
applied in the context of the Kyoto Protocol and may not be completely consistent with other uses of these terms.

2.1

ELEMENTS OF DEFINITIONS

The definitions chosen for forest degradation and devegetation of other vegetation types will affect how easy it
is to inventory emissions. Definitions, in the context of the Kyoto Protocol, should:
1.

Relate to direct human-induced changes in carbon stocks. They may include other values and attributes offorests or other vegetation types, but should at least include carbon stock changes in all relevant pools andemissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases.

2.

Rely on quantitative, objective standards, and therefore should contain terms that are “measurable” or“detectable”. Ideal definitions would be unambiguous and would support inventorying and reporting in arigorous, verifiable, and transparent manner.

3.

Be easy to apply with consistency across a wide range of biomes and relevant vegetation types. They should
recognise that the technological feasibility to detect absolute carbon stock changes might vary across biomes.

4.

To the extent possible, be consistent with established definitions such as those employed by the UNFCCC, theKyoto Protocol, the Marrakesh Accords, and other widely used definitions such as those adopted by the FAO.

5.

Reflect the availability of technically feasible methodological options for estimating and reporting emissions.

6.

For forest degradation, specify that the long-term reduction in carbon stocks be such that the forest cover,height, and area are not reduced sufficiently to reclassify the land as non-forest under the definition acceptedin the Marrakesh Accords. That is, the definition should provide a distinction between forest degradationand deforestation.

7.

For devegetation of other vegetation types possibly mirror the definition of revegetation or perhaps
deforestation.

8.

Distinguish between long-term decline and temporal variability due to management or natural disturbance.

9.

Should provide reference points such as baseline time frames, thresholds for vegetation removal, and levelsof absolute or relative carbon stock changes.

10. Provide an agreed set of variables/indicators (and their proxies if necessary) that are measurable/detectablewithin the time frame of interest, and can be consistently applied.
The definitions may include an area threshold. If not included explicitly in a definition, area thresholds may need
to be specified in accounting guidelines or it becomes difficult to define land areas that require an inventory ofemissions and removals of greenhouse gases.

2.2

DEFINITIONS OF FOREST DEGRADATION

2.2.1

Possible Definitions of Forest Degradation and Their Key
FeaturesDefining forest degradation is complex. There are numerous definitions in use that may provide little utility forthe purposes of inventorying and reporting greenhouse gas emissions. In addition to the definition of “degraded
forests” given in the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC

IPCC Report on Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from
Direct Human-induced Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types

13

Chapter 2: Options for Definitions of Forest Degradation and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types

Guidelines; IPCC, 1997), degradation in a forest environment could be applied to forest productivity (products
and services), genes, tree vigour and quality, species composition, soils, water, nutrients and the landscape. As
widely used by forest scientists, forest degradation implies a long-term loss of productivity that is difficult toassess, especially when applied to soils, water, and the landscape. However, it is possible to have productivity
impairment without substantial carbon loss, and it is possible to have carbon loss (e.g. thinning) without
productivity impairment. A change in species composition may not degrade a forest in terms of productivity. In
addition, several of the existing definitions of forest degradation are not restricted to human-induced activities.
Lastly, normal forest management operations such as thinning, harvest and regeneration, while reducing the
canopy cover, may not reduce the productivity or carbon storage capacity of the forest, and in fact may increase
it. Thus, overstorey reduction alone may not entail forest degradation.
Several possible definitions of forest degradation are presented in Table 2.1. These definitions reflect a variety
of definitional forms and features among existing and proposed definitions of forest degradation. Numbers 2 and
4 are drawn from other organisations and processes, the others are based on discussions between the authors in
the light of review comments.
TABLE 2.1
ALTERNATIVE DEFINITIONS OF DIRECT HUMAN-INDUCED FOREST DEGRADATION
Definition

Methodological Implications(1) A direct human-induced lossof forest values (particularly
carbon), likely to be
characterised by a reduction oftree crown cover. Routine
management from whichcrown cover will recover
within the normal cycle offorest management operations
is not included.

Land Area Identification(2) Changes within the forests thatnegatively affect the structure
or function of the stand andsite, and thereby lower thecapacity to supply products
and/or services.

•

Use of “crown cover” leads to readily identifiable land areas for monitoring
and verification purposes.

•

Not all losses of forest values result in tree crown cover loss.

Emissions Estimation•

It is difficult to identify and separate routine or normal management
operations.

General•“Forest values” go beyond those relevant to emissions reporting and might berelatively difficult to define and quantify.

•

This definition restricts changes to those that are direct human-induced.

Land Area Identification•

It is not technically feasible to implement identification of land areas.

Emissions Estimation•

Change in structure or function may not be accompanied by change in carbon
stock.

General(3) Direct human-induced activity
that leads to a long-term
reduction in forest carbon
stocks.

•This is the FAO definition of forest degradation cited in the report on theExpert Meeting on Harmonization of Forest-related Definitions for Use by
Various Stakeholders, Rome, 23-25 January 2002
(UNEP/CBD/COP/6/INF/26).

•

Degradation as defined may not be human-induced.

•“Products and/or services” go beyond those values relevant to emissions
reporting.

•This definition includes changes that may be temporary.

Land Area Identification•

This definition provides no basis for identifying land areas affected bydegradation.

Emissions Estimation•

This definition explicitly links to change in carbon stocks.

General•14This definition specifies change in carbon stock is direct human-induced, andlong-term, not temporary. “Long-term” requires interpretation.

IPCC Report on Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from
Direct Human-induced Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types

Chapter 2: Options for Definitions of Forest Degradation and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types

TABLE 2.1 (CONTINUED)
ALTERNATIVE DEFINITIONS OF DIRECT HUMAN-INDUCED FOREST DEGRADATION
Definition

Methodological Implications(4) The long-term reduction of theoverall potential supply of
benefits from the forest, which
includes carbon, wood,biodiversity and any otherproduct or service.

Land Area Identification•

This definition provides no basis for identifying areas affected by degradation.

Emissions Estimation•

Consideration of forest values beyond carbon stocks is required.

General(5) The overuse or poor
management of forests that
leads to long-term reduced
biomass density (carbon
stocks).

•This definition follows recommendations from the FAO’s second expert
meeting on harmonizing forest-related definitions for use by various
stakeholders (11-13 September 2002 in Rome). See the proceedings of theExpert Meeting on Harmonization of Forest-related Definitions for Use by
Various Stakeholders.

•

It is impossible to quantify/verify a reduction in “potential supply of benefits”.

•

This definition represents a broad set of values that would encourage acomprehensive treatment of forest values.

•

Comprehensive treatment going beyond those relevant to emissions reportingmight be relatively difficult to define and quantify.

•

This definition does not specify it is direct human-induced.

Land Area Identification•

Determining overuse and poor management practices creates difficulty in
identifying those areas to be reported and in estimating emissions.

Emissions Estimation•

This definition only explicitly links to change in “biomass” carbon stocks.

General•This definition parallels the definition of “degraded forest” in the IPCC
Guidelines.

•

This definition specifies change in carbon stock is direct human-induced, andlong-term, not temporary. “Long-term” requires interpretation.

•“Overuse” and “poor management” imply direct human-induced.

