Land-use change in Australia and the Kyoto Protocol

Clive Hamilton *, Lins Vellen

The Australia Institute, P.O. Box 72, Lyneham, ACT 2602, Australia

Abstract

In the dying hours of the Kyoto Climate Change Conference, the negotiators agreed to the insertion of the `Australia clause'in Article 3.7. The clause permits countries for which land-use change and forestry are a net source of greenhouse gas emissionsto include net emissions from land-use change in their 1990 base year for the purpose of calculating assigned amounts or targets

for the commitment period 2008±2010.This clause applies e�ectively to Australia alone amongst industrialised (Annex 1) countries, but it may have major

implications for the negotiated targets of developing countries.

This paper uses the o�cial inventories to describe the comprehensive emissions situation for Australia. In the process itdiscusses the various methodological and data uncertainties associated with measuring emissions from land-use change.It is shown that emissions from land-use change in the 1990 base year were 89.8 Mt or 18.9% of Australia's total

comprehensive emissions. By 1996 this had declined to 62.8 Mt, probably as a result of the falling pro®tability of land clearing

for cattle grazing.The paper then considers the likely path of emissions from land use change through to the commitment period 2008±2012 and

how this a�ects allowable emissions from the energy and other sectors. Two scenarios are described. Scenario 1 assumes that the

rate of land clearing does not change from the rate in 1996, while scenario 2 assumes that the Australian Governmentimplements its announced plan to cut land clearing by 20,000 ha/a starting in the year 2000. Under scenario 1, Australia's fossilenergy (and other non-land-use) emissions can increase by 20%, while under scenario 2, fossil emissions will be able to increase

by 26% by 2008±2010. # 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Land clearing; Land-use change; Australia; Kyoto Protocol

1. The `Australia clause'

Article 3.7 of the Kyoto Protocol, often referred toas the Australia clause, was accepted by the KyotoConference early in the morning of 11th December asthe negotiation process was drawing to a close. Thepart of Article 3.7 known as the Australia clausereads:

Those parties included in Annex I for whom land-use change and forestry constituted a net source ofgreenhouse gas emissions in 1990 shall include in

their 1990 emissions base year or period the aggre-gate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emis-sions by sources minus removals by sinks in 1990from land-use change for the purposes of calculat-ing their assigned amount.

This provision applies almost exclusively toAustralia, although it is a minor factor in the inven-tories of Britain and Estonia. Australia is the onlydeveloped country where vegetation clearing occurs toany substantial extent. However, Article 3.7 may havemajor implications for global greenhouse gas emissionswhen the time comes to include developing countriesin the target setting process. The Australian

Environmental Science & Policy 2 (1999) 145±152

1462-9011/99/$ - see front matter # 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S1462-9011(99 )00007 -6

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +61-2-6249-6221; Fax: +61-2-6249-

6448; e-mail: austinst@dynamite.com.au

Government was therefore in a unique position at thenegotiations in Kyoto; it hoped that by winning theright to include emissions from land clearing in its1990 baseline the requirement to cut fossil emissionswould be reduced.

The 1996 National Greenhouse Gas Inventory, pub-lished in October 1998, provides the latest estimates ofthe amount of land cleared in Australia every yearfrom 1990 to 1996. The ®gures are summarised inTable 1.

The largest amount of clearing occurred in the stateof Queensland with an average of 262,000 ha clearedannually over 1991±1995, followed by New SouthWales with 54,874 ha annually in 1994±1995 (NGGIC,1998b, pp. xxix±xxx).

As discussed in Section 2 below, the measurementsfor land clearing are very uncertain. The AustralianGovernment argues that it excludes land-use change(LUC) emissions from the national totals of the inven-tories because of concern about the certainty of landuse change data and the emissions that are generatedfrom this activity.

2. Measuring emissions from LUC

Independent assessment of the situation is made dif-®cult by the that fact that the Australian Governmenthas persistently failed to publish a comprehensiveinventory of emissions showing emissions from LUCin the same tables as emissions from other sources.Australia's reporting of emissions is therefore nottransparent.

How then are emissions from land-use change esti-mated in Australia?

2.1. De®ning the sector

The land use change and forestry sector of theNational Greenhouse Gas Inventory (NGGI) includesthe following subsectors:

1. Changes in forest and other woody biomass stocks2. Forest and grassland conversion3. Abandonment of managed lands4. Other

The ®rst subsector is dealt with separately in theinventory under `forestry'. The second subsector is`land-use change' renamed by the IPCC. It refersessentially to land clearing and is therefore the focusof this paper. The third subsector, abandonment ofmanaged lands, is not estimated in the inventory, andthe main components of the fourth, `other', are mini-mum tillage CO2 sinks and non-CO2 greenhouse gasesfrom prescribed burning.

