LULUCF in the post-2012 regime: Fixing the problems of the past?

One of the reasons why the Kyoto Protocol has been environmentally ineffective is the flaws in the land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) accounting rules, including voluntary accounting for Article 3.4 activities, the adoption of a definition of forest management that allowed parties to preferentially include and exclude forest lands, and allowing parties with net emissions from LULUCF in 1990 to include deforestation emissions in their 1990 emissions base year. Three proposed amendments to the LULUCF rules for the post-2012 regime are discussed and analysed: (1) a force majeure rule, (2) a baseline-and-credit system for forest management and (3) an 'emissions-to-atmosphere' approach for harvested wood products. Although these proposals have the potential to significantly improve the accounting framework, there are still significant problems such as the failure to account for the biophysical effects of forest activities, uncertainties associated with the application of the forest management baseline-and-credit system and continuing optional coverage of Article 3.4 activities.