It is apparent from the alternative definitions in Table 2.1 how specific terms and phrases may affect theimplementation of emissions inventory and reporting. Some of the concepts that surface in these definitions
include:Canopy change: Changes in forest structure that are not directly related to observable changes in
canopy cannot be detected by remote sensing. Remote sensing remains one of the most efficient meansof detecting activities across broad spatial extents that impact forests. For example, only two recent
publications describe monitoring of forest degradation, and both appear to use tree cover as a surrogate
for degradation (Lambin 1999; Gier and Hussin 1995).
Ambiguous terms: Forest degradation defined by terms such as “potential supply of benefits” or “poormanagement” requires subjective decisions to determine whether a candidate area has been subjected todegradation. Furthermore, reductions in potential supplies of benefits can be achieved by legislation or
regulation (for example, by restricting access to the services a forest can provide). Therefore, suchdefinitions can imply that forests might be degraded (or the reverse) by fiat, without any corresponding
biological or physical changes.
Carbon stocks: Estimating emissions from changes in forest structure involves an assessment of carbon
pools as elaborated in Chapter 3 of the GPG-LULUCF, implying that definitions not relating to carbon
stocks may be less helpful in framing methodologies for inventory and reporting of emissions. In
addition, definitions framed for example in terms of production impairment count as degradation
situations in which there are no discernable carbon stock changes or emissions of non-CO2 greenhousegases, and conversely may exclude forests with substantial emissions.

IPCC Report on Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from
Direct Human-induced Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types

15

Chapter 2: Options for Definitions of Forest Degradation and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types

Other forest values: Definitions that allude to multiple forest benefits may encourage a morecomprehensive treatment of forest values, but may prove exceedingly difficult to implement in aconsistent, transparent manner.
Long-term effects: While restriction of forest degradation to situations exhibiting long-term effects is
helpful to exclude annual variability and normal management, it requires that “long-term effects” be
specified. In some cases, operationalisation of definitions including “long-term effects” may require theprediction or estimation of whether observed changes would persist for a specified duration.
Exclusion of deforestation: For the purposes of the Kyoto Protocol, it makes sense to ensure that thedefinition of forest degradation is not construed as including deforestation as defined in the Marrakesh
Accords.
Source of degradation: To maintain consistency with other definitions applied to the Kyoto Protocol,
forest degradation should be limited to results from direct human-induced processes, activities, andpractices.
Minimum area threshold: The Marrakesh Accords define forest as comprising “a minimum area of 0.05
to 1.0 hectare with tree crown cover (or equivalent stocking level) of more than 10-30 percent…”.
Forest degradation, being limited to forests, therefore embodies a concept of a minimum area. However,activities that cause forest degradation may occur in isolated portions of a forest, so it might be helpful
to clarify the minimum area impacted by activities within a forest in defining forest degradation.
Biomass: Defining forest degradation based on changes in biomass may be the most straightforward to
implement and can be directly related to estimates of all relevant forest carbon pools.
In fact none of the alternative definitions in Table 2.1 fully meets the desired characteristics of a definition offorest degradation that can be effectively operationalised. In the context of the Kyoto Protocol, a framework fora definition of forest degradation that meets the criteria discussed could be:
A direct human-induced long-term loss (persisting for X years or more) of at least Y% of forest carbon stocks[and forest values] since time T and not qualifying as deforestation or an elected activity under Article 3.4 of the
Kyoto Protocol.
It would remain to specify an area threshold if desired, as well as time and carbon loss thresholds in order tooperationalise such a definition.

2.2.2

Example Applications of Definitions of Forest Degradation

To illustrate how some of the example definitions and elements might be interpreted in specific instances, somehypothetical examples are useful. The situations in Box 2.1 might commonly be perceived as forest degradation,
but show that this could be hard to detect, and application of various definitions could lead to differing results.
BOX 2.1
HYPOTHETICAL CASES ILLUSTRATING POTENTIAL FOREST DEGRADATION

Case A: “High-grading”. A logging operation in a dense, mixed-age, mixed-species forest
removes approximately 40% of existing crown cover. Residual crown cover isapproximately 60%. Trees are selected for removal based purely on highest economic
value, with no care or planning given to regeneration or to the health of residual trees.
Mechanical logging and temporary road construction is conducted in such a way thatconsiderable damage to the residual forest results.
Case B: “Overgrazing”. An open forest (approximately 40% crown cover) is heavily grazed bylivestock. Grazing intensity is at a level that has prevented regeneration of tree species ordesirable understorey species. Soil compaction and bark stripping are expected to reduce
the growth of forest trees over the long term.
Case C: “Human incursion”. As a local human population expands, people have begun building
dwellings and roads in a forest. Canopy loss at present is minimal; only very small-scale
clearing has occurred. However, human impacts on the forest are increasing as more nontimber forest products are being extracted and selected trees of desirable species are
harvested for economic returns.

16

IPCC Report on Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from
Direct Human-induced Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types

Chapter 2: Options for Definitions of Forest Degradation and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types

The case of high-grading (Case A) represents an activity that should be detectable by remote sensing, activity
reporting (assuming the logging was legal), and forest sampling. There is an immediate and measurable impact
in the loss of forest carbon stocks. Longer-term impacts might include reduced biodiversity through the removalof certain species and prevention of their regeneration. Water and soil erosion may occur when mechanicallogging is done on steep slopes, further degrading the long-term productivity of the site. In addition, damage toresidual trees could be expected to result in mortality and/or growth loss, creating a longer-duration carbon
impact. These long-term effects would be difficult to predict quantitatively. Since residual tree cover is high(60%), deforestation would not have occurred (unless perhaps a very small area threshold for forest wereapplied). If the activity as described were considered part of normal forest management, then a clause such as theone in the alternative definition (1) in Table 2.1 would exclude this activity from degradation.
In the case of overgrazing (Case B), it is expected that most remote sensing systems would be unable to detect
this activity. Depending on the resolution of the remote sensing imagery, the season, and the degree ofunderstorey vegetation removal, the lack of tree canopy impact may obscure the activity from aerial detection.
Even ground sampling may not be able to detect this activity unless grazing impacts were severe. There is no
immediate carbon stock change in the tree biomass, so standard approaches to estimating forest carbon stocks
would show no change. Furthermore, definitions based on a carbon stock loss may not consider this situation acase of degradation. Longer-term impacts of reduced biodiversity in the understorey and growth loss due todamaged trees and compacted soils would be extremely difficult to quantify. This case also illustrates thechallenge of defining land areas for emissions reporting.
Finally, in the case of human incursion into forested areas (Case C), the case represents a possible precursor to
deforestation through land-use change (from forest to human settlements). As long as the tree crown coverthreshold for “forest” as applied by the country has not been crossed, it can be reasoned that deforestation has
not occurred. However, as in Case A, there is a detectable level of carbon stock changes (observable throughremote sensing, forest sampling, or perhaps activity reporting). The immediate loss of carbon stocks in thelimited clearing might be expected to remain. Additional longer-term carbon stock loss is likely but is difficult topredict. Also, in this case the short-term level of forest values (goods and services actually used) has likely
increased, not decreased. Therefore, under the alternative definition (4) in Table 2.1, this activity would beconsidered to be forest degradation only if substantial long-term adverse impacts are predicted.

2.3

DEFINITIONS OF DEVEGETATION OF OTHER
VEGETATION TYPES

2.3.1

Possible Definitions of Devegetation and Their Key Features

There are very few published definitions of devegetation and they are essentially the corollaries of deforestation.
While the Marrakesh Accords do not define devegetation, they do define revegetation as “...a direct humaninduced activity to increase carbon stocks on sites through the establishment of vegetation that covers aminimum area of 0.05 hectares and does not meet the definitions of afforestation and reforestation….”8
Therefore, several options for defining devegetation could be considered – including one as a corollary to
deforestation and others as the reverse of revegetation (Table 2.2).

