With the exception of Chapter and Section headings, all coloured text has been inserted by AccessIPCC. The non-coloured text is the IPCC original.

A number of emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia were published on the Internet in November 2009. This has provided a window into the world of climate science.

We have identified a number of key individuals involved in the emails whom we have designated as Persons of Concern [PoC]; a Journal in which a PoC has published has been designated as a Journal of Concern [JoC].

This is not to suggest that we believe such papers are necessarily flawed, but rather that, as Joseph Alcamo noted at Bali in October 2009, "as policymakers and the public begin to grasp the multi-billion dollar price tag for mitigating and adapting to climate change, we should expect a sharper questioning of the science behind climate policy".

References occur in a list at the end of each chapter. Citations are within the normal text of sections and paragraphs.

Definition of Tags Used

Tag	Explanation	Where Used	References	Citations
PoC	Person of Concern Key individual involved in CRU emails as defined in this spreadsheet. NOTE: we anticipate that this definition will be expanded as more data is coded.	References, Citations, IPCC Roles	1	1
JoC	Journal of Concern A Journal which has published articles by one or more PoCs (Person of Concern)	References, Citations	29	45
MoS	Model or Simulation Reference appears to be a model or simulation, not observation or experiment	References, Citations	33	41
NPR	Non Peer Reviewed Reference has no Journal or no Volume or no Pages or it has Editors.	References, Citations	112	165
SRC	Self Reference Concern Author of a chapter containing references to own work.	References, Citations, IPCC Roles	46	73
ARC	Paper authored or co-authored by person who is also in list of Authors of another chapter.	References, Citations	18	29
2007	Paper dated 2007, when IPCC policy stated cutoff was December 2005 with mid-February 2006 for exceptions.	References, Citations	20	40
Ambiguous	The short inline citation matched with more than one reference; however, AccessIPCC will link to the first reference found.	Citations	-	14
NotFound	The short inline citation was not matched with any reference. Believed to be caused by typing errors.	Citations	-	7
Clean	The reference was probably peer reviewed. The reference was dated before the cutoff (2005-2006). Its authors were not members of the Team. It was not published in a Journal of Concern. Its authors were not AR4 Authors.	References, Citations	49	43

Chapter Table of Contents

Title	Clean	Tagged	NotFound	Ambiguous
Chapter 9: Forestry	-	-	-	-
9.1 Introduction	-	11	-	1
9.2 Status of the sector and trends	-	-	-	-
9.2.1 Forest area	-	8	-	-
9.2.2 Forest management	1	2	-	-
9.2.3 Wood supply, production and consumption of forest products	-	2	-	-
9.3 Regional and global trends in terrestrial greenhouse gas emissions and removals	5	28	-	-
9.4 Assessment of mitigation options	-	-	-	-
9.4.1 Conceptual introduction	-	2	-	1
9.4.2 Description of mitigation measures	-	-	-	-
9.4.2.1 Maintaining or increasing forest area: reducing deforestation and degradation	-	2	-	1
9.4.2.2 Maintaining or increasing forest area: afforestation/reforestation	1	5	-	-
9.4.2.3 Forest management to increase stand- and landscape-level carbon density	1	2	-	-
9.4.2.4 Increasing off-site carbon stocks in wood products and enhancing product and fuel substitution	3	-	-	-
9.4.3 Global assessments	-	-	-	-
9.4.3.1 Regional bottom-up assessments	8	30	2	5
9.4.3.2 Global Forest sectoral modelling	5	44	3	6
9.4.3.3 Global forest mitigation in climate stabilization analysis	-	5	-	-
9.4.4 Global summation and comparison	-	-	-	-
9.5 Interactions with adaptation and vulnerability	2	3	-	-
9.5.1 Climate impacts on carbon sink and adaptation	1	9	-	-
9.5.2 Mitigation and adaptation synergies	4	15	1	-
9.6 Effectiveness of and experience with policies	-	-	-	-
9.6.1 Policies aimed at reducing deforestation	2	21	-	-
9.6.2 Policies aimed to promote afforestation and reforestation	-	2	-	-
9.6.3 Policies to improve forest management	2	17	1	-
9.6.4 Policies to increase substitution of forest-derived biofuels for fossil fuels and biomass for energy-intensive materials	1	3	-	-
9.6.5 Strengthening the role of forest policies in mitigating climate change	-	2	-	-
9.6.6 Lessons learned from project-based afforestation and reforestation since 2000	-	3	-	-
9.6.6.1 Leakage	-	5	-	-
9.6.6.2 Potential non-permanence of carbon storage	-	5	-	-
9.6.6.3 Additionality and baselines	-	-	-	-
9.6.6.4 Monitoring	-	2	-	-
9.6.6.5 Options for scaling up	-	1	-	-
9.7 Forests and Sustainable Development	-	-	-	-
9.7.1 Conceptual aspects	-	2	-	-
9.7.2 Ancillary effects of GHG mitigation policies	2	4	-	-
9.7.3 Implications of mitigation options on water, biodiversity and soil	3	4	-	-
9.8 Technology, R & D, deployment, diffusion and transfer	2	13	-	-
9.9 Long-term outlook	-	3	-	-
Number of citations of various credibilities	43	255	7	14
Percentages of citations of various credibilities	13.5%	79.9%	2.2%	4.4%

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

During the last decade of the 20^th century, deforestation in the tropics and forest regrowth in the temperate zone and parts of the boreal zone remained the major factors responsible for emissions and removals, respectively. However, the extent to which the carbon loss due to tropical deforestation is offset by expanding forest areas and accumulating woody biomass in the boreal and temperate zones is an area of disagreement between land observations and estimates by top-down models. Emissions from deforestation in the 1990 s are estimated at 5.8 GtCO₂/yr (medium agreement, medium evidence).

Bottom-up regional studies show that forestry mitigation options have the economic potential at costs up to 100 US$/tCO₂-eq to contribute 1.3-4.2 GtCO₂-eq/yr (average 2.7 GtCO₂-eq/yr) in 2030 . About 50% can be achieved at a cost under 20 US$/tCO_2-eq (around 1.6 GtCO₂/yr) with large differences between regions. Global top-down models predict far higher mitigation potentials of 13.8 GtCO₂-eq/yr in 2030 at carbon prices less than or equal to 100 US$/tCO₂-eq. Regional studies tend to use more detailed data and a wider range of mitigation options are reviewed, Thus, these studies may more accurately reflect regional circumstances and constraints than simpler, more aggregate global models. However, regional studies vary in model structure, coverage, analytical approach, and assumptions (including baseline assumptions). In the sectoral comparison in Section 11.3 , the more conservative estimate from regional studies is used. Further research is required to narrow the gap in the potential estimates from global and regional assessments (medium agreement, medium evidence).

The carbon mitigation potentials from reducing deforestation, forest management, afforestation, and agro-forestry differ greatly by activity, regions, system boundaries and the time horizon over which the options are compared. In the short term, the carbon mitigation benefits of reducing deforestation are greater than the benefits of afforestation. That is because deforestation is the single most important source, with a net loss of forest area between 2000 and 2005 of 7.3 million ha/yr.

Mitigation options by the forestry sector include extending carbon retention in harvested wood products, product substitution, and producing biomass for bioenergy. This carbon is removed from the atmosphere and is available to meet society’s needs for timber, fibre, and energy. Biomass from forestry can contribute 12-74 EJ/yr to energy consumption, with a mitigation potential roughly equal to 0.4-4.4 GtCO₂/yr depending on the assumption whether biomass replaces coal or gas in power plants (medium agreement, medium evidence).

In the long term, a sustainable forest management strategy aimed at maintaining or increasing forest carbon stocks, while producing an annual sustained yield of timber, fibre or energy from the forest, will generate the largest sustained mitigation benefit. Most mitigation activities require up-front investment with benefits and co-benefits typically accruing for many years to decades. The combined effects of reduced deforestation and degradation, afforestation, forest management, agro-forestry and bioenergy have the potential to increase from the present to 2030 and beyond (medium agreement, medium evidence).

Global change will impact carbon mitigation in the forest sector but the magnitude and direction of this impact cannot be predicted with confidence as yet. Global change may affect growth and decomposition rates, the area, type, and intensity of natural disturbances, land-use patterns, and other ecological processes (medium agreement, medium evidence).

Forestry can make a very significant contribution to a low-cost global mitigation portfolio that provides synergies with adaptation and sustainable development. However, this opportunity is being lost in the current institutional context and lack of political will to implement and has resulted in only a small portion of this potential being realized at present (high agreement, much evidence).

Globally, hundreds of millions of households depend on goods and services provided by forests. This underlines the importance of assessing forest sector activities aimed at mitigating climate change in the broader context of sustainable development and community impact. Forestry mitigation activities can be designed to be compatible with adapting to climate change, maintaining biodiversity, and promoting sustainable development. Comparing environmental and social co-benefits and costs with the carbon benefit will highlight trade-offs and synergies, and help promote sustainable development (low agreement, medium evidence).

Realization of the mitigation potential requires institutional capacity, investment capital, technology RD and transfer, as well as appropriate policies and incentives, and international cooperation. In many regions, their absence has been a barrier to implementation of forestry mitigation activities. Notable exceptions exist, however, such as regional successes in reducing deforestation rates and implementing large-scale afforestation programmes. Considerable progress has been made in technology development for implementation, monitoring and reporting of carbon benefits but barriers to technology transfer remain (high agreement, much evidence).

Forestry mitigation activities implemented under the Kyoto Protocol, including the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), have to date been limited. Opportunities to increase activities include simplifying procedures, developing certainty over future commitments, reducing transaction costs, and building confidence and capacity among potential buyers, investors and project participants (high agreement, medium evidence).

While the assessment in this chapter identifies remaining uncertainties about the magnitude of mitigation benefits and costs, the technologies and knowledge required to implement mitigation activities exist today.

9.1 Introduction

In the context of global change and sustainable development, forest management activities play a key role through mitigation of climate change. However, forests are also affected by climate change and their contribution to mitigation strategies may be influenced by stresses possibly resulting from it. Socio-economically, global forests are important because many citizens depend on the goods, services, and financial values provided by forests. Within this context, mitigation options have to be sought.

The world’s forests have a substantial role in the global carbon cycle. IPCC 2007a [NPR, 2007] ) reports the latest estimates for the terrestrial sink for the decade 1993 - 2003 at 3,300 MtCO₂/yr, ignoring emissions from land-use change ( Denman et al., 2007 [NPR, SRC, 2007] , Table 7.1 ). The most likely estimate of these emissions for 1990 s is 5,800 MtCO₂/yr, which is partly being sequestered on land as well ( IPCC, 2007a [NPR, 2007] ).

The IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) ( Kauppi et al., 2001 [NPR, SRC] ) concluded that the forest sector has a biophysical mitigation potential of 5,380 MtCO₂/yr on average up until 2050, whereas the SR LULUCF ( IPCC, 2000a [NPR] ) presented a biophysical mitigation potential on all lands of 1167 0 MtCO₂/yr in 2010 (copied in IPCC, 2001 [NPR] , p. 110).

Forest mitigation options include reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, enhancing the sequestration rate in existing and new forests, providing wood fuels as a substitute for fossil fuels, and providing wood products for more energy-intensive materials. Properly designed and implemented, forestry mitigation options will have substantial co-benefits in terms of employment and income generation opportunities, biodiversity and watershed conservation, provision of timber and fibre, as well as aesthetic and recreational services.

Many barriers have been identified that preclude the full use of this mitigation potential. This chapter examines the reasons for the discrepancy between a large theoretical potential and substantial co-benefits versus the rather low implementation rate.

Developments since TAR

Since the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), new mitigation estimates have become available from local to global scale ( Sathaye et al., 2007 [Ambiguous] ) as well as major economic reviews and global assessments ( Stern, 2006 [NPR] ). There is early research into the integration of mitigation and adaptation options and the linkages to sustainable development ( MEA, 2005a [NPR] ). There is increased attention to reducing emissions from deforestation as a low cost mitigation option, and with significant positive side-effects ( Stern, 2006 [NPR] ). There is some evidence that climate change impacts can also constrain the forest potential. There are very few multiple land-use studies that examine a wider set of

forest functions and economic constraints ( Brown et al., 2004 [NPR] ). Furthermore, the literature shows a large variation of mitigation estimates, partly due to the natural variability in the system, but partly also due to differences in baseline assumptions and data quality. In addition, Parties to the Convention are improving their estimates through the design of National Systems for Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventories.

Basic problems remain. Few major forest-based mitigation analyses have been conducted using new primary data. There is still limited insight regarding impacts on soils, lack of integrated views on the many site-specific studies, hardly any integration with climate impact studies, and limited views in relation to social issues and sustainable development. Little new effort was reported on the development of global baseline scenarios of land-use change and their associated carbon balance, against which mitigation options could be examined. There is limited quantitative information on the cost-benefit ratios of mitigation interventions. Finally, there are still knowledge gaps in how forest mitigation activities may alter, for example, surface hydrology and albedo ( IPCC, 2007b [NPR, 2007] : Chapter 4 ).

This chapter: a) provides an updated estimate of the economic mitigation potential through forests; b) examines the reasons for difference between a large theoretical potential and a low rate of implementation; and c) and integrates the estimates of the economic potential with considerations to both adaptation and mitigation in the context of sustainable development.

9.2 Status of the sector and trends

9.3 Regional and global trends in terrestrial greenhouse gas emissions and removals

Mitigation measures will occur against the background of ongoing change in greenhouse gas emissions and removals. Understanding current trends is critical for evaluation of additional effects from mitigation measures. Moreover, the potential for mitigation depends on the legacy of past and present patterns of change in land-use and associated emissions and removals. The contribution of the forest sector to greenhouse gas emissions and removals from the atmosphere remained the subject of active research, which produced an extensive body of literature ( Table 9.2 and IPCC, 2007a [NPR, 2007] : Chapter 7 and 10).

Globally during the 1990 s, deforestation in the tropics and forest regrowth in the temperate zone and parts of the boreal zone were the major factors responsible for emissions and removals, respectively ( Table 9.2 ; Figure 9.2 ). However, the extent to which carbon loss due to tropical deforestation is offset by expanding forest areas and accumulating woody biomass in the boreal and temperate zones is the area of disagreement between land observations and estimates by top-down models. The top-down methods based on inversion of atmospheric transport models estimate the net terrestrial carbon sink for the 1990 s, which is the balance of sinks in northern latitudes and source in tropics ( Gurney et al., 2002 [JoC, MoS] ). The latest estimates are consistent with the increase found in the terrestrial carbon sink in the 1990 s over the 1980 s.

Denman et al. 2007 [NPR, SRC, 2007] ) reports the latest estimates for gross residual terrestrial sink for the 1990 s at 9,500 MtCO₂/yr, while their estimate for emissions from deforestation amounts to 5,800 MtCO₂/yr. The residual sink estimate is significantly higher than any land-based global sink estimate and in the upper range of estimates produced by inversion of atmospheric transport models ( Table 9.2 ). It includes the sum of biases in estimates of other global fluxes (fossil fuel burning, cement production, ocean uptake, and land-use change) and the flux in terrestrial ecosystems that are not undergoing change in land use.

Improved spatial resolution allowed separate estimates of the land-atmosphere carbon flux for some continents ( Table 9.2 ). These estimates generally suggest greater sink or smaller source than the bottom-up estimates based on analysis of forest inventories and remote sensing of change in land-cover ( (Houghton, 2005 ) ). While the estimates of forest expansion and regrowth in the temperate and boreal zones appear relatively well constrained by available data and consistent across published results, the rates of tropical deforestation are uncertain and hotly debated ( Table 9.2 ( Fearnside and Laurance, 2004 ) ). Studies based on remote sensing of forest cover report lower rates than UN-ECE/FAO ( 2000 ) and lower carbon emissions carbon ( Achard et al., 2004 [JoC, MoS, SRC] ).

Recent analyses highlight the important role of other carbon flows. These flows were largely overlooked by earlier research and include carbon export through river systems ( Raymond and Cole, 2003 [JoC] ), volcanic activity and other geological processes ( Richey et al., 2002 [JoC] ), transfers of material in and out of products pool ( Pacala et al., 2001 [JoC, MoS] ), and uptake in freshwater ecosystems ( Janssens et al., 2003 [JoC, SRC] ).

Attribution of estimated carbon sink in forests to the short- and long-term effects of the historic land-use change and shifting natural disturbance patterns on one hand, and to the effects of N and CO₂ fertilization and climate change on the other, remains problematic ( Houghton, 2003b [MoS] ). For the USA, for example, the fraction of carbon sink attributable to changes in land-use and land management might be as high as 98% ( Caspersen et al., 2000 [JoC] ), or as low as 40% ( Schimel et al., 2001 [JoC, SRC] ). Forest expansion and regrowth and associated carbon sinks were reported in many regions ( Table 9.2 ; Figure 9.2 ). The expanding tree cover in South Western USA is attributed to the long-term effects of fire control but the gain in carbon storage was smaller than previously thought. The lack of consensus on factors that control the carbon balance is an obstacle to development of effective mitigations strategies.

Large year-to-year and decade scale variation of regional carbon sinks ( (Rodenbeck et al., 2003 ) ) make it difficult to define distinct trends. The variation reflects the effects of climatic variability, both as a direct impact on vegetation and through the effects of wild fires and other natural disturbances. There are indications that higher temperatures in boreal regions will increase fire frequency; possible drying of the Amazon basin would increase fire frequency there as well ( Cox et al., 2004 [MoS] ). Global emissions from fires in the 1997 /98 El Nino year are estimated at 7,700 MtCO₂/yr, 90% from tropics ( Werf et al., 2004 [JoC] ).

The picture emerging from Table 9.2 is complex because available estimates differ in the land-use types included and in the use of gross fluxes versus net carbon balance, among other variables. This makes it impossible to set a widely accepted baseline for the forestry sector globally. Thus, we had to rely on the baselines used in each regional study separately ( Section 9.4.3.1 ), or used in each global study ( Section 9.4.3.3 ). However, this approach creates large uncertainty in assessing the overall mitigation potential in the forest sector. Baseline CO₂ emissions from land-use change and forestry in 2030 are the same as or slightly lower than in 2000 (see Chapter 3 , Figure 3.10 ).

9.4 Assessment of mitigation options

In this section, a conceptual framework for the assessment of mitigation options is introduced and specific options are briefly described. Literature results are summarized and compared for regional bottom-up approaches, global forest sector models, and global top-down integrated model approaches. The assessment is limited to CO₂ balances and economic costs of the various mitigation options. Broader issues including biodiversity, sustainable development, and interactions with adaptation strategies are discussed in subsequent sections.

9.5 Interactions with adaptation and vulnerability

Some of the mitigation potential as given in this chapter might be counteracted by adverse effects of climate change on forest ecosystems ( Fischlin et al., 2007 [NPR, 2007] ). Further, mitigation-driven actions in forestry could have positive adaptive consequences (e.g., erosion protection) or negative adaptation consequences (e.g., increase in pest and fires). Similarly, adaptation actions could have positive or negative consequences on mitigation. To avoid trade-offs, it is important to explore options to adapt to new climate circumstances at an early stage through anticipatory adaptation ( Robledo et al., 2005 [NPR] ). The limits to adaptation stem in part from the way that societies exacerbate rather than ameliorate vulnerability to climate fluctuations ( (Orlove, 2005 ) ) that can also affect mitigation potentials. There are significant opportunities for mitigation and for adapting to climate change, while enhancing the conservation of biodiversity, and achieving other environmental as well as socio-economic benefits. However, mitigation and adaptation have been considered separately in the global negotiations as well as in the literature until very recently. Now, the two concepts are seen to be linked, however to achieve synergies may be a challenge ( (Tol, 2006 ) ). In the IPCC Third Assessment Report, potential synergy and trade-off issues were not addressed. This section explores the synergy between mitigation and adaptation in the forest sector ( Ravindranath and Sathaye, 2002 [NPR, SRC] ). The potential and need for incorporating adaptation strategies and practices in mitigation projects is illustrated with a few examples.

9.6 Effectiveness of and experience with policies

This section examines the barriers, opportunities, and implementation issues associated with policies affecting mitigation in the forestry sector. Non-climate policies, that is forest sector policies that affect net greenhouse gas emissions from forests, but that are not designed primarily to achieve climate objectives, as well as policies primarily designed to reduce net forest emissions are considered. Many factors influence the efficacy of forest policies in achieving intended impacts on forest land-use, including land tenure, institutional and regulatory capacity of governments, the financial competitiveness of forestry as a land use, and a society’s cultural relationship to forests. Some of these factors typically differ between industrialized and developing countries. For example, in comparison to developing countries, industrialized countries tend to have relatively small amounts of unallocated public lands, and relatively strong institutional and regulatory capacities. Where appropriate, policy options and their effectiveness are examined separately for industrialized and developing countries. Because integrated and non-climate policies are designed primarily to achieve objectives other than net emissions reductions, evaluations of their effectiveness focus primarily on indicators, such as maintenance of forest cover. This provides only partial insight into their potential to mitigate climate change. Under conditions with high potential for leakage, for example, such indicators may overestimate the potential for carbon benefits ( Section 9.6.3 ).

