Search

Carbon (C) sequestration by terrestrial ecosystems is thought to occur predominantly in the Northern Hemisphere (1, 2), but the exact size and longitudinal distribution of this sink remain uncertain (3). [...], Most inverse atmospheric models report considerable uptake of carbon dioxide in Europe's terrestrial biosphere. In contrast, carbon stocks in terrestrial ecosystems increase at a much smaller rate, with carbon gains in forests and grass[and soils almost being offset by carbon losses from cropland and peat soils. Accounting for non-carbon dioxide carbon transfers that are not detected by the atmospheric models and for carbon dioxide fluxes bypassing the ecosystem carbon stocks considerably reduces the gap between the small carbon-stock changes and the larger carbon dioxide uptake estimated by atmospheric models. The remaining difference could be because of missing components in the stock-change approach, as well as the large uncertainty in both methods. With the use of the corrected atmosphere- and land-based estimates as a dual constraint, we estimate a net carbon sink between 135 and 205 teragrams per year in Europe's terrestrial biosphere, the equivalent of 7 to 12% of the 1995 anthropogenic carbon emissions.

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