8 See paragraph 1 (e) in the Annex to draft decision -/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in

FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1, p.56.

IPCC Report on Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from
Direct Human-induced Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types

17

Chapter 2: Options for Definitions of Forest Degradation and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types

TABLE 2.2
ALTERNATIVE DEFINITIONS OF DIRECT HUMAN-INDUCED DEVEGETATION OF OTHER VEGETATION TYPES
Definition

Methodological Implications(1) A direct human-induced
activity to decreasecarbon stocks on sites
through the removal ofvegetation that covers aminimum area of 0.05
hectare and does not meetthe definitions ofdeforestation or forest
degradation.

Land Area Identification•
Minimum area specification (0.05 hectare) comes from the revegetation definition.
Emissions Estimation•
This definition is related to carbon stock changes.
General•This definition is the reverse of revegetation, and there is no removal thresholdspecified, though in practice there would be a minimum detectable level for
decreases set by the sampling. The effect is to consider the degrading of carbon
stocks in non-forest vegetation cover.
•(2) A direct human-induced
activity that decreases
carbon stocks throughchanges in vegetation on
non-forest land over an
area of 0.05 hectare or
greater. Changes within
normal management
cycles are not included.

(3) A direct human-induced
activity that decreases
carbon stocks on sites
through the reduction ofvegetation that covers aminimum area of 0.05
hectare and does not meetthe definition of
deforestation.

(4) The direct human-induced
conversion of othervegetated land to nonvegetated land.
(Deforestationequivalent).

While not explicitly stated, the intention is to be applied to non-forest land.

Land Area Identification•
Area threshold is applied to the area of vegetation change.
•

It is necessary to specify the level of vegetation “change” that leads to a decreasein carbon stocks (complete removal of vegetation, change down to a threshold, or
any change).

Emissions Estimation•
This definition is related to carbon stock changes.
General•This definition excludes temporal changes related to normal management, although
presents a difficulty in identifying normal management cycles.
•

This definition applies to vegetated land not defined as forest land.

•

As with the alternative definition (1) above, there would be a minimum detectablelevel for decreases set by the sampling.

Land Area Identification•
Area threshold is applied to the area of vegetation change.
•

Minimum area specification (0.05 hectare) comes from the revegetation definition.
To operationalise this definition, the amount of “reduction” needs to be defined(e.g. complete removal of vegetation, reduction to a threshold, or any reduction).

Emissions Estimation•
This definition is related to carbon stocks.
General•This definition is identical to the alternative definition (1) in this table except for
the use of “reduction” in place of “removal”, and the exclusion of forest degradation.
•

Because this definition applies to all lands except for deforestation, it could
conceivably be applied to instances of forest degradation.

•

As with the alternative definition (1) there would be a minimum detectable levelfor decreases set by the sampling

Land Area Identification•
No area specification is provided for what constitutes other vegetated land.
•

The change in land cover would facilitate identifying relevant areas.

•

To operationalise this definition, a definition of vegetated land (e.g. foliage coverof at least X%) is required.

Emissions Estimation•
This definition is based on land cover change, not carbon stocks.
General•18This definition parallels deforestation, providing clear thresholds (not present inrevegetation) that trigger inclusion within the accounting framework. Vegetatedareas, which are temporarily unstocked as a result of human intervention but will
recover, are not necessarily excluded.

IPCC Report on Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from
Direct Human-induced Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types

Chapter 2: Options for Definitions of Forest Degradation and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types

The alternative definitions given in Table 2.2 differ in terms of their implications for greenhouse gas emissions
accounting and reporting from activities that cause devegetation. Concepts that should be considered in assessing
differences among the definitions include:
Other vegetation types: “Other vegetation types” means areas covered with vegetation other than forest.
There is an issue as to how much cover is needed for an area to be considered vegetated. FAO uses 4%
for classifying lands as vegetated while some countries have different thresholds. The thresholds should
be similar to those for forest defined in the Marrakesh Accords – i.e. 10-30% cover.
Carbon stocks: Definitions of devegetation of other vegetation types based on decreases in carbon
stocks relate most directly to assessment of changes in carbon pools and emissions and removals ofgreenhouse gases. The ability to use remote sensing to detect decreases in carbon stocks will varydepending on how the decreases in carbon stocks are defined (i.e., changes in vegetation types,
reductions in vegetation, or removal of vegetation as in definitions (1) to (3) in Table 2.2). Remotesensing offers efficient methods for detecting change across the large spatial areas required for nationalemissions inventory and reporting. Defining decreases in carbon stocks as a “change” in vegetation may
have different implications for detection by remote sensing than a “reduction” or “removal” ofvegetation.
Reduction/removal/change threshold: In order to identify land affected by a “reduction” or “removal”
or “change” of vegetation, or a change in vegetation type, thresholds of “reduction” or “removal” or“change” have to be defined. Thresholds should constitute a reduction/removal/change large enough to
be detectable and measurable. The thresholds may be defined with reference to a baseline, in whichcase “reductions”, “removals” or “changes” would be defined relative to the baseline condition. For
example, the baseline condition could be a percentage of vegetation cover for a specific biome, regionor land use that constitutes “vegetated”.
Minimum area threshold: The Marrakesh Accords define revegetation as the establishment ofvegetation on a minimum area of 0.05 hectare. It may be useful to define a minimum area threshold fordevegetation of other vegetation types. Revegetation/devegetation of other vegetation types accounting
is most likely to be balanced if they share a common minimum area threshold.
Long-term effects: The definition of devegetation of other vegetation types will be easier to implement
if changes/removal/reduction in vegetation is defined as long-term and relative to a starting point. By
referencing a starting point and the number of years that are considered long-term, devegetation
represents a trend of decline in carbon stocks rather than periodic reductions in vegetation from which
the system will recover. For example, within an annual cycle, carbon stocks could decline during
grazing periods, but recover or exceed the initial condition on average over time.
Exclusion of deforestation or Article 3.4 activities: For the purposes of the Kyoto Protocol, it makes
sense to ensure that the definition of devegetation of other vegetation types is not construed as including
deforestation or activities under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol (as defined in the Marrakesh Accords)
but can be applied to all other lands.
Devegetation of other vegetation types could be defined as the reciprocal of revegetation (the alternative
definitions (1) to (3) in Table 2.2) or as the counterpart to deforestation (the alternative definition (4) in Table
2.2). As noted in Table 2.2, to operationalise a deforestation-equivalent definition of devegetation of othervegetation types would require that vegetated land be defined, in the same way that forest is defined, because thechange from vegetated land to devegetated land would be achieved by crossing specified thresholds, which may
make detection relatively easy, but devegetation of other vegetation types would then be based on changes inland cover rather than on changes in carbon stocks.
None of the alternative definitions in Table 2.2 fully meets the criteria for a definition of devegetation of othervegetation types that would be practical to implement or operationalise. A framework definition thatcharacterises devegetation of other vegetation types in the context of the Kyoto Protocol and practicality wouldbe:
A direct human-induced long-term loss (persisting for X years or more) of at least Y% of vegetation[characterized by cover / volume / carbon stocks] since time T on vegetation types other than forest and not
subject to an elected activity under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol. Vegetation types consist of a minimum areaof land of Z hectares with foliar cover of W%.
It remains for the Parties to specify area thresholds, as well as time, reduction/removal thresholds, referencing
point and biomass cover threshold for other vegetation types in order to operationalise such a definition.