9.7 Forests and Sustainable Development

Sustainable forest management of both natural and planted forests is essential to achieving sustainable development. It is a means to reduce poverty, reduce deforestation, halt the loss of forest biodiversity, and reduce land and resource degradation, and contribute to climate change mitigation. Forests play an important role in stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere while promoting sustainable development (Article 2; Kyoto Protocol). Thus, forests have to be seen in the framework of the multiple dimensions of sustainable development, if the positive co-benefits from forestry mitigation activities have to be maximized. Important environmental, social, and economic ancillary benefits can be gained by considering forestry mitigation options as an element of the broader land management plans.

9.8 Technology, R&D, deployment, diffusion and transfer

R&D and technology transfer have a potential to promote forest sector mitigation options by increasing sustainable productivity, conserving biodiversity and enhancing profitability. Technologies are available for promoting mitigation options from national level to forest stand level, and from single forest practices to broader socio-economic approaches ( IPCC, 2000b [NPR] ).

Traditional and/or existing techniques in forestry including planting, regeneration, thinning and harvesting are fundamental for implementation of mitigation options such as afforestation, reforestation, and forest management. Further, improvement of such sustainable techniques is required and transfer could build capacity in developing countries. Biotechnology may have an important role especially for afforestation and reforestation. As the area of planted forests including plantations of fast-growing species for carbon sequestration increases, sustainable forestry practices will become more important for both productivity and environment conservation.

The development of suitable low-cost technologies will be necessary for promoting thinning and mitigation options. Moreover, technology will have to be developed for making effective use of small wood, including thinned timber, in forest products and markets. Thinning and tree pruning for fuelwood and fodder are regularly conducted in many developing countries as part of local integrated forest management strategies. Although natural dynamics are part of the forest ecosystem, suppression of forest fires and prevention of insect and pest disease are important for mitigation.

Regarding technology for harvesting and procurement, mechanized forest machines such as harvesters, processors and forwarders developed in Northern Europe and North America have been used around the world for the past few decades. Mechanization under sustainable forest management seems to be effective for promoting mitigation options including product and energy substitution ( Karjalainen and Asikainen, 1996 [SRC] ). However, harvesting and procurement systems vary due to terrain, type of forest, infrastructure and transport regulations, and appropriate systems also vary by regions and countries. Reduced impact logging is considered in some cases such as in tropical forests ( Enters et al., 2002 [NPR] ).

There is a wide array of technologies for using biomass from plantations for direct combustion, gasification, pyrolysis, and fermentation (see Section 4.3.3.3 ). To conserve forest resources, recycling of wood waste material needs to be expanded. Technology for manufacturing waste-derived board has almost been established, but further R&D will be necessary to re-use waste sawn timber, or to recycle it as lumber. While these technologies often need large infrastructure and incentives in industrialized countries, practical devices such as new generations of efficient wood-burning cooking stoves ( Masera et al., 2005 [SRC] ) have proved effective in developing countries. They are effective as a means to reduce the use of wood fuels derived from forests, at the same time providing tangible sustainable development benefits for local people, such as reduction in indoor air pollution levels.

Technological R&D for estimation of carbon stocks and fluxes is fundamental not only for monitoring but also for evaluating policies. Practical methods for estimating carbon stocks and fluxes based on forest inventories and remote sensing have been recommended in the Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF ( IPCC, 2003 [NPR] ). Over the last three decades, earth observation satellites have increased in number and sophistication (DeFries et al., 2006 ). High-resolution satellite images have become available, so new research on remote sensing has begun on using satellite radar and LIDAR (light detection and ranging) for estimating forest biomass ( Hirata et al., 2003 [NPR, MoS] ). Remote sensing methods are expected to play an increasing role in future assessments, especially as a tool for mapping land cover and its change over time. However, converting these maps into estimates of carbon sources and sinks remains a challenge and will continue to depend on in-situ measurements and modelling.

Large-scale estimations of the forest sector and its carbon balance have been carried out with models such as the CBM-CFS2 ( Kurz and Apps, 2006 [SRC] ), CO2FIX V.2 model ( Masera et al., 2003 [NPR, MoS, SRC] ), EFISCEN ( Nabuurs et al., 2005 [NPR, ARC] , 2006 ), Full CAM ( Richards and Evans, 2004 [MoS] ), and GORCAM ( Schlamadinger and Marland, 1996 [SRC] ).

Micrometeorological observation of carbon dioxide exchange between the terrestrial ecosystem and the atmosphere has been carried out in various countries ( (Ohtani, 2005 ) ). Based on the observation, a global network FLUXNET ( (Baldocchi et al., 2001 ) ) and regional networks including AmeriFlux, EUROFLUX, AsiaFlux and OzNet are being enlarged for stronger relationships.

New technologies for monitoring and verification including remote sensing, carbon flux modelling, micrometeorological observation and socio-economic approaches described above will facilitate the implementation of mitigation options. Furthermore, the integration of scientific knowledge, practical techniques, socio-economic and political approaches will become increasingly significant for mitigation technologies in the forest sector.

Few forest-based mitigation analyses have been conducted using primary data. There is still limited insight regarding impacts on soils, lack of integrated views on the many site-specific studies, hardly any integration with climate impact studies, and limited views in relation to social issues and sustainable development. Little new effort was reported on the development of global baseline scenarios of land-use change and their associated carbon balance, against which mitigation options could be examined. There is limited quantitative information on the cost-benefit ratios of mitigation interventions.

Technology deployment, diffusion and transfer in the forestry sector provide a significant opportunity to help mitigate climate change and adapt to potential changes in the climate. Apart from reducing GHG emissions or enhancing the carbon sinks, technology transfer strategies in the forest sector have the potential to provide tangible socio-economic and local and global environmental benefits, contributing to sustainable development ( IPCC, 2000b [NPR] ). Especially, technologies for improving productivity, sustainable forest management, monitoring, and verification are required in developing countries. However, existing financial and institutional mechanism, information and technical capacity are inadequate. Thus, new policies, measures and institutions are required to promote technology transfer in the forest sector.

For technology deployment, diffusion and transfer, governments could play a critical role in: a) providing targeted financial and technical support through multilateral agencies (World Bank, FAO, UNDP, UNEP), in developing and enforcing the regulations to implement mitigation options; b) promoting the participation of communities, institutions and NGOs in forestry projects; and c) creating conditions to enable the participation of industry and farmers with adequate guidelines to ensure forest management and practices as mitigation options. In addition, the role of private sector funding of projects needs to be promoted under the new initiatives, including the proposed flexible mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol. The Global Environmental Facility (GEF) could fund projects that actively promote technology transfer and capacity building in addition to the mitigation aspects ( IPCC, 2000b [NPR] ).

9.9 Long-term outlook

Mitigation measures up to 2030 can prevent the biosphere going into a net source globally. The longer-term mitigation prospects (beyond 2030 ) within the forestry sector will be influenced by the interrelationship of a complex set of environmental, socio-economic and political factors. The history of land-use and forest management processes in the last century, particularly within the temperate and boreal regions, as well as on the recent patterns of land-use will have a critical effect on the mitigation potential.

Several studies have shown that uncertainties in the contemporary carbon cycle, the uncertain future impacts of climatic change and its many dynamic feedbacks can cause large variation in future carbon balance projections ( Lewis et al., 2005 [NPR, MoS] ). Other scenarios suggest that net deforestation pressure will slow over time as population growth slows and crop and livestock productivity increase. Despite continued projected loss of forest area, carbon uptake from afforestation and reforestation could result in net sequestration ( Section 3.2.2 ).

Also, the impacts of climate change on forests will be a major source of uncertainty regarding future projections ( Viner et al., 2006 [NPR] ). Other issues that will have an effect on the long-term mitigation potential include future sectoral changes within forestry, changes in other economic sectors, as well as political and social change, and the particular development paths within industrialized and developing countries beyond the first half of the 21st century. The actual mitigation potential will depend ultimately on solving structural problems linked to the sustainable management of forests. Such structural problems include securing land tenure and land rights of indigenous people, reducing poverty levels in rural areas and the rural-urban divide, and providing disincentives to short-term behaviour of economic actors and others. Considering that forests store more carbon dioxide than the entire atmosphere ( Stern, 2006 [NPR] ), the role of forests is critical.

Forestry mitigation projections are expected to be regionally unique, while still linked across time and space by changes in global physical and economic forces. Overall, it is expected that boreal primary forests will either be sources or sinks depending on the net effect of some enhancement of growth due to climate change versus a loss of soil organic matter and emissions from increased fires. The temperate forests in USA, Europe, China and Oceania, will probably continue to be net carbon sinks, favoured also by enhanced forest growth due to climate change. In the tropical regions, the human induced land-use changes are expected to continue to drive the dynamics for decades. In the meantime, the enhanced growth of large areas of primary forests, secondary regrowth, and increasing plantation areas will also increase the sink. Beyond 2040, depending on the extent and effectiveness of forest mitigation activities within tropical areas, and very particularly on the effectiveness of policies aimed at reducing forest degradation and deforestation, tropical forest may become net sinks. In the medium to long term as well, commercial bio-energy is expected to become increasingly important.

In the long-term, carbon will only be one of the goals that drive land-use decisions. Within each region, local solutions have to be found that optimize all goals and aim at integrated and sustainable land use. Developing the optimum regional strategies for climate change mitigation involving forests will require complex analyses of the trade-offs (synergies and competition) in land-use between forestry and other land uses, the trade-offs between forest conservation for carbon storage and other environmental services such as biodiversity and watershed conservation and sustainable forest harvesting to provide society with carbon-containing fibre, timber and bio-energy resources, and the trade-offs among utilization strategies of harvested wood products aimed at maximizing storage in long-lived products, recycling, and use for bioenergy.