It should be noted that the issues relating to land-use change are quite distinct from those relating to for-estry under the Protocol and throughout this paper wemaintain the separation and focus exclusively on land-use change.

2.2. Sources and sinks

The land-use change subsector of the NGGI esti-mates CO2 and non-CO2 greenhouse gases emitted toor removed from the atmosphere as a result of `forestand grassland conversion', in other words, clearingland for pasture or crops. The subsector includessources (emissions) and sinks (removals).

The sources of emissions are the decay of bothabove-ground and below-ground vegetative biomasscleared as well as soil carbon released as a result ofsoil disturbance. All carbon sequestered in vegetationwill be released to the atmosphere over some time-frame, starting as soon as the plant dies. The NGGImakes the following assumptions in calculating emis-sions released from land clearing:

. 80% of above-ground biomass (AGB) is burnt on-site after clearing, 1% remains as charcoal, 9% isleft to decay and 10% is removed and burnt o�-site(mostly as ®rewood);

. carbon release from the remaining unburnt AGB isassumed to follow a 10-year linear decay function;

. carbon release from below-ground biomass (BGB) isassumed to follow a 10-year linear decay function;

. release of soil carbon (SC) is assumed to follow anexponential decay function until the soil reaches anew equilibrium. The timeframes for each state vary,with `half-lives' ranging from 3±15 years.

The sinks in this subsector are the regrowth afterclearing including woody regrowth (parts ofQueensland and New South Wales), and increases insoil carbon in areas of improved pasture. For areascleared for improved pasture, an increase in soil car-bon is assumed over the same timeframe as used forcarbon release.

Table 1

Area of forest and grassland conversion, Australia 1990±1996 (kha/

a)

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

525.7 443.5 408.9 406.7 330.7 328.2 326.5

NGGIC (1998b), Table 5B1.

C. Hamilton, L. Vellen / Environmental Science & Policy 2 (1999) 145±152146

2.3. Data inputs

The data used in the calculation of net emissionsfrom land clearing are:

. area cleared, in ha or kha, for each state for each ofthe past 38 years;

. above-ground biomass in tonnes of biomass/ha forthree broad forest classes;

1. closed tropical and temperate forests;2. open forests; and3. woodland and scrub;

. the proportion of area cleared for each end-use orafter-clearing land-use (pasture, crop, improved pas-ture or woody regrowth);

. the proportion of vegetation in each of the threevegetation classes `available' for land clearing;

. the initial soil carbon value for each broad foresttype1;

. the proportion of vegetation burned that remains ascharcoal; and

. the proportions of vegetation burned onsite and o�-site after clearing. O�site burning is counted in `fuel-wood' in the forestry subsector.

2.4. Data sources and quality

Data availability and quality are extremely variable.All the data used in the inventory are at the level of`state' and the national inventory is the sum of thestate inventories for the LUC subsector. The followingobservations should be made about the major datasets.

2.4.1. Area clearedArea cleared, in ha for each state, is sourced from

land-clearing permits, expert estimates and remote sen-sing for the years 1988±1996. Area cleared prior tothis is based on a model that derives the area clearedfrom stock numbers and area cropped. New SouthWales (NSW) is the only state for which there is anyunmodelled historic clearing data (sourced fromremote sensing) primarily of the Northern Wheatbelt.These data were initially collected by the NSWNational Parks and Wildlife Service to study areas ofremnant vegetation. They have been heavily ground-truthed.

2.4.2. Above-ground biomassAGB, for the three broad forest classes, uses a mix-

ture of data from the literature, expert opinion and theResource Assessment Commission (RAC) (1992). Ingeneral, the RAC values are lower (in tonnes of car-bon/ha) than data from the literature, and the inven-tory workbooks do not specify clearly which data areused for each vegetation class in each state, presentingonly the national weighted average. The state inven-tory supplements to the workbook tabulate the statedata, but not the sources.

2.4.3. Proportion clearedInformation on the proportion of area cleared for

each land use (native pasture, improved pasture, cropsand so on). The data for Western Australia, NSW andQueensland are presented in the 1996 inventoryWorkbook 4.2 Supplement (NGGIC, 1997, p. xxxiv),but are sourced only as a `personal communication'.

2.4.4. Proportion in each vegetation classThese proportions are provided for each state and

are derived from the Australian Land InformationGroup (AUSLIG) Atlas of Vegetation in Australia(1990). Details are contained in NGGIC (1997).