IPCC Report on Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from
Direct Human-induced Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types

19

Chapter 2: Options for Definitions of Forest Degradation and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types

2.3.2

Example Applications of Definitions of Devegetation of
Other Vegetation Types
BOX 2.2
HYPOTHETICAL CASES ILLUSTRATING POTENTIAL DEVEGETATION OF OTHER VEGETATION TYPES

Case A: “Shrub suppression”. The vegetative community of a grazing land includes shrubs thatcover 40% of that area. To improve the quality of the land for cattle grazing, the area isburned. The annual and grassy vegetation types return, but there is a decline in carbon
stocks. After burning, the land is vulnerable to soil erosion until vegetation cover is reestablished.
Case B: “Overgrazing”. A grassland is heavily stocked with livestock so that grazing intensity
exceeds the capacity of the vegetation to recover, causing changes to the vegetation
community, which can lead to a decline in soil carbon stocks. There is an increase in bareground and the risk of soil loss due to erosion.
Case C: “Human incursion”. Expansion of human populations increases the amount of land
taken up by dwellings, communities and roads in grassland. Devegetation can also occur
if large herds of grazing livestock accompany the human incursion or if the grassland iscultivated for production of annual crops.
Case A, shrub suppression, represents a type of devegetation activity that should be detectable with remotesensing methods, activity reporting, and vegetation sampling. Shrub removal is immediate and measurable andrepresents a loss of aboveground organic carbon stocks. Longer-term impacts might include reduced biodiversity
through the removal of shrubby species types, as well as changes in other vegetation types caused by fire. In thelong-term, it is difficult to predict or quantify the magnitude of effect. Whether the grazing land recovers to theextent that there is no long-term change in carbon stocks will depend on how the land is managed after the shrub
suppression.
Overgrazing, (Case B), would probably be more difficult to detect with remote sensing systems, unless thechange was from very high to very low ground cover over a short time. More gradual or less severe overgrazing
may not be detectable even with ground sampling. Long-term reductions in aboveground biomass will cause
corresponding declines in soil carbon, and may also be associated with increased rates of soil erosion. Because
overgrazing can occur episodically, it may be difficult to know whether detection of reduced vegetation due tograzing at any point in time represents “overgrazing” and devegetation. This case illustrates the difficulty inseparating what is short-term and part of normal management from activities like overgrazing that cause longterm decline in carbon stocks and identify the land as devegetated.
Human incursion into a grassland (Case C) represents a possible precursor to land-use change (from grassland tohuman settlements). The conversion of grassland to roads or settlements is likely to reduce vegetation beyond a
devegetation threshold that is detectable and measurable with remote sensing, sampling or activity reporting.
Increased human proximity to the land could increase risks, such as fire, that could also result in large-scale andeasily detectable losses of carbon. Other types of general human use of the land might cause vegetation losses
that are less easy to detect or predict.

20

IPCC Report on Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from
Direct Human-induced Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types

Chapter 3: Methodological Options for Estimating Emissions from Forest Degradation and Devegetation

3 METHODOLOGICAL OPTIONS FOR
ESTIMATING EMISSIONS FROM FOREST
DEGRADATION AND DEVEGETATIONThis chapter discusses methodological approaches that may be used to estimate annual changes in carbon stocks
and emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases caused by direct human-induced forest degradation anddevegetation activities. The relationship to the activities under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol (i.e. cropland
management, grazing land management, forest management and revegetation), and to non-CO2 emissions fromagricultural soils is addressed taking into account relevant material from the IPCC Guidelines, the IPCC Good
Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (GPG2000; IPCC,
2000a) and the GPG-LULUCF. Further development may or may not be required depending on the final form ofdefinition adopted. However, the general suite of options for estimating emissions is discussed in this chapter.

3.1

INTRODUCTION

In general where forest management has been elected, all changes in carbon stocks and emissions and removalsof greenhouse gases will be accounted for9 within the areas accounted for and forest degradation within theseareas should not be an issue. Similarly, devegetation should not be an issue where cropland and grazing land
management are elected, irrespective of whether revegetation is elected itself. Other elected choices are inthemselves no evidence that degradation or devegetation are taking place, but if a general methodology toestimate carbon stock changes and emissions and removals associated with them would include the following
steps:
Step 1: Selection of reporting method for identification of geographical location of forest
degradation and devegetation. Although explicit and complete identification of boundaries for areas
throughout the country is possible, it may not be feasible in practice for many countries. Reporting
could be based on broad area identification, which is a method at a local level using legal,
administrative, or ecosystem boundaries or grids. Another method is a complete geographicalidentification of land areas subject to specified activities. More details of the methods are provided in
Section 4.2.2, Chapter 4 of the GPG-LULUCF (Generic Methodologies for Area Identification,
Stratification and Reporting).
Step 2: Identification of standards against which potentially degrading and devegetatingprocesses can be compared. Conformity with codes of practice directed at sustainable management
will provide an important indicator.
Step 3: Identification of lands where direct human-induced forest degradation and/or devegetationof other vegetation types according to selected/accepted definitions has led to long-term reductionof carbon stocks.
Step 4: Estimation of carbon stock changes and emissions and removals of non-CO2 greenhousegases due to direct human-induced forest degradation and devegetation activities. This can be done
based on the methods described in Chapter 3 of the GPG-LULUCF (LUCF Sector Good PracticeGuidance).
More detailed discussion on the steps is provided below.

3.2

APPROACHES TO IDENTIFICATION OF LAND
AREAS SUBJECT TO FOREST DEGRADATION
AND DEVEGETATION

Processes resulting in forest degradation may occur across a range of spatial scales, from limited tree removal towidespread removal of substantial portions of a forest. The elements of definitions discussed in Section 2.1, anda framework definition provided in Section 2.2 for forest degradation require the determination of thresholds for

9 Subject to the (conservative) exemption of pools for which information can be provided that they are not a source.

IPCC Report on Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from
Direct Human-induced Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types

21

Chapter 3: Methodological Options for Estimating Emissions from Forest Degradation and Devegetation

time and detection of minimum carbon loss, and possibly also a minimum area threshold. Processes resulting indevegetation of other vegetation types may also occur across a range of spatial scales, from limited vegetation
removal to widespread and complete removal of vegetation. The framework definition of devegetation of othervegetation types provided in Section 2.3 also requires determination of thresholds for time and minimum
detection of removal/reduction/change of vegetation, and possibly also a minimum area threshold. Thresholds
for long-term and minimum loss of carbon or vegetation will affect the method used for land area identificationand subsequent quantification of the carbon and non-CO2 greenhouse gas impacts of the activity that has lead todegradation or devegetation, according to the applied definition.
Identification of land areas subjected to processes resulting in forest degradation and devegetation is possibleusing approaches such as remote sensing with ground truthing, forest/vegetation sampling, activity reporting, ora combination of these methods (see Section 4.2.2, Chapter 4 of the GPG-LULUCF (Generic Methodologies for
Area Identification, Stratification and Reporting)). Low or small thresholds may require higher-resolution remotesensing with continuous spatial coverage; higher intensity sampling systems, or detailed and comprehensive
activity reporting systems. To determine that forest degradation or devegetation of other vegetation types is
occurring, monitoring and measurements may be required through time. Hypothetical cases illustrating potential
for forest degradation are provided in Section 2.2.2 and for devegetation of other vegetation types in Section
2.3.2.