REFERENCES

Achard, F., H.D. Eva, P. Mayaux, H.-J. Stibig, and A. Belward, 2004: Improved estimates of net carbon emissions from land cover change in the Tropics for the 1990’s. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 18, GB2008, doi:10.1029/2003GB002142. [JoC, MoS, SRC]

Albrecht, A. and S.T. Kandji, 2003: Carbon sequestration in tropical agroforestry systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 99(1-3), pp. 15-27. Clean

Alves, D.S., J.L.G. Pereira, C.L. de Sousa, J.V. Soares, and F. Yamaguchi, 1999: Characterizing landscape changes in central Rondonia using Landsat TM imagery. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 20, pp. 2877-2882. Clean

Asner, G.P., D.E. Knapp, E.N. Broadbent, P.J.C. Oliveira, M. Keller, and J.N. Silva, 2005: Selective Logging in the Brazilian Amazon. Science, 310(5747), pp. 480-482. [JoC]

Atyi, R.E. and M. Simula, 2002: Forest certification: pending challenges for tropical timber. Tropical Forest Update, 12(3), pp. 3-5. Clean

Baldocchi, D., E. Falge, L. Gu, R. Olson, D. Hollinger, S. Running, P. Anthoni, Ch. Bernhofer, K. Davis, R. Evans, J. Fuentes, A. Goldstein, G. Katul, B. Law, X. Lee, Y. Malhi, T. Meyers, W. Munger, W. Oechel, K.T. Paw U, K. Pilegaard, H.P. Schmid, R. Valentini, S. Verma, T. Vesala, K. Wilson, and S. Wofsy, 2001: FLUXNET: A new tool to study the temporal and spatial variability of ecosystem-scale carbon dioxide, water vapor and energy flux densities. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 82(11), pp. 2415-2434. Clean

Benitez-Ponce, P.C. 2005: Essays on the economics of forestry based carbon mitigation. PhD Thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University. [NPR, SRC]

Benítez-Ponce, P.C., I. Mc Callum, M. Obersteiner, and Y. Yamagata. 2004: Global supply for carbon sequestration: identifying least-cost afforestation sites under country risk considerations. IIASA Interim Report IR-04-022, Laxenburg, Austria. [NPR, SRC]

Benítez-Ponce, P.C., I. McCallum, M. Obersteiner, and Y. Yamagata. 2007: Global potential for carbon sequestration: geographical distribution, country risk and policy implications. Ecological Economics, 60, pp. 572-583. [SRC, 2007]

Bentancourt, K., M. Ibrahim, C. Harvey, and B. Vargas, 2003: Effect of tree cover on animal behavior in dual purpose cattle farms in Matiguas, Matagalpa, Nicaragua. Agroforestería en las Américas, 10, pp. 47-51. Clean

Betts, R.A., P.M. Cox, M. Collins, P.P. Harris, C. Huntingford, and C.D. Jones, 2004: The role of ecosystem-atmosphere interactions in simulated Amazonian precipitation decrease and forest dieback under global climate warming. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 78(1-3), pp. 157-175. [MoS]

Bhat, D.M, K.S. Murali, and N.H. Ravindranath, 2001: Formation and recovery of secondary forests in india: A particular reference to western ghats in South India. Journal of Tropical Forest Science, 13(4), pp. 601-620. [SRC]

Bhattacharya, S.C., P. Abdul Salam, H.L. Pham, and N.H. Ravindranath, 2005: Sustainable biomass production for energy in selected Asian Countries. Biomass and Bioenergy, 25, pp. 471-482. [SRC]

Brinkman, S., 2005: IMAGE 2.2. Carbon cycle analysis. Brinkman climate change consultant. The Hague. The Netherlands. 37 pp. [NPR, SRC]

Brown, S., A. Dushku, T. Pearson, D. Shoch, J. Winsten, S. Sweet, and J. Kadyszewski, 2004: Carbon supply from changes in management of forest, range, and agricultural lands of California. Winrock International for California Energy Commission, 144 pp. + app. [NPR]

Cacho, O.J., R L. Hean, and R M. Wise, 2003: Carbon-accounting methods and reforestation incentives. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 47, pp. 153-179. Clean

Cannell, M.G.R., 2003: Carbon sequestration and biomass energy offset: theoretical, potential and achievable capacities globally, in Europe and the UK. Biomass and Bioenergy, 24, pp. 97-116. Clean

Caparros, A. and F. Jacquemont, 2003: Conflicts between biodiversity and carbon sequestration programs: economic and legal implications. Ecological Economics, 46, pp. 143-157. Clean

Carrasco-Letellier, L., G. Eguren, C. Castiñeira, O. Parra, and D. Panario, 2004: Preliminary study of prairies forested with Eucalyptus sp. at the Nortwestern Uruguayan soils. Environmental Pollution, 127, pp. 49-55. Clean

Caspersen, J.P., S.W. Pacala, J.C. Jenkins, G.C. Hurtt, P.R. Moorcroft, and R.A. Birdsey, 2000: Contributions of land-use history to carbon accumulation in U.S. forests. Science 290, pp. 1148-1151. [JoC]

Chen, W., J.M. Chen, D.T. Price, J. Cihlar, and J. Liu, 2000: Carbon offset potentials of four alternative forest management strategies in Canada: A simulation study. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 5, pp. 143-169. [MoS, SRC]

Chomitz, K.M., 2002: Baseline, leakage and measurement issues: how do forestry and energy projects compare? Climate Policy, 2, pp. 35-49. [JoC]

Chomitz, K.M., P. Buys, G. DeLuca, T.S. Thomas, and S. Wertz-Kanounnikoff, 2006: At Loggerheads? Agricultural expansion, poverty reduction, and the environment in the tropics. The World Bank, Washington, D.C., 284 pp. [NPR]

Ciais, P, P. Peylin P, and P. Bousquet, 2000: Regional biospheric carbon fluxes as inferred from atmospheric CO₂ measurements. Ecological Applications, 10(6), pp. 1574-1589. Clean

Ciais, P., M. Reichstein, N. Viovy, A. Granier, J. Ogée, V. Allard, M. Aubinet, N. Buchmann, Chr. Bernhofer, A. Carrara, F. Chevallier, N. De Noblet, A.D. Friend, P. Friedlingstein, T. Grünwald, B. Heinesch, P. Keronen, A. Knohl, G. Krinner, D. Loustau, G. Manca, G. Matteucci, F. Miglietta, J.M. Ourcival, D. Papale, K. Pilegaard, S. Rambal, G. Seufert, J.F. Soussana, M.J. Sanz, E.D. Schulze, T. Vesala, and R. Valentini, 2005: Europe-wide reduction in primary productivity caused by the heat and drought in 2003. Nature (London), 437(7058), pp. 529-533. [JoC]

Clarke, M., 2000: Real barriers to trade in forest products. Working Paper 2000/4, New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, Wellington, 20 pp. [NPR]

Clavijo, M., M. Nordenstahl, P. Gundel, and E. Jobbágy, 2005: Poplar afforestation effects on grasslands structure and composition in the flooding pampas. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 58, pp. 474-479. [SRC]

Cohen, D.H., L. Lee, and I. Vertinsky, 2002: China’s natural forest protection program (NFPP): impact on trade policies regarding wood. Prepared for CIDA with the Research Center for Ecological and Environmental Economics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, 63 pp. [NPR]

Cossalter, C. and C. Pye-Smith, 2003: Fast-wood Forestry: myths and realities. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia, 59 pp. [NPR]

Couto, L. and R. Betters, 1995: Short-rotation eucalypt plantations in Brazil: social and environmental issues. ORNL/TM-12846. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. <http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/reports/euc-braz/index.html>. accessed 20 September 2005. [NPR]

Cox, P.M., R.A. Betts, M. Collins, P.P. Harris, C. Huntingford, and C.D. Jones, 2004: Amazonian forest dieback under climate-carbon cycle projections for the 21^st century. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 78, pp. 137-156. [MoS]

Cuiping, L., Yanyongjie, W. Chuangzhi, and H. Haitao: Study on the distribution and quantity of biomass residues resource in China. Biomass and Bioenergy 2004, 27, pp. 111-117. Clean

Dang, H.H., A. Michaelowa, and D.D. Tuan, 2003: Synergy of adaptation and mitigation strategies in the context of sustainable development: in the case of Vietnam. Climate Policy, 3S1, pp. S81- S96. [JoC, ARC]

De Jong, B.H.J., E.E. Bazán, and S.Q. Montalvo, 2007 (in print): Application of the Climafor baseline to determine leakage: The case of Scolel Té. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. [NPR, 2007]

DeFries, R., 2002: Past and future sensitivity of primary production to human modification of the landscape. Geophysical Research Letters, 29(7), Art. No. 1132. [MoS]

DeFries, R., F. Achard, S. Brown, M. Herold, D. Murdiyarso, B. Schlamadinger, and C. DeSouza, 2006: Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation in developing countries: Considerations for monitoring and measuring. Report of the Global Terrestrial Observing System (GTOS) number 46, GOFC-GOLD report 26, 23 pp.<www.fao.org/gtos/pubs.html> accessed 11 June 2007. [NPR, SRC]

Denman, K.L., G. Brasseur, A. Chidthaisong, Ph. Ciais, P. Cox, R.E. Dickinson, D. Hauglustaine, C. Heinze, E. Holland, D. Jacob, U. Lohmann, S. Ramachandran, P.L. da Silva Dias, S.C. Wofsy, X. Zhang, 2007: Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry, Chapter 7 in: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. [NPR, SRC, 2007]

Dourojeanni, M.J., 1999: The future of Latin American forests. Environment Division Working Paper, Interamerican Development Bank, Washington D.C. [NPR, MoS]

Dublin, H. and C. Volante, 2004: Biodiversity Program Study 2004. Global Environment Facility Office of Monitoring and Evaluation, Washington, D.C., 141 pp. [NPR]

Dudek, D., A. Golub, and E. Strukova. 2002: Ancillary benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in transitional economies. Working Paper, Environmental Defence. Washington, D.C. [NPR]

Dutschke, M., B. Schlamadinger, J.L.P. Wong, and M. Rumberg, 2005: Value and risks of expiring carbon credits from affor-estation and reforestation projects under the CDM. Climate Policy, 5(1). [JoC, SRC]

Easterling, W., P. Aggarwal, P. Batima, K. Brander, L. Erda, M. Howden, A. Kirilenko, J. Morton, J.F. Soussana, J. Schmidhuber, F. Tubiello, Food, Fibre, and Forest Products, Chapter 5 in: Climate Change 2007: Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. [NPR, ARC, 2007]

EEA, 2005: How much bioenergy can Europe provide without harming the environment? EEA report 07/2006. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. [NPR]

Eggers, J., M. Lindner, S. Zudin, S. Zaehle, J. Liski, and G.J. Nabuurs, 2007. Forestry in Europe under changing climate and land use. Proceedings of the OECD Conference ‘Forestry: A Sectoral Response to Climate Change’, 21-23 November 2006. In: P. Freer-Smith (ed.), Forestry Commission, UK. [NPR, ARC, 2007]

Enters, T., P.B. Durst, G.B. Applegate, P.C.S. Kho, G. Man, T. Enters, P.B. Durst, G.B. Applegate, P.C.S. Kho, and G. Man, 2002: Trading forest carbon to promote the adoption of reduced impact logging, Applying reduced impact logging to advance sustainable forest management. International conference proceedings, Kuching, Malaysia, RAP-Publication, pp. 261-274. [NPR]

Ericcson, K. and L.J. Nilsson, 2006: Assessment of the potential biomass supply in Europe using a resource-focused approach. Biomass and Bioenergy, 30(1), pp. 1-15. Clean

Fang, J., T. Oikawa, T. Kato and W. Mo, 2005: Biomass carbon accumulation by Japan’s forests from 1947 to 1995. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 19, GB2004. [JoC]

FAO, 2001: Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000. Main report. FAO Forestry Paper 140, 479 pp. [NPR]

FAO, 2005: State of the world’s forests 2005. 153 pp. [NPR]

FAO, 2006a: Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005. Progress towards sustainable forest management. FAO Forestry Paper 147, 320 pp. [NPR]

