Bringing forest carbon projects to the market

In national GHG inventories, Article 3.3 includes land-use changes. Article 3.4includes forest management (figure 6). It should be noted that while Article 3.3is mandatory, Article 3.4 optional. Carbon sequestration in timber products wasexcluded from the Protocol.Article 3.3 –Mandatory1990 20081990 2008 Article 3.3 –Deforestation (emissions) Article 3.3 –Afforestation and Reforestation(absorption)Forested areaNon-forested areaArticle 3.4 –Optional1990 2008 Article 3.4 –Forest management(emissions and absorption)Figure 6: Forest carbon accounts under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol for 2008(source: ONFI)Areas deforested, afforested and reforested between 2008 and 2012 are includedunder Article 3.3. Only emissions resulting from deforestation in 2008-2012 andsequestration resulting from AR in 2008-2012 are taken into account (referred to as“gross - net” accounting). Despite a surge in AR in Annex I countries, a positive resultunder Article 3.3 is difficult to achieve as deforestation releases emissions rapidly andin large quantities while sequestration through AR takes place more slowly.Managed forests 16 were those most likely to generate a great many RMUs for someforested countries under Article 3.4. This sequestration is a consequence of therelative young age of many forests in industrialized countries, and the resulting highrate of carbon storage. Consequently, and to limit the potential loophole effect,forest carbon accounting is optional and subject to a ceiling (of about 10% of thepotential), which considerably limits interest in this optional Article among thecountries concerned 17 .16 Lands that were forested in 1990 and remained so in 2008-201217 For example, in 2007 for France, the result of Article 3.4 was 72 MteqCO 2in carbonsequestration, amounting to 14% of national GHG emissions. The maximum authorised issue of RMUsin France is set at 3.2 MteqCO 2(Source: CITEPA / UNFCCC)26The fragile position of forestry projects in the carbon markets