What is net-net, gross-net, BAU reference accounting in LULUCF?

In July 2016, the European Commission published their proposal for a regulation for CO2 emissions form the land-use (LULUCF) sectors.It contains three different ways of accounting for emissions or removals. We explain what they are and why having such a mixed bag isn't good.

Under the Comission's proposal:

  • Afforested and deforested land (Article 6) is accounted for gross-net: total emissions and removals for the periods 2021-2025 and 2026-2030.
  • Managed cropland, grassland and wetland (Article 7) are accounted for net-net: emissions and removals for the two periods minus five times the value of average annual emissions in the base period (2005-7).  
  • Managed forest land (Article 8) is accounted for as the emissions and removals for the two periods minus five times the Member State’s forest reference level.

CAN Europe is calling for net-net accounting.

But what do gross-net, net-net and forest reference levels mean? 

Here a simple example: Country A has a sink of 10 MT CO2 in 1990 and 13 MT CO2 in 2012. It projected that in 2012, it would have a reduced sink of 8 MT CO2. (Thanks to FERN for the example)

  • Under net-net accounting, it would account for the difference between 1990 and 2012, i.e. 3 MT CO2 of removals.
  • Under gross-net accounting it would calculate the size of the sink in the year accounting takes place but not compare it to a base year. It would account for 13 MT CO2 of removals in 2012.
  • Using a business as usual reference level, it would account for 5 MT CO2 removals, since the sink in 2012 was 5 MT CO2 larger than the country projected it would be.

Such a mixed approach is problematic for several reasons:

  • Having three difference accounting methods makes them not comparable.
  • Because forest management activities (which make up almost all of the sinks) are accounted in most of the Member States against a forest reference level (business-as-usual projection), emissions from forest management are mostly not accounted - while removals are. 
  • The reference levels used for forest management are inherently unreliable and can easily be  exaggerated, so that a Member State can hide actual emissions. 

 This is why CAN Europe calls for net-net accounting in all LULUCF sectors.

Latest Publications

  • NGO letter on the long term climate strategy ahead of the Competitiveness Council

    In this letter, NGOs Climate Action Network Europe, Carbon Market Watch, E3G - Third Generation Environmentalism, European Environmental Bureau, Sandbag and WWF European Policy Office call upon EU Economy and Industry Ministers to: Endorse the European Commission’s strategic long-term vision for a climate neutral economy and support an EU long-term climate target of net-zero carbon emissions by 2040; Call upon the European Commission to present a new and integrated EU industrial climate strategy for energy-intensive industries in support of a competitive, circular and net-zero emission heavy industry transition;  Recognise the immediate need to provide a policy framework which supports and incentivises the full decarbonisation and transformation of resource and energy-intensive industry sectors before 2050. NGO letter on the long term climate strategy ahead of the Competitiveness Council
  • Letter to REGI Committee on sustainable cohesion policy funding

    On 22 January 2019 and in February the REGI Committee will vote on the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) and on the European Regional Development Fund / Cohesion Fund Regulation (ERDF/CF) respectively. These two pieces of legislation will determine the shape and direction of Cohesion Policy post-2020.
  • NGO statement urging Turkish decision makers to step up at COP24

    More than 25 NGOs working in Turkey released a joint statement urging Turkish decision makers to focus on raising ambition, and reaping the benefits of a low-carbon just transition at COP24.
See All: Climate & Energy Targets