FAO, 2006b: Summaries of FAO’s work in forestry. Rome, Italy. <http://www.fao.org/forestry/foris/webview/forestry2/index.jsp?siteId=3741&sitetreeId=11467&langId=1&geoId=0> accessed 27 October 2006. [NPR]

Farley, K., E.G. Jobbágy and R.B. Jackson, 2004: Effects of afforestation on water yield: a global synthesis with implications for policy. Center on Global Change, Duke University, Durham. Department of Biology and Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University, Durham. Grupo de Estudios Ambientales - IMASL, Universidad Nacional de San Luis & CONICET, Argentina. [NPR, SRC]

Fearnside, P.M. and W.F. Laurance, 2004: Tropical deforestation and greenhouse-gas emissions. Ecological Applications, 14(4), pp. 982-986. Clean

Fischer, G. and L. Schrattenholzer, 2001: Global bioenergy potentials through 2050. Biomass and Bioenergy, 20, pp. 151-159. Clean

Fischlin, A., G.F. Midgley, J. Price, R. Leemans, B. Gopal, C. Turley, M. Rounsevell, P. Dube, J. Tarazona, A. Velichko, 2007: Ecosystems, their Properties, Goods, and Services, Chapter 4 in: Climate Change 2007: Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. [NPR, 2007]

Fuhrer, J., M. Benitson, A. Fischlin, C. Frei, S. Goyettte, K. Jasper, and C. Pfister, 2007: Climate risks and their impact on agriculture and forests in Switzerland. Climatic change, 72 (accepted in print). [NPR, 2007]

Gaddis, D.A., B.D. New, F.W. Cubbage, R.C. Abt, and R.J. Moulton, 1995: Accomplishments and economic evaluations of the Forestry Incentive Program: a review. SCFER Working Paper (78), pp. 1-52. Southeastern Center for Forest Economics Research, Research Triangle Park, NC. [NPR]

Geist, H.J. and E.F. Lambin, 2002: Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation. BioScience, 52, pp. 143-150. Clean

Gobbi, J., 2003: Financial behavior of investment in sylvopastoral systems in cattle farms of Esparza, Costa Rica. Agroforestería en las Américas, 10, pp. 52-60. Clean

Government of Australia, 2006: Biofuels Capital Grants (BCG) - Fact Sheet. <http://www.ausindustry.gov.au/content/content.cfm?ObjectID=8B98D9B4-D244-43EF-A4AA7D42B39DFE1B> accessed 27 October 2006. [NPR]

Granger, A., 1997: Bringing tropical deforestation under control change programme. Global environmental change programme briefings, Number 16. Economic and Social Research Council, Global Environmental Change Programme, Sussex, U.K., 4 pp. <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/gec/pubs/briefing/brief-16.pdf> accessed 1 September 2005. [NPR]

Grassl, H., J. Kokott, M. Kulessa, J. Luther, F. Nuscheler, R. Sauerborn, H.-J. Schellnhuber, R. Schubert, and E.-D. Schulze: 2003. Climate protection strategies for the 21st century: Kyoto and beyond. Berlin: German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU). [NPR]

Grieg-Gran, M., 2004: Making environmental service payments work for the poor: some experiences from Latin America. International Fund for Agricultural Development Governing Council Side Event. <www.ifad.org/events/gc/27/side/presentation/ieed.ppt> accessed 1 September 2005. [NPR]

Gullison, R.E., 2003: Does forest certification conserve biodiversity? Oryx, 37(2), pp. 153-165. [SRC]

Gurney, K.R., R.M. Law, A.S. Denning, P.J. Rayner, D. Baker, P. Bousquet, L. Bruhwiler, Y-H. Chen, P. Ciais, S. Fan, I.Y. Fung, M. Gloor, M. Heimann, K. Higuchi, J. John, T. Maki, S. Maksyutov, K. Masarie, P. Peylin, M. Prather, B.C. Pak, J. Randerson, J. Sarmiento, S. Taguchi, T. Takahashi, and C-W. Yuen, 2002: Towards robust regional estimates of CO₂ sources and sinks using atmospheric transport models. Nature, 415, pp. 626-629. [JoC, MoS]

Gustavsson, L. and R. Sathre, 2006: Variability in energy and carbon dioxide balances of wood and concrete building materials. Building and Environment, 41, pp. 940-951. Clean

Gustavsson, L., K. Pingoud, and R. Sathre, 2006: Carbon dioxide balance of wood substitution: comparing concrete and wood-framed buildings. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 11, pp. 667-691. Clean

Heistermann, M., C. Müller, and K. Ronneberger, 2006: Review land in sight? Achievements, deficits and potentials of continental to global scale land-use modelling. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 114(2006), pp. 141-158. [MoS]

Hirata, Y., Y. Akiyama, H. Saito, A. Miyamoto, M. Fukuda, and T. Nisizono, 2003: Estimating forest canopy structure using helicopter-borne LIDAR measurement. P. Corona et al. (eds), Advances in forest inventory for sustainable forest management and biodiversity monitoring, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 125-134. [NPR, MoS]

Hoen, H.F. and B. Solberg, 1994: Potential and efficiency of carbon sequestration in forest biomass through silvicultural management. Forest Science, 40, pp. 429-451. Clean

Holmes, T.P., G.M. Blate, J.C. Zweede, R. Pereira Jr., P. Barreto, F. Boltz, and R. Bauch, 2002: Financial and ecological indicators of reduced impact logging performance in the eastern Amazon. Forest Ecology and Management, 163, pp. 93-110. Clean

Hooda, N., M. Gera, K. Andrasko, J.A. Sathaye, M.K. Gupta, H.B. Vasistha, M. Chandran, and S.S. Rassaily, 2007: Community and farm forestry climate mitigation projects: case studies from Uttaranchal, India. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. 12(6) pp. 1099-1130. [SRC, 2007]

Houghton, R.A., 2005: Aboveground forest biomass and the global carbon balance. Global Change Biology, 11(6), pp. 945-958. Clean

Houghton, R.A., 2003a: Why are estimates of the terrestrial carbon balance so different? Global change biology, 9, pp. 500-509. [NPR, MoS]

Houghton, R.A., 2003b: Revised estimates of the annual net flux of carbon to the atmosphere from changes in land use and land management 1850-2000. Tellus Series B Chemical and Physical Meteorology, 55(2), pp. 378-390. [MoS]

Houghton, R.A., D.L. Skole, C.A. Nobre, J.L. Hackler, K.T. Lawrence, and W.H. Chomentowski, 2000: Annual fluxes or carbon from deforestation and regrowth in the Brazilian Amazon. Nature, 403, pp. 301-304. [JoC]

IEA, 2002: Sustainable Production of woody biomass for energy, a position paper prepared by IEA Bioenergy. <http://www.ieabioenergy.com/> accessed 11 June 2007. [NPR]

Ikkonen, E.N., V.K. Kurets, S.I. Grabovik, and S.N. Drozdov, 2001: The rate of carbon dioxide emission into the atmosphere from a southern Karelian mesooligotrophic bog. Russian Journal of Ecology, 32(6), pp. 382-385. Clean

IPCC, 2000a: Land use, land-use change and forestry. Special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 377 pp. [NPR]

IPCC, 2000b: Methodological and technological issues in the technology transfer. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. [NPR]

IPCC, 2000c: Emission Scenarios. Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. [NPR]

IPCC, 2001: Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. A Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Watson, R.T. and the Core Writing Team (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY, USA, 398 pp. [NPR]

IPCC, 2002: Climate and Biodiversity. IPCC Technical Paper V [Gitay, H., A. Suarez., R.T. Watson, and D.J. Dokken (eds.)]. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). [NPR]

IPCC, 2003: Good practice guidance for land use, land-use change and forestry. IPCC-IGES, Japan. [NPR]

IPCC, 2006: 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme [Eggleston H.S., L. Buenia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara, and K. Tanabe (eds)]. IPCC-IGES, Japan. [NPR]

IPCC, 2007a: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B.M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp. [NPR, 2007]

IPCC, 2007b: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, C.E. Hanson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. [NPR, 2007]

ITTO, 1999: International cross sectoral forum on forest fire management in South East Asia. International Tropical Timber Organization, Jakarta, Indonesia, 7 And 8 December 1998. Report of the Meeting. <http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/programmes/itto/cross.pdf> accessed 12 April 2006. [NPR]

IUCN, 2002: Analysis of stakeholder power and responsibilities in community involvement in forest management in Eastern and Southern Africa. IUCN, Nairobi. [NPR]

IUCN, 2004: Community-based natural resource management in the IGAD Region. IUCN, Nairobi. [NPR]

Izrael, Y.A., M.L. Gytarsky, R.T. Karaban, A.L. Lelyakin, and I.M. Nazarov: 2002: Consequences of climate change for forestry and carbon dioxide sink in Russian forests. Izvestiya, Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics, 38(Suppl. 1), pp. S84-S98. Clean

Jackson, R.B., E.G. Jobbágy, R Avissar, S. Baidya Roy, D.J. Barrett, Ch.W. Cook, K.A. Farley, D.C. le Maitre, B.A. McCarl, and B.C. Murray, 2005: Trading water for carbon with biological carbon sequestration. Science, 310, pp. 1944-1947. [JoC, SRC]

Jakeman, G. and B.S. Fisher, 2006: Benefits of multi-gas mitigation: an application of the global trade and environment model (GTEM). Energy Journal, Special Issue pp. 323-342. [NPR, ARC]

Janssens, I.A., A. Freibauer, P. Ciais, P. Smith, G.-J. Nabuurs, G. Folberth, B. Schlamadinger, R.W.A. Hutjes, R. Ceulemans, E.-D. Schulze, R. Valentini, and A.J. Dolman, 2003: Europe’s terrestial biosphere absorbs 7 to 12% of European anthropogenic CO₂ emissions. Science, 300, pp. 1538-1542. [JoC, SRC]

Jung, M., 2005: The role of forestry sinks in the CDM-analysing the effects of policy decisions on the carbon market. HWWA discussion paper 241, Hamburg Institute of International Economics, 32 pp. [NPR]

Kabat, P., W. Vierssen, J. Veraart, P. Vellinga, and J. Aerts, 2005: Climate proofing the Netherlands. Nature, 438, pp. 283-284. [JoC]

Karjalainen, T. and A. Asikainen, 1996: Greenhouse gas emissions from the use of primary energy in forest operations and long-distance transportation of timber in Finland, Forestry, 69, pp. 215-228. [SRC]

Karjalainen, T., A. Pussinen, J. Liski, G.-J. Nabuurs, T. Eggers, T. Lapvetelainen, and T. Kaipainen, 2003: Scenario analysis of the impacts of forest management and climate change on the European forest sector carbon budget. Forest Policy and Economics, 5, pp. 141-155. [SRC]

