Stock changes or fluxes? Resolving terminological confusion in the debate on land-use change and forestry

A. Cowie (Corresponding Author), Kim Pingoud, B. Schlamadinger

Research output: Contribution to journalReview ArticleScientificpeer-review

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This article collates definitions of some key terms commonly used in greenhouse gas reporting and accounting for the Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) sector, and highlights areas of ambiguity and divergent interpretations of key concepts. It uses the example of harvested wood products to demonstrate the impact of different interpretations. The objective is to facilitate clear communication amongst negotiators and practitioners in relation to the terms emissions, removals, sources and sinks. Confusion and misunderstandings that have arisen in the past are rooted in diverging interpretations of the terms ‘emissions’ and ‘removals’ in the context of land use and wood products. One interpretation sees emissions and removals to be approximated by a change in carbon stocks in a number of selected carbon pools that may include or exclude harvested wood products. Another interpretation views emissions and removals as gross fluxes between the atmosphere and the land/wood products system. The various alternative approaches that have been proposed for reporting for harvested wood products are applicable to one or the other of these interpretations: the stock-change and production approaches, focused on stock changes, are applicable to the first interpretation; whereas the atmospheric flow and simple decay approaches focus on fluxes, as in the second interpretation. Whether emissions/removals are approximated by stock change or from gross fluxes, it is critical that a consistent approach is applied across the whole LULUCF/AFOLU sector. Approaches based on stock change are recommended over those based on fluxes.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)161-179
JournalClimate Policy
Volume6
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2006
MoE publication typeA2 Review article in a scientific journal

Fingerprint

land use change
forestry
land use
carbon
greenhouse gas
removal
wood product
communication
atmosphere

Cite this

Cowie, A. ; Pingoud, Kim ; Schlamadinger, B. / Stock changes or fluxes? Resolving terminological confusion in the debate on land-use change and forestry. In: Climate Policy. 2006 ; Vol. 6, No. 2. pp. 161-179.
@article{fd1e2a04b2474d09a44ddbaee912bf92,
title = "Stock changes or fluxes?: Resolving terminological confusion in the debate on land-use change and forestry",
abstract = "This article collates definitions of some key terms commonly used in greenhouse gas reporting and accounting for the Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) sector, and highlights areas of ambiguity and divergent interpretations of key concepts. It uses the example of harvested wood products to demonstrate the impact of different interpretations. The objective is to facilitate clear communication amongst negotiators and practitioners in relation to the terms emissions, removals, sources and sinks. Confusion and misunderstandings that have arisen in the past are rooted in diverging interpretations of the terms ‘emissions’ and ‘removals’ in the context of land use and wood products. One interpretation sees emissions and removals to be approximated by a change in carbon stocks in a number of selected carbon pools that may include or exclude harvested wood products. Another interpretation views emissions and removals as gross fluxes between the atmosphere and the land/wood products system. The various alternative approaches that have been proposed for reporting for harvested wood products are applicable to one or the other of these interpretations: the stock-change and production approaches, focused on stock changes, are applicable to the first interpretation; whereas the atmospheric flow and simple decay approaches focus on fluxes, as in the second interpretation. Whether emissions/removals are approximated by stock change or from gross fluxes, it is critical that a consistent approach is applied across the whole LULUCF/AFOLU sector. Approaches based on stock change are recommended over those based on fluxes.",
author = "A. Cowie and Kim Pingoud and B. Schlamadinger",
year = "2006",
doi = "10.1080/14693062.2006.9685593",
language = "English",
volume = "6",
pages = "161--179",
journal = "Climate Policy",
issn = "1469-3062",
publisher = "Taylor & Francis",
number = "2",

}

Stock changes or fluxes? Resolving terminological confusion in the debate on land-use change and forestry. / Cowie, A. (Corresponding Author); Pingoud, Kim; Schlamadinger, B.

In: Climate Policy, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2006, p. 161-179.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview ArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Stock changes or fluxes?

T2 - Resolving terminological confusion in the debate on land-use change and forestry

AU - Cowie, A.

AU - Pingoud, Kim

AU - Schlamadinger, B.

PY - 2006

Y1 - 2006

N2 - This article collates definitions of some key terms commonly used in greenhouse gas reporting and accounting for the Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) sector, and highlights areas of ambiguity and divergent interpretations of key concepts. It uses the example of harvested wood products to demonstrate the impact of different interpretations. The objective is to facilitate clear communication amongst negotiators and practitioners in relation to the terms emissions, removals, sources and sinks. Confusion and misunderstandings that have arisen in the past are rooted in diverging interpretations of the terms ‘emissions’ and ‘removals’ in the context of land use and wood products. One interpretation sees emissions and removals to be approximated by a change in carbon stocks in a number of selected carbon pools that may include or exclude harvested wood products. Another interpretation views emissions and removals as gross fluxes between the atmosphere and the land/wood products system. The various alternative approaches that have been proposed for reporting for harvested wood products are applicable to one or the other of these interpretations: the stock-change and production approaches, focused on stock changes, are applicable to the first interpretation; whereas the atmospheric flow and simple decay approaches focus on fluxes, as in the second interpretation. Whether emissions/removals are approximated by stock change or from gross fluxes, it is critical that a consistent approach is applied across the whole LULUCF/AFOLU sector. Approaches based on stock change are recommended over those based on fluxes.

AB - This article collates definitions of some key terms commonly used in greenhouse gas reporting and accounting for the Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) sector, and highlights areas of ambiguity and divergent interpretations of key concepts. It uses the example of harvested wood products to demonstrate the impact of different interpretations. The objective is to facilitate clear communication amongst negotiators and practitioners in relation to the terms emissions, removals, sources and sinks. Confusion and misunderstandings that have arisen in the past are rooted in diverging interpretations of the terms ‘emissions’ and ‘removals’ in the context of land use and wood products. One interpretation sees emissions and removals to be approximated by a change in carbon stocks in a number of selected carbon pools that may include or exclude harvested wood products. Another interpretation views emissions and removals as gross fluxes between the atmosphere and the land/wood products system. The various alternative approaches that have been proposed for reporting for harvested wood products are applicable to one or the other of these interpretations: the stock-change and production approaches, focused on stock changes, are applicable to the first interpretation; whereas the atmospheric flow and simple decay approaches focus on fluxes, as in the second interpretation. Whether emissions/removals are approximated by stock change or from gross fluxes, it is critical that a consistent approach is applied across the whole LULUCF/AFOLU sector. Approaches based on stock change are recommended over those based on fluxes.

U2 - 10.1080/14693062.2006.9685593

DO - 10.1080/14693062.2006.9685593

M3 - Review Article

VL - 6

SP - 161

EP - 179

JO - Climate Policy

JF - Climate Policy

SN - 1469-3062

IS - 2

ER -