2.4.5. Initial soil carbon valuesThese values are listed in Workbook 4.2, but the

sources are unclear. The references stated in the text(NGGIC, 1997, p. 30) are not the same as the refer-ences stated beneath the table (p. 31). The same valuesare used for all states.

2.4.6. Proportions burnedThe proportion of cleared vegetation burned remain-

ing as charcoal, and the proportions of vegetationburned onsite and o�site after clearing are notexplained clearly in any edition of the Workbook.Nationally, the assumption seems to be that 1%remains as charcoal, 80% is burnt onsite, 10% isburnt o�site and 9% decays over 10 years (NGGIC,1997, p. 19). However, these proportions should varystate-by-state.

2.5. Treatment of uncertainty

The Australian Workbook reports estimates of levelsof uncertainty associated with the components used inthe calculations (NGGIC, 1998b, pp. xli±xliii). Levelsof uncertainty have fallen between the 1995 and 1996inventories (the 1996 inventory was released inOctober 1998). According to the inventory (p. xli):

The drop in uncertainty is due to the availability ofrevised remotely sensed data for Queensland for1991±1995, new remotely sensed data for

1 The values used are 120 tonnes of carbon/ha for closed tropical

and temperate forests, 85 for open forests and 70 for woodland and

scrub.

C. Hamilton, L. Vellen / Environmental Science & Policy 2 (1999) 145±152 147

Queensland for 1988±1990, new clearing data forNew South Wales, revised biomass data forQueensland, revised regrowth estimates and betterestimates of the proportions of clearing in each for-est class.

It then lists the uncertainty estimates using the 1995and 1996 methodologies. These are reproduced inTable 2. We have added the last column to show thechange to each component.

However, it is not at all clear how the uncertaintieslisted in the inventory were derived. The report refersto the IPCC methodology for calculating the overallsectoral uncertainty, but there is no indication ofwhere the uncertainty ®gures came from. The state-ment quoted above indicating the sources of the dropin uncertainty levels lists a number of diverse in¯u-ences on the various components, yet there is a uni-form 10% fall in uncertainty levels across allcomponents.

It should be noted that ground-truthed remote sen-sing data (the most reliable source of data on landclearing) is at present available to the NGGI forselected areas in selected years. To measure a declinein land clearing at least two comparable clearing ratesare required. Only Queensland and NSW have morethan one clearing rate. Thus the decline in land clear-ing shown in the inventory is based on scattered andincompatible remote sensing data2.

One further issue requires comment. There is debatein Australia about the role of `vegetation thickening'in determining net emissions from land-use change3.Vegetation thickening is not clearly de®ned, and may

cover an increased number of stems/ha due toregrowth of local woody species, the invasion of unde-sirable species of woody weeds with or withoutincreases in stems/ha, or an increase in vegetation bio-mass/ha. It may include all three.

If woody weed invasion forms part of the de®nitionof vegetation thickening, and the latter is perceived atsome stage as a politically desirable CO2 sink, thereare serious environmental implications. Policymeasures aimed at protecting forest biodiversity andgeneral ecosystem health require removal of the weeds.Sink enhancement policies would see woody weedsgrow, multiply and spread with compounding ecologi-cal impacts.

3. LUC and Australia's Kyoto target

3.1. Interpreting the Australia clause

The Australia clause in the Kyoto Protocol allowsAustralia to in¯ate its 1990 baseline emissions. If emis-sions from LUC form a large proportion of total emis-sions, and those emissions are falling irrespective ofactions taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, thenthis will permit a greater expansion of emissions fromfossil fuels than the 108% target suggests. This sectionwill estimate the extent to which the inclusion of theAustralia clause will permit the expansion of fossil sec-tors by the commitment period 2008±2012.

However, ®rst there is an important issue concerningthe interpretation of Article 3.7 that has a major bear-ing on the calculation of base year emissions. Theclause provides a trigger which permits a party toinclude LUC emissions in its base year amount; itapplies to ``[t]hose parties... for whom land-use changeand forestry constituted a net source of greenhouse gasemissions in 1990...''. As we have said, this triggerapplies almost exclusively to Australia.

However, the clause goes on to say that those par-ties to whom this applies ``shall include in their 1990emissions base year or period the aggregate anthropo-genic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions by sources

Table 2

Uncertainties in estimating emissions from LUC using di�erent methodologies (%)

Component Uncertainty

1995

(NGGIC, 1997)

1996

(NGGIC, 1998b)

Change in

uncertainty level

Area of land cleared 30 20 ÿ10AGB before clearing 40 30 ÿ10AGB after clearing 50 40 ÿ10Area of regrowth after clearing 40 30 ÿ10Below ground loss (SC) 80 70 ÿ10

2 Even within the remote sensing data itself, there are uncertainties

arising from the methods of image analysis applied, and the amount

of ground-truthing carried out.3 The inventory does not adequately account for regrowth of non-

pasture (woody) species, and there remains considerable uncertainty

about how the Protocol deals with post-1990 sinks. The uncertainties

relate particularly to the de®nitions of `forest', `land-use change' and

`anthropogenic'.