Katila, M. and E. Puustjärvi, 2004: Markets for forests environmental services: reality and potential. Unasylva, 219(55, 2004/4), pp.53-58. Clean

Kauppi, P., R.J. Sedjo, M. Apps, C. Cerri, T. Fujimori, H. Janzen, O. Krankina, W. Makundi, G. Marland, O. Masera, G.J. Nabuurs, W. Razali, and N.H. Ravindranath, 2001: Technical and economic potential of options to enhance, maintain and manage biological carbon reservoirs and geo-engineering. In Mitigation 2001. The IPCC Third Assessment Report, [Metz, B., et al., (eds.)], Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. [NPR, SRC]

Klein, R.J.T., S. Huq, F. Denton, T. Downing, R.G. Richels, J.B. Robinson, F.L. Toth, 2007: Inter-relationships between Adaptation and Mitigation, Chapter 18 in: Climate Change 2007: Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. [NPR, ARC, 2007]

Koopman, A., 2005: Biomass energy demand and supply for South and South-East Asia - assessing the resource base. Biomass and Bioenergy, 28, pp 133-150. Clean

Körner, C., 2004: Through enhanced tree dynamics carbon dioxide enrichment may cause tropical forests to lose carbon. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London - Series A, 359(1443), pp. 493-498. Clean

Krankina ON, Harmon ME, Winjum K. 1996. Carbon storage and sequestration in Russian Forest Sector. Ambio 25: 284-288. [NPR]

Krankina, O.N., R.K. Dixon 1994. Forest management options to conserve and sequester terrestrial carbon in the Russian Federation World Resour. Rev. 6: 88-101. [NPR, SRC]

Kurz, W.A. and M.J. Apps, 2006: Developing Canada’s national forest carbon monitoring, Accounting and reporting system to meet the reporting requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 11, pp. 33-43. [SRC]

Kurz, W.A., S.J. Beukema, and M.J. Apps, 1998: Carbon budget implications of the transition from natural to managed disturbance regimes in forest landscapes. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 2, pp. 405-421. [SRC]

Lasco, R.D., F.B. Pulhin, and R.F. Sales, 2007 (accepted, in print): An analysis of a forestry carbon sequestration project in the Philippines: the case of upper Magat watershed. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. [NPR, 2007]

Lewandrowski, J., M. Peters, C. Jones, R. House, M. Sperow, M. Eve, and K. Paustian, 2004: Economics of Sequestering Carbon in the U.S. Agricultural Sector. Technical Bulletin, TB1909, 69 pp. Clean

Lewis, S., O. Phillips, T. Baker, Y. Malhi, and J. Lloyd, 2005: Tropical forests and atmospheric carbon dioxide: Current knowledge and potential future scenarios. Oxford University Press, 260 pp. [NPR, MoS]

Lindner, M., J. Meyer, Th. Eggers, and A. Moiseyev, 2005: Environmentally enhanced bio-energy potential from European forests. A report commissioned by the European Environment Agency through the European Topic Centre on Biodiversity, Paris. European Forest Institute, Joensuu, Finland. [NPR]

MAF, 2006: The permanent forest sink initative. Bulletin Issue 3, December 2006. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Wellington, New Zealand. <http://www.maf.govt.nz/forestry/pfsi/bulletin/issue-3/index.htm> accessed 11 June 2007. [NPR]

Marland, G., R.A. Pielke Sr, M. Apps, R. Avissar, R.A. Betts, K.J. Davis, P.C. Frumhoff, S.T. Jackson, L.A. Joyce, P. Kauppi, J. Katzenberger, K.G. MacDicken, R.P. Neilson, J.O. Niles, D.D.S. Niyogi, R.J. Norby, N. Pena, N. Sampson, and Y. Xue, 2003: The climatic impacts of land surface change and carbon management, and the implications for climate-change mitigation policy. Climate Policy, 3, pp. 149-157. [JoC, SRC]

Masera, O.R., J.F. Garza Caligaris, M. Kanninen, T. Karjalainen, J. Liski, G.J. Nabuurs, A. Pussinen, B.H.J.d. Jong, G.M.J. Mohren, and B.H.J. de Jong, 2003, Modelling carbon sequestration in afforestation, agroforestry and forest management projects: the CO2FIX V.2 approach. Ecological modeling, 164, pp. 177-199. [NPR, MoS, SRC]

Masera, O.R., R. Díaz, and V. Berrueta, 2005: From cookstoves to cooking systems: The integrated program on sustainable household energy use in Mexico. Energy for Sustainable Development, 9(5), pp. 25-36. [SRC]

Matsumoto, M., H. Kanomata, and M. Fukuda, 2002: Distribution of carbon uptakes by Japanese forest. J Forest Research, 113, 91 pp. (in Japanese). [SRC]

McCarl, B.A. and U.A. Schneider, 2001: Greenhouse gas mitigation in U.S. agriculture and forestry. Science, 294, pp. 2481-2482. [JoC, ARC]

McGinley, K. and B. Finegan, 2003: The ecological sustainability of tropical forest management: evaluation of the national forest management standards of Costa Rica and Nicaragua, with emphasis on the need for adaptive management. Forest Policy and Economics, 5(2003), pp. 421-431. Clean

McKenney, D.W., D. Yemshanov, G. Fox, and E. Ramlal, 2004: Cost estimates for carbon sequestration from fast growing poplar plantations in Canada. Forest Policy and Economics. 6: 345– 358 [NPR]

MEA, 2005a: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, D.C., 137 pp. [NPR]

MEA, 2005b: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being: Scenarios. Findings of the Scenarios Working Group. Island Press, Washington D.C. [NPR]

Mertens, B., D. Kaimowitz, A. Puntodewo, J. Vanclay, and P. Mendez, 2004: Modeling deforestation at distinct geographic scales and time periods in Santa Cruz, Bolivia. International Regional Science Review, 27(3), pp. 271-296. [MoS]

MfE, 2002: National Communication 2001: New Zealand’s Third National Communication under the Framework Convention on Climate Change. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, NZ. <http://www.climatechange.govt.nz/resources/reports/index.html> accessed 11 June 2007. [NPR]

MfE, 2005: Projected balance of units during the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, NZ. <http://www.climatechange.govt.nz/resources/reports/index.html> accessed 11 June 2007. [NPR]

Micales, J.A. and K.E. Skog, 1997: The decomposition of forest products in landfills. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, 39(2-3), pp. 145-158. Clean

Minkkinen, K., R. Korhonen, I. Savolainen, and J. Laine, 2002: Carbon balance and radiative forcing of Finnish peatland 1900-2100, the impacts of drainage. Global Change Biology, 8, pp. 785-799. [MoS]

Murdiyarso, D., 2005: Linkages between mitigation and adaptation in land-use change and forestry activities. In Tropical forests and adaptation to climate change: In search of synergies. C. Robledo, C. Kanninen, and L. Pedroni (eds.). Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), 186 pp. [NPR]

Murphy, R., 2004: Timber and the circle of life. ITTO. Tropical Forest Update, 14(3), pp. 12-14. Clean

Murray, B.C., B.A. McCarl, and H. Lee, 2004: Estimating leakage from forest carbon sequestration programs. Land Economics, 80(1), pp. 109-124. [MoS, ARC]

Nabuurs, G.J., M.J. Schelhaas, G.M.J. Mohren, and C.B. Field, 2003: Temporal evolution of the European Forest sector carbon sink 1950-1999. Global Change Biology, 9, pp.152-160. [ARC]

Nabuurs, G.J., I.J.J. van den Wyngaert, W.D. Daamen, A.T.F. Helmink, W.J.M. de Groot, W.C. Knol, H. Kramer, and P.J. Kuikman, 2005: National system of greenhouse gas reporting for forest and nature areas under UNFCCC in the Netherlands Wageningen: Alterra, 2005 (Alterra-rapport 1035.1), 57 pp. [NPR, ARC]

Nabuurs, G.J., J. van Brusselen, A. Pussinen, and M.J. Schelhaas, 2006: Future harvesting pressure on European forests. European Journal of Forest Research, 126 (3) pp. 401-412. doi: 10.1007/s10342-006-0158-y. [MoS, ARC]

Niesten, E., P.C. Frumhoff, M. Manion, and J.J. Hardner, 2002: Designing a carbon market that protects forests in developing countries. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London A, pp. 1875-1888. [NPR, SRC]

Nilsson, S., E.A. Vaganov, A.Z. Shvidenko, V. Stolbovoi, V.A. Rozhkov, I. MacCallum, and M. Ionas, 2003: Carbon budget of vegetation ecosystems of Russia. Doklady Earth Sciences, 393A(9), pp. 1281-1283. Clean

Nilsson, S., A. Shvidenko, V. Stolbovoi, M. Gluck, M. Jonas, M.Obersteiner, 2000: Full Carbon Account for Russia. IIASA Interim Report IR-00-021, 190 p. [NPR]

OECD, 2002: Ancillary benefits of reducing Greenhouse gas emissions in Transitional Economies. [NPR]

OECD, 2006: World Energy Outlook. IEA, Paris. [NPR]

Ohtani, Y., N. Saigusa, S. Yamamoto, Y. Mizoguchi, T. Watanabe, Y. Yasuda, and S. Murayama, 2005: Characteristics of CO₂ fluxes in cool-temperate coniferous and deciduous broadleaf forests in Japan. Phyton, 45, pp. 73-80. Clean

Olivier, J.G.J., J.A. Van Aardenne, F. Dentener, V. Pagliari, L.N. Ganzeveld, and J.A.H.W. Peters, 2005: Recent trends in global greenhouse gas emissions: regional trends 1970-2000 and spatial distribution of key sources in 2000. Environmental Science, 2(2-3), pp. 81-99. [ARC]

Orlove, B., 2005: Human adaptation to climate change: a review of three historical cases and some general perspectives. Environmental Science & Policy, 8(6), pp. 589-600. Clean

Pacala, S.W., G.C. Hurtt, D. Baker, P. Peylin, R.A. Houghton, R.A. Birdsey, L. Heath, E.T. Sundquist, R.F. Stallard, P. Ciais, P. Moorcroft, J.P. Caspersen, E. Shevliakova, B. Moore, G. Kohlmaier, E. Holland, M. Gloor, M.E. Harmon, S.-M. Fan, J.L. Sarmiento, C.L. Goodale, and D. Schimel, 2001: Consistent land- and atmosphere-based U.S. carbon sink estimates. Science: 292, pp. 2316-2320. [JoC, MoS]

Pan, Y., T. Luo, R. Birdsey, J. Hom, and J. Melillo, 2004: New estimates of carbon storage and sequestration in China’s forests: effects of age-class and method on inventory-based carbon estimation. Climatic Change, 67(2), pp. 211-236. [JoC, MoS]

Parris, K., 2004: Agriculture, biomass, sustainability and policy: an overview. In Biomass and agriculture: sustainability, markets and policies. K. Parris and T. Poincet (eds.), OECD Publication Service, Paris, pp. 27-36. [NPR]