3.3

ESTIMATION OF CARBON STOCK CHANGESAND NON-CO 2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Once land areas subject to forest degradation or devegetation of other vegetation types have been identified,changes in carbon stocks and emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases can be estimated. Methods for calculationof carbon stock changes vary for the relevant carbon pools (aboveground biomass, belowground biomass, litter,dead wood and soil organic carbon), as well as for emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases and should be basedon those given in the IPCC Guidelines. Further elaboration of the methods is described in Chapter 3 of the GPGLULUCF (LUCF Sector Good Practice Guidance): namely, estimation methods described in Section 3.2.1(Forest Land Remaining Forest Land) are applicable to forest degradation, and those described in Sections 3.3(Cropland), 3.4 (Grassland) and 3.5 (Wetlands) are applicable for devegetation of other vegetation types.
Human-induced activities that lead to forest degradation and devegetation of other vegetation types often havethe potential to change emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases (CH4 and N2O). However, reliable estimation isoften difficult because of paucity of data. In the GPG-LULUCF, emission sources of non-CO2 greenhouse gases
considered are fire, changes in water table in organic soils, and fertilisation. Methods for estimating emissions of
non-CO2 greenhouse gases from these processes are described in the IPCC Guidelines, the GPG2000 (as regards
non-CO2 emissions from agricultural soils), and the GPG-LULUCF (Chapter 3).

3.4

APPROACHES AND TIERS

Estimation of annual changes in carbon stocks and emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases from direct humaninduced forest degradation and devegetation of other vegetation types can be obtained through the same
approaches as those applied to activities under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol. A variety of means,
encompassing the three general approaches to estimation of affected land area are provided in Section 4.2.2,
Chapter 4 of the GPG-LULUCF (Generic Methodologies for Area Identification, Stratification and Reporting).

3.5

QUALITY ASSURANCE / QUALITY CONTROL

Chapter 8 of the GPG2000 (Quality Assurance and Quality Control) defines quality assurance (QA) and quality
control (QC), and provides guidance on the elements of a QA/QC system, taking into account the need fortransparency and review.
The GPG-LULUCF describes methodological approaches to land area identification and estimation of emissions
and removals of greenhouse gases. These approaches are also applicable to forest degradation and devegetationof other vegetation types (Chapter 3, LUCF Sector Good Practice Guidance, and Chapter 4, Supplementary
Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol). Chapter 5 of the GPG-LULUCF(Cross-Cutting Issues) sets out the principles for QA/QC and uncertainty management that are also applicable toestimation of emissions from forest degradation and devegetation of other vegetation types.

22

IPCC Report on Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from
Direct Human-induced Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types

Chapter 3: Methodological Options for Estimating Emissions from Forest Degradation and Devegetation

3.6

REPORTING AND DOCUMENTATION

Requirements for LULUCF related reporting and documentation under the Kyoto Protocol are outlined in the
Marrakesh Accords and are summarised in Section 4.2, Chapter 4 of the GPG-LULUCF (Methods for
Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting of LULUCF Activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4).
Reporting tables for the activities under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol are provided in Chapter 4 of the GPGLULUCF. Tables have to be adapted to national circumstances. Those reporting tables are: the land transition
matrix where the land area subject to the various activities in the inventory year and the previous year should bereported (Table 4.2.5 in the GPG-LULUCF); the tables to be completed annually for each elected activity(Tables 4.2.6a – 4.2.6c in the GPG-LULUCF); and the summary table of yearly carbon stock changes for theactivities (Table 4.2.7 of the GPG-LULUCF).
All information used to produce estimates for emissions and removals of greenhouse gases should be
documented and archived. Documentation should include references of data, methods used and interpretation ofactivity definitions in the Marrakesh Accords made by the Party according to national circumstances, and ananalysis of fluctuations between years. Documented data and methods should be related to land identificationand estimation of emissions and removals of greenhouse gases. Documentation should also include uncertainty
assessment, QA/QC procedures, external and internal reviews, information on key categories and key category
identification as described in Chapter 5 of the GPG-LULUCF, and planned improvements to the inventory.
The framework of these tables in Chapter 4 of the GPG-LULUCF could be retained, and added to as needed, toinclude forest degradation and devegetation of other vegetation types. The nature of additions would be
dependent on the final choice of definition.

IPCC Report on Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from
Direct Human-induced Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types

23

Chapter 4: Implications of Definitional Options for Forest Degradation and Devegetation under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol

4 IMPLICATIONS OF THE DEFINITIONALOPTIONS FOR FOREST DEGRADATION AND
DEVEGETATION UNDER ARTICLE 3.4 OF
THE KYOTO PROTOCOL
4.1

INTRODUCTION

This section of the report discusses:•

Circumstances in which LULUCF accounting and reporting could be unbalanced or incomplete;•

The implications of the discussed definitions of forest degradation and devegetation of other vegetation
types for addressing potential unbalance; and•Relative costs of the different definitional options in producing inventories and reporting for forest
degradation and devegetation of other vegetation types.

The methodological guidance on the reporting of emissions and removals of greenhouse gases from land use,land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) will generally include the effects of any forest degradation anddevegetation of other vegetation types, though there is no specific advice on identifying these as specificactivities.

4.2

FOREST DEGRADATION

Under the Kyoto Protocol, Annex I Parties report carbon stock changes in forests mostly under Article 3.3(afforestation, reforestation and deforestation) and Article 3.4 (forest management). Article 3.3 requires
compulsory reporting of verifiable changes in carbon stocks and greenhouse gas emissions and removals
resulting from afforestation, reforestation and deforestation. Accounting for activities under Article 3.4 isvoluntary for the first commitment period.
This report considers the potential for unbalanced accounting in the case that a Party chooses to account forforest management under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol, but the total area of managed forest other thanafforestation, reforestation and deforestation under Article 3.3 in that country is not the same as the area of land
reported under forest management, plus areas reported under Article 3.3. In such circumstances, accounting foremissions and removals of greenhouse gases is symmetric within the boundary that encompasses the forest
management land, but may be incomplete if there are areas of managed forest (other than those reported under
Article 3.3) outside the forest management boundary that are net sources or net sinks of greenhouse gases(Figure 4.1). This difference may result from the literal interpretation and application of the forest management
definition that requires this activity to fulfil “relevant ecological (including biological diversity), economic andsocial functions of the forest in a sustainable manner”10. Forest land managed in ways that do not meet thesecriteria may be excluded from the reporting and accounting framework under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol.
The possibility of unbalance through incompleteness may be addressed by making forest management andmanaged forest (other than those reported under Article 3.3) coterminous for the purposes of estimating carbon
stock changes, emissions and removals for Kyoto accounting.

10 See paragraph 1 (f) in the Annex to draft decision -/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in

FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1, p.56.

24

IPCC Report on Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from
Direct Human-induced Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types

Chapter 4: Implications of Definitional Options for Forest Degradation and Devegetation under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol

Figure 4.1

Symmetric and incomplete accounting (Case 1)

Symmetry (Process)Total area of managed forest (other than those reported under Article 3.3)
Emissions
Area of land subject to forest management(or other Article 3.4 activities)

RemovalsCompleteness (Area)
ReportingNote: Accounting on lands captured under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol is symmetric in that all emissions and removals are reported. The
accounting may be incomplete to the extent that there are areas of managed forest that are not captured under the accounting framework byelection or non-election of Article 3.4 activities. If the selection of land is biased toward either net emissions or removals, for example as aresult of election of forest management, then accounting may be unbalanced.

