FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions)

Questions 11-15

11) How does this affect sovereignty over land management?
The system does not prevent or penalise the emission of terrestrial carbon (and therefore the clearing of vegetation) up to the business as usual level. Instead, it provides incentives to reduce business as usual emissions. Nations and sub-national actors can continue to make sovereign land management decisions.

A National Terrestrial Carbon Budget does not impinge on national sovereignty and does not necessarily prevent economic use of land (eg, sustainable forest management). It is not the same as a economy-wide, sector-wide carbon budget, and it is not the same as Annex-B nations’ emission reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol. It is limited to terrestrial carbon emissions from land use. The International Terrestrial Carbon Accounting Standards provide nations and sub-national actors with options to “unwind” land management decisions while still maintaining the climate change mitigation integrity of the system (see Section 3.2.4).

12) How do war and insurgency affect the system?
In cases where a country does not control part of its territory through no fault of its own (eg, because of insurgency), terrestrial carbon in that part could be excised from the National Terrestrial Carbon Budget until control is regained.

13) Is new forest protection rewarded?
Yes. If a nation creates a new protected area, or changes business as usual land use from one with high terrestrial carbon emissions (eg, conversion of forest to agriculture) to one with lower emissions (eg, sustainable forestry management), it can generate and sell corresponding Terrestrial Carbon Credits.

If a nation undertakes such action between the start of the proposed system and the date the nation joins the system, it could still claim credit for that action as “early action”. Therefore, there is no disincentive for nations to undertake such action while it gets ready to take part in the system.

14) Are nations rewarded for enforcing existing laws?
The system does not reward the prior effective legal protection of terrestrial carbon because the decisions to provide that legal protection were made in the absence of a carbon market. Therefore, obtaining funding from a carbon market could not have been a consideration in weighing the economic, social, and environmental factors of making the decision. Providing financial incentives from a carbon market to maintain such terrestrial carbon would fail the additionality test.

However, areas that are “legally” but not effectively protected (because already subject to or threatened by illegal encroachment) would be included when setting the National Terrestrial Carbon Budget. An international fund could also help nations seeking to address the failure of enforcement through other channels.

15) What is the role of land-use intensification?
The challenge of terrestrial carbon is to increase production of food, fibre, and fuel and maintain and create more terrestrial carbon. Historically, more production has meant less native vegetation and less terrestrial carbon. This does not have to be the case. In the mid-term, land-use intensification can provide the world with more food, fibre, and fuel and more terrestrial carbon. For example, in the case of South American livestock, current grazing densities (about 1 head / hectare) could be tripled or quadrupled with current technology. Even healthy agro-industry builds up soil carbon stocks.