Parrotta, J.A., 2002: Restoration and management of degraded tropical forest landscapes. In Modern Trends in Applied Terrestrial Ecology. R.S. Ambasht and N.K. Ambasht (eds.), Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press, New York, pp. 135-148 (Chapter 7). [NPR]

Paul, K.I., P.J. Polglase, and G.P. Richards, 2003: Predicted change in soil carbon following afforestation or reforestation, and analysis of controlling factors by linking a C accounting model (CAMFor) to models of forest growth (3PG), litter decomposition (GENDEC) and soil C turnover (RothC). Forest Ecology and Management, 177, 485 pp. [MoS]

Pedroni, L., 2005: Carbon accounting for sinks in the CDM after CoP-9. Climate Policy, 5, pp. 407-418. [JoC]

Pérez Bidegain, M., P.F. García, and R. Methol, 2001: Long-term effect of tillage intensity for Eucalyptus grandis planting on some soil physical properties in an Uruguayan Alfisol. 3^rd International Conference on Land Degradation and Meeting of IUSS Subcommission C-Soil and Water Conservation. September 17-21 2001- Rio de Janeiro - Brazil. [NPR]

Petersen, A.K. and B. Solberg, 2002: Greenhouse gas emissions, life-cycle inventory and cost-efficiency of using laminated wood instead of steel construction. - Case: beams at Gardermoen airport. Environmental Science and Policy, 5, pp. 169-182. Clean

Plattner, G.-K., F. Joos, and T.F. Stocker, 2002: Revision of the global carbon budget due to changing air-sea oxygen fluxes. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 16(4), 1096 pp., doi:10.1029/2001GB001746. [PoC, JoC]

Post, W.M. and K.C. Kwon, 2000: Soil carbon sequestration and land-use change: processes and potential. Global Change Biology, 6, pp. 317-328. Clean

Potter, C., S. Klooster, R. Myneni, V. Genovese, P.N. Tan, and V. Kumar, 2003: Continental-scale comparisons of terrestrial carbon sinks estimated from satellite data and ecosystem modeling 1982-1998. Global and Planetary Change, 39(3-4), pp. 201-213. [MoS]

Quine, C. and J. Humphrey, 2005: Stand Management and biodiversity. In International Conference: Biodiversity and Conservation Biology in Plantation Forests. Bordeaux, France. [NPR]

Rao, S. and K. Riahi, 2006: The role of non-CO₂ greenhouse gases in climate change mitigation: Long-term scenarios for the 21st century. Energy Journal, Special Issue pp.177-200. [NPR, ARC]

Ravindranath, N.H. and J.A. Sathaye, 2002: Climate change and developing countries. Kluwer Academic Publishers. [NPR, SRC]

Ravindranath, N.H., I. K. Murthy, P. Sudha, V. Ramprasad, M.D.V. Nagendra, C.A. Sahana, K.G. Srivathsa, and H. Khan, 2007: Methodological issues in forestry mitigation projects: A case study of Kolar district. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12 (6) pp. 1077-1098. [SRC, 2007]

Ravindranath, N.H., 2007: Mitigation and adaptation synergy in forest sector. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. 12 (5) pp. 843-853. [SRC, 2007]

Raymond, P.A. and J.J. Cole, 2003: Increase in the export of alkalinity from North America’s largest river. Science, 301, pp. 88-91. [JoC]

Riahi, K., A. Gruebler, and N. Nakicenovic, 2006: Scenarios of long-term socio-economic and environmental development under climate stabilization. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Special Issue. [NPR, MoS, ARC]

Richards, G.P. and C. Brack: A modelled carbon account for Australia’s post-1990 plantation estate. Australian Forestry, 67(4), pp. 289-300. Clean

Richards, G.P. and D.M.W. Evans, 2004: Development of a carbon accouning model (FullCAM Vers.1.0) for the Australian continent. Australian Forestry, 67, pp. 277-283. [MoS]

Richards, K.R., C. Stokes, 2004: A review of forest carbon sequestration cost studies: a dozen years of research. Climatic Change, 63, pp. 1-48. [JoC]

Richards, K.R., R.N. Sampson, and S. Brown, 2006: Agricultural and forest lands: U.S. carbon policy strategies. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, VA. [NPR]

Richey, J.E., J.M. Melack, A.K. Aufdenkampe, V.M. Ballester, and L.L. Hess, 2002: Outgassing from Amazonian rivers and wetlands as a large tropical source of atmospheric CO₂. Nature, 416(6881), pp. 617-620. [JoC]

Robins, A., 2005: Ecosystem Services Markets. Seattle, University of Washington. [NPR]

Robledo, C., C. Kanninen, and L. Pedroni (eds.), 2005: Tropical forests and adaptation to climate change. In search of synergies. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), 186 pp. [NPR]

Rodenbeck, C., S. Houweling, M. Gloor, and M. Heimann, 2003: CO₂ flux history 1982-2001 inferred from atmospheric data using a global inversion of atmospheric transport. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 3, pp. 1919-1964. Clean

Rose, S., H. Ahammad, B. Eickhout, B. Fisher, A. Kurosawa, S. Rao, K. Riahi, and D. van Vuuren, 2007: Land in climate stabilization modeling: Initial observations. Energy Modeling Forum Report, Stanford University, <http://www.stanford.edu/group/EMF/projects/group21/EMF21sinkspagenew.htm> accessed January 2007. [NPR, MoS, SRC, 2007]

Rosenbaum, K.L., D. Schoene, and A. Mekouar, 2004: Climate change and the forest sector: possible national and subnational legislation. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 60 pp. [NPR]

Santilli, M.P., P. Moutinho, S. Schwartzman, D. Nepstad, L. Curran, and C. Nobre, 2005: Tropical deforestation and the Kyoto Protocol: an editorial essay. Climatic Change, 71, pp. 267-276. [JoC]

Sathaye, J.A., W. Makundi, L. Dale, P. Chan and K. Andrasko, 2007: GHG mitigation potential, costs and benefits in global forests: A dynamic partial equilibrium approach. Energy Journal, Special Issue 3, pp. 127-172. [SRC, 2007]

Sathaye, J.A. and K. Andrasko, 2007: Special issue on estimation of baselines and leakage in carbon mitigation forestry projects: Editorial. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12(6) pp. 963-970. [MoS, SRC, 2007]

Schelhaas, M.J., G.J. Nabuurs, and A. Schuck, 2003: Natural disturbances in the European forests in the 19th and the 20th centuries. Global Change Biology, 9, pp. 1620-1633. [ARC]

Schimel, D.S., J.I. House, K.A. Hibbard, P. Bousquet, P. Ciais, P. Peylin, B.H. Braswell, M.J. Apps, D. Baker, A. Bondeau, J. Canadell, G. Churkina, W. Cramer, A.S. Denning, C.B. Field, P. Friedlingstein, C. Goodale, M. Heimann, R.A. Houghton, J.M. Melillo, B. III, Moore., D. Murdiyarso, I. Noble, S.W. Pacala, I.C. Prentice, M.R. Raupach, P.J. Rayner, R.J. Scholes, W.L. Steffen, and C. Wirth, 2001: Recent patterns and mechanisms of carbon exchange by terrestrial ecosystems. Nature, 414(6860), pp. 169-172. [JoC, SRC]

Schlamadinger, B. and G. Marland, 1996: The role of forest and bioenergy strategies in the global carbon cycle. Biomass and Bioenergy, 10, pp. 275-300. [SRC]

Schlamadinger, B., L. Ciccarese, M. Dutschke, P.M. Fearnside, S. Brown, and D. Murdiyarso, 2005: Should we include avoidance of deforestation in the international response to climate change? In Carbon forestry: who will benefit? D. Murdiyarso, and H. Herawati (eds.). Proceedings of Workshop on Carbon Sequestration and Sustainable Livelihoods, held in Bogor on 16-17 February 2005. Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR, pp. 26-41. [NPR, SRC]

Schröter, D., W. Cramer, R. Leemans, I.C. Prentice, M.B. Araujo, N.W. Arnell, A. Bondeau, H. Bugmann, T.R. Carter, C.A. Gracia, A.C. Dela Vega-Leinert, M.J. Metxger, J. Meyer, T.D. Mitchell, I. Reginster, M. Rounsevell, S. Sabate, S. Sitch, B. Smith, J. Smith, P. Smith, M.T. Sykes, K. Thonicke, W. Thuiller, G. Tuck, S. Zaehle, and B. Zierl, 2005: Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability to global change in Europe. Science, 310(5752), pp. 1333-1337. [JoC, ARC]

Schwarze, R., J.O. Niles, and J. Olander, 2003: Understanding and managing leakage in forest-based green-house-gas-mitigation projects. Capturing carbon and conserving biodiversity: The market approach. I.R. Swingland, London, The Royal Society. [NPR]

Sedjo, R. and B. Sohngen, 2000: Forestry sequestration of CO₂ and markets for timber. Washington, D.C., Resources for the Future, Discussion Paper 00-03, 51 pp. [NPR, MoS, SRC]

Shvidenko, A. and S. Nilsson, 2003: A synthesis of the impact of Russian forests on the global carbon budget for 1961-1998. Tellus Series B, 55(2), pp. 391-415. Clean

Shvidenko A., Nilsson S., Rozhkov V.A. 1997. Possibilities for increased carbon sequestration through the implementation of rational forest management in Russia. Water, Air & Soil Pollution, 94:137-162 [NPR]

Sicardi, M., F. García-Prechac, and L. Fromi, 2004: Soil microbial indicators sensitive to land use conversion from pastures to commercial Eucalyptus grandis (Hill ex Maiden) plantations in Uruguay. Applied Soil Ecology, 27, pp. 125-133. Clean

Sizer, N., D. Downes, and D. Kaimowitz, 1999: Tree trade - liberalization of international commerce in forest products: risks and opportunities. World Resources Institute Forest Notes, Washington, D.C., 24 pp. [NPR]

Sizer, N., S. Bass, and J. Mayers (Coordinating Lead Authors), 2005: Wood, fuelwood and non-wood forest products. In Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005: Policy Responses: Findings of the Responses Working Group. Ecosystems and Human Well-being, 3, pp. 257-293. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Clean

Smeets, E.M.W. and A.P.C. Faaij, 2007: Bioenergy potentials from forestry in 2050, an assessment of drivers that determine the potential. <http://www.bioenergytrade.org/downloads/smeetsandfaaijbioenergyfromforestryclimaticcha.pdf> accessed 11 June 2007. [NPR, ARC, 2007]

Soares-Filho, B.S., D. Nepstad, L. Curran, E. Voll, G. Cerqueira, R.A. Garcia, C.A. Ramos, A. Mcdonald, P. Lefebvre, and P. Schlesinger, 2006: Modelling conservation in the Amazon basin. Nature, 440, pp. 520-523. [JoC, MoS]