If a Party does not elect forest management under Article 3.4, then emissions or removals from the managed
forest (other than those reported under Article 3.3) may not be reported. Accounting in that case is incomplete
but symmetric since neither emissions nor removals are reported under Article 3.4 (Figure 4.2). The decision not
to elect forest management may exclude either net sinks or net sources from the accounting framework,
depending on how the forest is managed. If Parties that do not elect to account for forest management were toreport emissions and removals due to forest degradation (by implication an emission source) accounting would
be incomplete because emissions and removals would only be reported for the selected (degraded) land areas(Figure 4.3). Emissions and removals associated with forest ‘aggradation’ would not be reported and reporting
would be biased toward emissions. Accounting within the identified land areas is symmetric (all emissions andremovals are reported) and unbalance results only from incomplete accounting.
Figure 4.2

Symmetric and incomplete accounting (Case 2)
Total area of managed forest (other than those reported under Article 3.3)
EmissionsSymmetry (Process)Area of land subject to forest management(or other Article 3.4 activities)

RemovalsCompleteness (Area)
ReportingNote: If forest management (or another activity elected under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol) is not elected, then neither emissions nor
removals are reported, so the accounting is symmetric, but it is not complete. In this case, there is no bias toward emissions or removals,
which means the accounting is balanced.

IPCC Report on Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from
Direct Human-induced Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types

25

Chapter 4: Implications of Definitional Options for Forest Degradation and Devegetation under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol

Figure 4.3

Symmetric and incomplete accounting (Case 3)
Total area of managed forest (other than those reported under Article 3.3)
Emissions

Area of land subject to forest management(or other Article 3.4 activities)

Symmetry (Process)RemovalsCompleteness (Area)
ReportingNote: If Parties were to account for forest degradation on land not covered by Article 3.3, forest management or other Article 3.4 activity,
accounting on land subject to forest degradation would be symmetric if all emissions and removals are reported. It would be incomplete
because not all of the managed forest would be included in the accounting framework. In this case, inclusion of land is biased toward net
emissions as a result of reporting forest degradation, which means the accounting is unbalanced.

The scale of emissions and removals captured by including forest degradation in the carbon accounting system
will depend on how degradation is defined. If the accepted definition is based on a broad set of forest values(forest productivity, genes, trees, species composition) some lands that have not lost carbon could be identified
as degraded. It is even possible that the forest areas identified could have had an increase of forest carbon in one
or more pools as a result of the detected degradation. More narrow definitions of degradation (i.e. biomass only)
will identify only carbon emissions and removals associated with the defined pools. If defined degradation
criteria are ambiguous and require subjective interpretation, it would be difficult to ensure that the reporting andaccounting systems were consistent and homogeneous among the Parties. The consequences for balanced
accounting of including forest degradation in the carbon accounting system if it is based on a definition that does
not cover the same carbon pools as defined for Article 3.4 activities in the Marrakesh Accords are extremely
difficult to assess. Only if Parties were to include all managed forest land within the accounting framework
would all sources and sinks be accounted for and all problems of “unbalance” and “incompleteness” be avoided(Figure 4.4).
Figure 4.4

Symmetric and complete accounting
Total area of managed forest (other than those reported Article 3.3)
Emissions

Area of land subject to forest management(or other Article 3.4 activities)

Symmetry (Process)RemovalsCompleteness (Area)
ReportingNote: All land affected by an activity under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol are captured under the accounting framework (complete) andall emissions and removals are reported (symmetric). In this case, all land is selected which means the accounting is balanced.

26

IPCC Report on Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from
Direct Human-induced Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types

Chapter 4: Implications of Definitional Options for Forest Degradation and Devegetation under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol

4.3

DEVEGETATION

Under Article 3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol, the reporting of emissions and removals of greenhouse gases associatedwith deforestation balances the activities associated with afforestation and reforestation. Under Article 3.4 of the
Kyoto Protocol, however, revegetation (the establishment of vegetation types other than forest) has no“devegetation” counterpart for the reporting of emissions and removals of greenhouse gases associated with theloss of vegetation. Election of revegetation under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol could result in incomplete
reporting (with respect to the totality of land affected by revegetation and devegetation) if emissions andremovals associated with the establishment of vegetation (revegetation) are reported but emissions and removals
associated with devegetation (the removal of vegetation) are not (Figure 4.5). On the revegetation lands
themselves, all emissions and removals of greenhouse gases are estimated and the reporting is symmetric. The
potential for unbalanced reporting arises because if only revegetation lands are represented in the accounting
system, reporting could be, in the short term, biased toward removals. If revegetation is not elected, accounting
is incomplete but symmetric, and not unbalanced – unless the emissions and removals are covered by election ofcropland management and grazing land management.
Figure 4.5

Symmetric and incomplete accounting (Case 4)
Area of land subject to devegetation & revegetation

Area of land subject to revegetation
Symmetry (Process)RemovalsCompleteness (Area)
ReportingNote: Selection of land would, in the short term, bias reporting toward net removals, which means the accounting is unbalanced, if only
revegetation activities were elected. Blank areas in the graph represent non-forest lands outside of the revegetation boundary (lands outside
the accounting framework) that could be associated with net emissions from devegetation that will not be reported.

4.4

METHODOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OFCOSTS, SCALE OF APPLICATION AND
ACCURACY

As discussed below, the existing literature, including the IPCC Special Report on Land Use, Land-Use Change,
and Forestry (IPCC, 2000b) and relevant international reporting instruments (e.g. FAO-Forest Resources
Assessment, Montreal Process Reporting, OECD/EUROSTAT) have some data relevant to estimating the aerial
extent or scale of emissions and removals of greenhouse gases from forest degradation or devegetation of othervegetation types, although nothing linked specifically to the definitions discussed above. The definitions,accounting framework, and reporting requirements for LULUCF under the Kyoto Protocol are unique andspecific to the Kyoto Protocol and the existing literature and reported data generally do not apply in that context.
A greenhouse gas accounting system should be transparent, consistent, comparable, complete, accurate andverifiable in recording and reporting changes in carbon stocks and/or changes in greenhouse gas emissions bysources and removals by sinks. Those factors provide the basis for assessing a Parties’ performance in meeting
their emissions reduction target under the Kyoto Protocol.

IPCC Report on Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from
Direct Human-induced Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types

27

Chapter 4: Implications of Definitional Options for Forest Degradation and Devegetation under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol

Changes in emissions and removals of greenhouse gases over time can be assessed on lands drawn into theaccounting framework using a combination of direct measurements, activity data, and models based on
acceptable statistical principles, vegetation, land-use and land management surveys, forest inventories, remotesensing techniques, flux measurements, soil sampling and ecological surveys as described in the GPG-LULUCF.
The GPG-LULUCF suggests that Parties should use methods that will provide the highest certainty possible,
using available resources as efficiently as possible in relation to the size of the emissions and removals ofgreenhouse gases.
The Special Report on LULUCF recognised that under the specifications for LULUCF accounting and reportingof the Kyoto Protocol, accounting is not consistent with “full” carbon accounting (IPCC, 2000b). Because the
Kyoto Protocol specifies that LULUCF accounting be restricted to land areas defined by specific human-induced
activities (afforestation, reforestation, deforestation, forest management, cropland management, grazing land
management, revegetation), the scope of accounting and reporting is limited to emissions and removals ofgreenhouse gases from areas of land affected by these activities.
Full costs of accounting for emissions and removals associated with forest degradation or devegetation of othervegetation types depends not only on national circumstances (natural conditions, country area, proportion offorested and other vegetated land, and advancement of existing inventory systems), but also on how forest
degradation and devegetation of other vegetation types are defined, since this will influence the types ofinventory methods that are applicable. Other factors affecting costs are scale of relevant inventory and thedesired accuracy of measurements.
Identification of land areas affected by the applicable activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol
can be done using one of the approaches described in GPG-LULUCF. The ease with which land areas affectedby forest degradation and devegetation of other vegetation types can be identified using the GPG-LULUCF
approaches will depend on how degradation and devegetation of other vegetation types are defined. The use of
ambiguous terms to define degradation or devegetation (e.g. “reduced potential supply of benefits” or “overuseor poor management”) could make identification of the affected land areas more difficult, costly, qualitative andsubject to interpretation than if measurable properties, such as carbon stocks, are used.
Spatial resolution has important cost and accuracy implications. In the Marrakesh Accords, the spatial resolutionof forest is a minimum area of between 0.05 and 1.0 hectare, and revegetation is a minimum area of 0.05 hectare.
If a small minimum resolvable area is used, the task and cost of assessment can be high. With a coarse spatial
resolution, the data demand can be modest but significant areas subject to an activity may be lost from theaccounting system.
The specificity of the definitions of human-induced “activities” under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 make it difficult tofind data in the literature from which to derive information about the scale of forest degradation or devegetation
activities. The Special Report on LULUCF (IPCC, 2000b) reported 12 million hectares of severely degraded
land in Annex I countries, of which it was assumed that 5% would be subject to activities under Article 3.4 in2010 (see Table 4, page 14 of the Special Report on LULUCF). That information provides some guidance on thescale of potential revegetation and forest management, but provides little information about the rate at which
forest degradation and devegetation activities occur.
How forest degradation and devegetation of other vegetation types are defined will determine the scale of effectthat is captured within the accounting framework. What is considered forest degradation or devegetation of othervegetation types and the degree of change, loss or reduction that is required (e.g. 5% loss of biomass, 10% lossof carbon stocks, or 25% reduction in the supply of benefits) together with the spatial scale of estimation (0.05 or
1.0 hectare) will all determine how much affected land is drawn into the accounting system. FAO, which has
assessed the state of the world’s forest cover since 1946 and studied forest land cover change in the tropics
between 1980 and 1990 and 1990 to 2000 (FAO 1990, 1997, and 2000) provides some information on relativechanges in rates of forest degradation. Reported changes in land cover categories that could be regarded as forest
degradation (defined as decrease of density or increase of disturbance in forest classes) in the tropics showed adecline from 35 million hectares between 1980 and 1990 to 23.8 million hectares between 1990 and 2000.
Similar data were not available for developed countries, and the Global Forest Resource Assessment (FAO
2000)) concluded that although information on forest area change could be derived with some precision, data on
qualitative changes such as forest degradation were generally missing, even in developed countries withrelatively advanced forest inventory methodology. Another possible indicator of forest degradation that isavailable for a majority of European countries is the ratio of tree damage, monitored under the International Cooperative Programme on Assessment and Monitoring of Air Pollution on Forests11 (ICP Forests). However, thismonitoring does not indicate the origin of damage and includes in the assessment also foliage losses that result
from indirect human-induced activities. The proportion of trees with more than 25% defoliation in 2002 was
11 Forest Condition in Europe. Results of the 2002 Large-scale Survey. 2003 Report, EC-UN/ECE, Brussels, Geneva, 2003, 114 p.

28

IPCC Report on Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from
Direct Human-induced Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types

Chapter 4: Implications of Definitional Options for Forest Degradation and Devegetation under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol

21.3%. Trees showing defoliation in excess of 60%, which might indicate durable damage, were 1.5% of thetotal sampled.
Another way of estimating how much land could be affected by forest degradation is to determine how muchforest is covered by formal or informal management plans. Various “Codes of Practice” for forestry harvesting
have been developed for use at the international, regional and national levels to improve harvesting practices
following concepts of low-impact harvesting (e.g. Dykstra and Heinrich 1996). The global forest resources
assessment 2000 (FAO 2000) indicated that 89% of the forests in industrialised countries (accounting for 45% of
the global forest, mainly temperate and boreal) were subject to a formal or informal management plan. For
example in most European countries the entire forest area is under forest management plans, likewise inAustralia (100%), New Zealand (87%), Canada (71%) and the US (56%), all or most of the forest area is under
forest management plans (FAO 2000). National figures are not available for many developing countries, butcurrent results indicate that about 6% of that forest area is covered by formal, nationally approved forest
management plans. These numbers, however, do not indicate whether the plan is appropriate, being implemented
as planned or having the intended effects. Certification, an instrument used to confirm that certain predefinedminimum standards of forest management in a given forest area at a given point in time has been achieved, also
covers a number of international, regional and national forests. At the end of 2000, there were certified forests in
the United States (12% certified), Finland (100% certified), Sweden (41% certified), Norway (63% certified),
Canada (2% certified), Germany (30% certified) and Poland (30% certified) (FAO 2000).

IPCC Report on Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from
Direct Human-induced Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types

29

References

REFERENCES
Di Gregorio A. and Jansen L.J.M. (2000). Land Cover Classification System (LCCS): Classification Concepts
and User Manual. Version 1.0. FAO Land and Water Development Division, Environment and Natural
Resources Service, Africover - East Africa Project, Nairobi, Kenya.
http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X0596E/X0596e00.htm#P-1_0
Dykstra D.P. and Heinrich R. (1996). FAO Model Code of Forest Harvesting Practice. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 85 p.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (1990). Forest resources assessment 1990. FAO
Forestry Paper 130. 152 p.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2000). Global forest resources assessment 2000. Main
report. FAO Forestry Paper 140. 479 p.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (1997). State of the world’s forests 1997. FAO. 200 p.
de Gier A. and Yousif Alli Hussin (1995). Monitoring forest degradation in part of Indonesia using remotesensing and GIS. International Union of Forest Research Organizations, IUFRO XX World Congress,
Tampere, Finland. August 1995. http://www.metla.fi/iufro/iufro95abs/d4pap69.htm
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (1997). Houghton J.T., Meira Filho L.G., Lim B., TreantonK., Mamaty I., Bonduki Y., Griggs D.J. and Callander B.A. (Eds). Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for
National Greenhouse Inventories. IPCC/OECD/IEA, Paris, France.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2000a). Penman J., Kruger D., Galbally I., Hiraishi T.,
Nyenzi B., Emmanuel S., Buendia L., Hoppaus R., Martinsen T., Meijer J., Miwa K., and Tanabe K. (Eds).
Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.
IPCC/OECD/IEA/IGES, Hayama, Japan.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2000b). Watson R., Noble I.R., Bolin B., Ravindranath,
N.H., Verardo D.J. and Dokken D.J. (Eds) Land use, Land-use Change, and Forestry: A Special Report.
Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK.
Lambin E.F. (1999). Monitoring forest degradation in tropical regions by remote sensing: some methodologicalissues. Global Ecology and Biogeography 8(3/4). Pp.191-198.
Vegetation Subcommittee (1997). Vegetation classification standard. Washington, DC: Federal Geographic Data
Committee, Vegetation Subcommittee. 18 p. + 3 appendices.
http://biology.usgs.gov/fgdc.veg/standards/vegstd.htm