Sohngen, B. and R. Sedjo, 2006: Carbon sequestration costs in global forests. Energy Journal, Special Issue, pp. 109-126. [NPR, SRC]

Sohngen, B. and S. Brown, 2004: Measuring leakage from carbon projects in open economies: a stop timber harvesting project case study. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 34, pp. 829-39. [SRC]

Sohngen, B., and R. Mendelsohn, 2003: An optimal control model of forest carbon sequestration. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85(2), pp. 448-457. [MoS, SRC]

Sohngen, S., K. Andrasko, M. Gytarsky, G. Korovin, L. Laestadius, B. Murray, A. Utkin, and D. Zamolodchikov, 2005: Stocks and flows: carbon inventory and mitigation potential of the Russian forest and land base. Report of the World Resources Institute, Washington D.C. [NPR, SRC]

Sørensen, 1999: Long-term scenarios for global energy demand and supply: Four global greenhouse mitigation scenarios. Energy & Environment Group, Roskilde University, Roskilde. [NPR]

Speth, J.G., 2002: Recycling Environmentalism. Foreign Policy, July/August, pp. 74-76. [NPR]

Spittlehouse, D.L. and R.B. Stewart, 2003: Adaptation to climate change in forest management. Journal of Ecosystems and Management, 4, pp. 1-11. Clean

Stern, N., 2006: Stern Review: the Economics of Climate Change. HM Treasury, Cambridge University Press, UK. [NPR]

Strengers, B., J. Van Minnen and B. Eickhout, 2007 (in print): The role of carbon plantations in mitigating climate change: potentials and costs. Climatic change. [NPR, SRC, 2007]

Swanson, D., L. Pinter, F. Bregha, A. Volkery, and K. Jacob, 2004: Sustainable development and national government actions. IISD, Commentary. [NPR, ARC]

Tacconi, L., M. Boscolo, and D. Brack, 2003: National and international policies to control illegal forest activities. Center for International Forest Research, Jakarta. [NPR]

Tate, K.R., R.H. Wilde, D.J. Giltrap, W.T. Baisden, S. Saggar, N.A. Trustrum, N.A. Scott, and J.R. Barton, 2005: Soil organic carbon stocks and flows in New Zealand: System development, measurement and modelling. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 85(4), pp. 481-489. [MoS]

Tol, R.S.J., 2006: Adaptation and mitigation: trade-offs in substance and methods. Environmental Science & Policy, 8, pp. 572-578. Clean

Trines, E., N. Höhne, M. Jung, M. Skutsch, A. Petsonk, G. Silva-Chavez, P. Smith, G.-J. Nabuurs, P. Verweij, B. and Schlamadinger, 2006: Integrating agriculture, forestry and other land use in future climate regimes: Methodological issues and policy options. WAB Report 500101002. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Bilthoven, the Netherlands. [NPR, MoS, SRC]

Trotter, C., K. Tate, N. Scott, J. Townsend, H. Wilde, S. Lambie, M. Marden, and T. Pinkney, 2005: Afforestation/reforestation of New Zealand marginal pasture lands by indigenous shrublands: the potential for Kyoto forest sinks. Annals of Forest Science, 62, pp. 865-871. Clean

UK FRP, 2005: From the mountain to the tap: How land use and water management can work for the rural poor. UK FRP, London., United Kingdom Forestry Research Programme. [NPR]

UN-ECE/FAO, 2000: Forest Resources of Europe, CIS, North America, Australia, Japan and New Zealand (industrialized temperate/boreal countries), UN-ECE/FAO Contribution to the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000. United Nations, New York, NY, USA and Geneva, Switzerland. Geneva Timber and Forest Study Papers, 17, 445 pp. Clean

UNFCCC, 2001: Land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) projects in the CDM: Ex-piring CERs. FCCC/SB/2000/MISC.4/Add.2, 5, pp. 22-36. [NPR]

UNFCCC, 2003: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Decision 19/CP.9. [NPR]

UNFCCC, 2006: Background paper for the Workshop on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries, Part I: Scientific, socio-economic, technical and methodological issues related to deforestation in developing countries. Working paper No. 1 (a), 30 August-1 September, Rome, Italy. [NPR]

US EPA, 2005: Greenhouse gas mitigation potential in U.S. forestry and agriculture. Washington, DC, EPA 430-R-006, November, 150 pp. [NPR]

USDA Forest Service, 2000: Protecting people and sustaining resources in rire-adapted ecosystems: A cohesive strategy, the Forest Service Management response to the General Accounting Office report GAO/RCED-99-65. 13 October, US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forestry Service, Washington, D.C., pp. 85. [NPR]

USDOE, 2005: Biomass Program. United States Department of Energy <http://www.eere.energy.gov/biomass/> accessed 12 October 2005. [NPR]

VanKooten, G.C., A.J. Eagle, J. Manley, and T. Smolak, 2004: How costly are carbon offsets? A meta-analysis of carbon forest sink. Environmental science & policy, 7, pp. 239-251. [NPR]

Verchot, L.V., J. Mackensen, S. Kandji, M. van Noordwijk, T. Tomich, C. Ong, A. Albrecht, C. Bantilan, K.V. Anupama, and C. Palm, 2006: Opportunities for linking adaptation and mitigation in agroforestry systems. In Tropical forests and adaptation to climate change: In search of synergies, C. Robledo, M. Kanninen, L. Pedroni (eds.), Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). [NPR]

Viner, D., M. Sayer, M. Uyarra, and N. Hodgson, 2006: Climate change and the European countryside: Impacts on land management and response strategies. Report prepared for the Country Land and Business Association., UK Publishing CLA, UK, 180 pp. [NPR]

Vuuren, D. Van, M. den Elzen, P. Lucas, B. Eickhout, B. Strengers, B van Ruijven, S. Wonink, and R. van Houdt, 2007: Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at low levels: an assessment of reduction strategies and costs. Climatic Change, 81 (2) pp. 119-159. [JoC, SRC, 2007]

Wagner, R.G., K.M. Little, B. Richardson, and K. Mcnabb, 2006: The role of vegetation management for enhancing productivity of the world’s forests. Forestry, 79(1), pp. 57-79. Clean

Walsh, M.E., L.R. Perlack, A. Turhollow, D. de la Torre Ugarte, D.A. Becker, R.L. Graham, S.E. Slinsky, and D.E. Ray, 2000: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Biomass Feedstock Availability in the United States: 1999 State Level Analysis, April 30, 1999, updated January, 2000: Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6205. [NPR]

Waterloo, M.J., P.H. Spiertz, H. Diemont, I. Emmer, E. Aalders, R. Wichink-Kruit, and P. Kabat, 2003: Criteria potentials and costs of forestry activities to sequester carbon within the framework of the Clean Development Mechanism. Alterra Rapport 777, Wageningen, 136 pp. [NPR]

WBOED, 2000: Striking the right balance: World Bank forest strategy. World Bank Operations Evaluation Department, Precis, 203, 6 pp. Clean

Wear, D. and B.C. Murray, 2004: Federal timber restrictions, interregional spillovers, and the impact on U.S. softwood markets. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 47(2), pp. 307-330. Clean

Werf, G.R van der, J.T. Randerson, G.J. Collatz, L. Giglio, P.S. Kasibhatla, A.F. Arellano Jr., S.C. Olsen, E.S. Kasischke, 2004: Continental-scale partitioning of fire emissions during the 1997 to 2001 El Niño/ La Niña period. Science, 303, pp. 73-76. [JoC]

White, T.M. and W.A. Kurz, 2005: Afforestation on private land in Canada from 1990 to 2002 estimated from historical records. The Forestry Chronicle, 81, pp. 491-497. [MoS, SRC]

Wilbanks, T.J., 2003: Integrating climate change and sustainable development in a place-based context. Climate Policy, 3, pp. 147-154. [JoC]

Williams, R.H., 1995: Variants of a low CO₂-emitting energy supply system (LESS) for the world - prepared for the IPCC Second Assessment Report Working Group IIa, Energy Supply Mitigation Options, Richland: Pacific Northwest Laboratories, 39 pp. [NPR]

Williams, J., 2002: Financial and other incentives for plantation establishment. Proceedings of the International Conference on Timber Plantation Development. <http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=//docrep/005/ac781e/AC781E00.htm>. accesssed 1 September 2005. [NPR]

Winrock International, 2004: Financial incentives to communities for stewardship of environmental resources: feasibility study. Arlington, VA, 60 pp. [NPR]

World Bank, 2005: Forest Governance Program. <http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/ardext.nsf/14ByDocName/ForestGovernanceProgram> accessed 9 September 2005. [NPR]

Wunder, S., 2004: Policy options for stabilising the forest frontier: A global perspective. In Land Use, Nature Conservation and the Stability of Rainforest Margins in Southeast Asia, M. Gerold, M. Fremerey, and E. Guhardja (eds). Springer-Verlag Berlin, pp. 3-25. [NPR]

Yamamoto, H., J. Fujino, and K. Yamaji, 2001: Evaluation of bioenergy potential with a multi-regional global-land-use-and-energy model. Biomass and Bioenergy, 21, pp. 185-203. [MoS, ARC]

Yoshioka, T., K. Aruga, T. Nitami, H. Sakai, and H. Kobayashi, 2006: A case study on the costs and the fuel consumption of harvesting, transporting, and chipping chains for logging residues in Japan. Biomass and Bioenergy, 30(4), pp. 342-348. Clean

Zhang, X.Q. and D. Xu, 2003: Potential carbon sequestration in China’s forests. Environmental Science & Policy, 6, pp. 421-432. Clean

Zhang, Y.H., M.J. Wooster, O. Tutubalina, and G.LW. Perry, 2003: Monthly burned area and forest fire carbon emission estimates for the Russian Federation from SPOT VGT. Remote Sensing of Environment, 87, pp. 1-15. [MoS]

NOTE: In the Summary of Reviewer Comments,
Accepted includes only those responses that were unambiguously Accepted.
There are other categories of responses that we have not yet quantified
due to inconsistencies of usage.

Summary of Reviewer Comments - Second Order Draft

Reviewer	Total Comments	Accepted	IPCC Roles	Papers
Ibouraima, Yabi	3	2	0	0
Government of Japan	3	1	0	2
Kirilenko, A	1	1	0	1
Government of Australia	1	1	0	1
Manfred, Lexer	1	0	0	0
Government of U.S. Department of State	1	0	0	0
Totals	10	5	0	4

Overview of Reviewer Comments - Second Order Draft

Reviewer Type	Total Comments	Accepted	% Accepted
Govt	1	0	0%
IPCC	5	3	60%
Indep	4	2	50%
Total	10	5	50%

Main AR4 Index | Working Group WG3 Index | Table of Contents | Authors | Executive Summary | Annotated Text | References | Reviewer Comments