30

IPCC Report on Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from
Direct Human-induced Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types

List of Reviewers

List of Reviewers
Argentina
Ginzo, H.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Australia
Burrows, W. Cooperative Research Centre forGreenhouse Accounting(CRC GA)
Queensland Department of Primary
Industries (QDPI)
Carruthers, I. Australian Government
Henry, B.
CRC GA Queensland Natural
Resources and Mines (Qld NR&M)
Mokany, K. CRC GA
Raison, J.
CRC GA & Commonwealth Scientific& Industrial Research Organisation(CSIRO)
Austria
Radunsky, K. Federal Environment Agency
Benin
Guendehou, S. Benin Centre of Scientific andTechnical Research(CBRST)
Bolivia
Arana Pardo, I. National Climate Change Programmeof
Bolivia
BrazilRocha, M.

Centro de Estudos Avançados em
Economia Aplicada (CEPEAESALQ/USP)

CanadaHuffman, T.

Department of Agriculture and AgriFood
Lempriere, T. Canadian Forest Service
Trofymow, J. Canadian Forest Service
China
Chen, Z.
Gao, Y.
Kong, X.
Li, L.
Li, Y.
Liu, H.
Liu, S.
Lv, X.
Ma, A.
Qin, D.
Wang, B.
Wang, X.
Xu, D.
Yan, C.
Yang, Z.
Yi, X.

China Meteorological Administration
China Meteorological Administration
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
State Development Planning
Commission
Chinese Academy of Agriculture
National Meteorological Center
Chinese Academy of Forestry
Ministry of Science and Technology
State Development Planning
Commission
China Meteorological Administration
China Meteorological Administration
State Forestry Administration
Chinese Academy of Forestry
Ministry of Agriculture
National Satellite MeteorologicalCenter
Ministry of Foreign Affairs

China (Continued)
Ying, N.
China Meteorological Administration
Zhang, L.
National Satellite MeteorologicalCenterZhang, X.
Chinese Academy of Forestry
Zheng, G.
China Meteorological Administration
FinlandLapveteläinen, T. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
Vainio-Mattila, M. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
Germany
Fiedler, S.
Georgi, B.
Ploetz, C.
Strich, S.

University of Hohenheim
Federal Environmental Agency
on behalf of Umweltbundesamtes(UBA)
Bundesministerium fürVerbraucherschutz, Ernährung und
Landwirtschaft (BMVEL)

Iceland
Ministry for the Environment
India
Satyanarayana, M. Ministry of Environment & Forests,
Government of India
Surya Prakash, M. Ministry of Environment & Forests,
Government of India
Italy
Italian Ministry of Environment and Territory
Tubiello, F. Columbia University
Japan
Fujimori, T.

Japan Forest Technological
Association
Handa, M.
Organization for Landscape and Urban
Greenery Technology Development
Harada, T.
Forestry Agency, Ministry ofAgriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
Hayashi, Y. National Institute for AgroEnvironmental Sciences
Higashi, M. Ministry of Land, Intrastructure andTransport
Hiranuma, K. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries
Honda, Y.
Chiba University
Inoue, G.
National Institute for Environmental
Studies
Ishizuka, M. Forestry and Forest Products ResearchInstitute
Itakura, T.
Ministry of Eduation, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology
Itakura, K.
Ministry of Land, Intrastructure andTransport
Kato, J.
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure andTransport

IPCC Report on Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from
Direct Human-induced Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types

31

List of Reviewers

Japan (Continued)
Kobayashi, S. Forestry and Forest Products ResearchInstitute
Kohyama, T. Hokkaido University
Koike, T.
Hokkaido University Forests, FSC
Matsumoto, M.Forestry and Forest Products ResearchInstitute (FFPRI)
Matsuo, N.
Climate Expert
Minami, K. National Institute for AgroEnvironmental Sciences
Morikawa, Y. Waseda University
Muto, N.
Forestry Agency, Ministry ofAgriculture, Forestry and FisheriesNara, C.
Ministry of the Environment
Nouchi, I.
National Institute for AgroEnvironmental Sciences
Ogiwara, H. Forestry Agency, Ministry ofAgriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
Ohta, S.
Forestry and Forest Products ResearchInstitute (FFPRI)
Oikawa, K. University of Tsukuba
Okuda, T.
National Institute for Environmental
Studies
Shibasaki, R. University of Tokyo
Shimizu, K. Forestry and Forest Products ResearchInstitute
Shirato, Y.
National Institute for AgroEnvironmental Sciences
Sweda, T.
Ehime University
Takahashi, M.Forestry and Forest Products ResearchInstituteTaniyama, I. National Institute for AgroEnvironmental Sciences
Tanouchi, H. Forestry and Forest Products ResearchInstituteTonosaki, M. Forestry and Forest Products ResearchInstitute
Tsuruta, H. National Institute of AgroEnvironmental Sciences
Watanabe, T. Forestry Agency, Ministry ofAgriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
Yagi, K.
National Institute for AgroEnvironmental Sciences
Yamagata, Y National Institute for Environmental
Studies (NIES)
Yasuoka, Y. University of Tokyo
MoroccoYassin, M.

National Centre of Forest Research(CNRF)New Zealand
Maclaren, P. Piers Maclaren and Associates
Tate, K.
Landcare Research
NorwayMinistry of Agriculture
Lindstad, B. Agricultural University of Norway
Løbersli, E. Directorate for Nature Mangement
Pettersen, M. Norwegian Pollution Control
Authority

32

Norway (Continued)
Rosland, A. Norwegian Pollution Control
Authority
Rypdal, K.
Center for International Climate andEnvironmental Research – Oslo
(CICERO)
Solberg, B. Directorate for Nature Mangement
Utseth, A.
Directorate for Nature Mangement
RussiaGytarsky, M. Institute of Global Climate andEcology
Spain
Sanz, M.
Vallejo, R.

Centro de Estudios Ambientales delMediterraneo (CEAM)
University of Barcelona

SwedenSwedish Meteorology and Hydrology InstituteTuvaluFry, I.
UK
Gregory, S.
Penman, J.

Departmentt of Environment
FC
Department for Environment, Food &Rural Affairs (DEFRA)

UkraineBondaruk, G. Ukrainian Forest Research InstituteUS
Andrasko, K. USEPA
Buford, M.
USDA Forest Service R&D
Goklany, I. DOI
Hohenstein, W. USDA
Kruger, D.
USEPA
Lund, H.G. Forest Information Services
Sampson, R. The Sampson Group, Inc.
Smith, B.
USDA Forest Service
Stokes, B.
USDA Forest Service R&D
European Commission
Herold, A.
Öko-Institut
Matteucci, G. Joint Research Centre, InstituteforEnvironment and Sustainability(JRC IES)
Seufert, G.
JRC IES
Wenning, M.
United Nation Framework Convention on Climate
ChangeForner, C.
UNFCCC
Granholm, H. UNFCCCWorld Wildlife Fund
Rakonczay, Z. WWF

IPCC Report on Definitions and methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from
Direct Human-induced Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types