C. Hamilton, L. Vellen / Environmental Science & Policy 2 (1999) 145±152148

minus removals by sinks in 1990 from land-use changefor the purposes of calculating their assigned amount''(emphasis added). In other words, while the triggermechanism refers to emissions from both land-usechange and forestry, the a�ected parties shall includein their base year calculations net emissions andremovals from land-use change but not from forestry.

Since the forestry sector in Australia is a net sink inthe terms of the Protocol, the e�ect of both includingland-use change and excluding forestry is to increaseAustralia's base year emissions. In our view it is quiteinconsistent to treat LUC and forestry in di�erentways and acceptance of the wording of Article 3.7 mayhave been a mistake on the part of the befuddlednegotiators in the last hours of the Kyoto Conference.

In calculating Australia's emissions task in Section3.4 below we have allowed for both interpretations ofthe Protocol Ð including LUC and forestry andincluding LUC only4.

3.2. Comprehensive emissions in the base year

In this section we set out the Australian base yearsituation using the ®gures from the most recent inven-tory issued in October 1998. Despite the fact that theAustralian Government now argues that land-usechange is a vital issue for Australia in current nego-tiations, the Australian inventory consistently excludesemissions from land-use change in the summary tablesof emissions. The Government claims that this isbecause emissions from LUC are more uncertain thanemissions from other sources, but this is not a validreason to obscure Australia's total emissions picture.

Despite this, with expert assistance it is possible tocalculate Australia's total comprehensive net emissionsfrom the o�cial sources. We use the term ``comprehen-

sive'' to refer to emissions of all gases from all sourcesand all sinks. These are recorded for the inventoryyears 1990±1996 in Table 3. Note that land-use changeand forestry emissions have been separated in order toaccommodate the two interpretations of Article 3.7.

It is apparent from Table 3 that in the 1990 baseyear emissions from LUC in Australia accounted for89.8 Mt CO2±e. This accounted for 18.9% of totalcomprehensive emissions, or 17.9% of total compre-hensive emissions excluding Forestry and other.Clearly, Australia's emission task through to the com-mitment period 2008±2012 will depend heavily on thepath of net emissions from LUC.

3.3. LUC scenarios to 2010

What is the likely path of emissions from LUCbetween 1990 and 2008±2012? We calculate two scen-arios that vary with respect to the assumed rates ofdecline in emissions from land-use change. First itshould be noted from Table 3 that net emissions fromLUC have been falling sharply Ð from 89.8 Mt in1990 to 62.8 Mt in 1996, a decline of 30% over 6years. The reasons for this decline are unclear but areprobably related to the declining commercial pro®t-ability of clearing for grazing in the 1970s and 1980sand the fact that the best grazing land was convertedin earlier decades. Two scenarios that establish upperand lower bounds are worthy of consideration.

3.3.1. Scenario 1This scenario assumes that the rates of land clearing

that prevailed in 1996 remain unchanged through to2010. In this case, we estimate that emissions fromLUC will be an annual 50 Mt CO2±e in 2010. This®gure has been calculated using the same methodologyas the inventory (NGGIC, 1997) and re¯ects the factthat a decline in land clearing in a given year will dragdown emissions for the next 15 years due to the decayrates assumed in the methodology.

Table 3

Emissions by sector and comprehensive emissions, Australia 1990±1996 (Mt CO2±e)

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Total comprehensive emissions 474.5 467.8 464.9 465.5 461.4 472.6 482.1

Total comprehensive emissions less Forestry and other 501.1 494.6 492.1 492.7 487.3 497.5 506.2

Energy 296.7 298.4 302.4 305.1 308.6 321.3 331.8

Industrial processes 12.1 11.7 10.4 10.2 9.9 9.0 9.2

Waste 14.8 15.1 15.4 15.8 16.1 16.3 16.7

Agriculture 86.7 86.9 85.0 85.2 84.5 84.9 84.3

LUCF (total net) 64.3 55.6 51.6 49.3 42.3 41.1 40.2

LUC (net) 89.8 80.7 77.2 74.9 66.6 64.5 62.8

Forestry and `other' (net) ÿ25.6 ÿ25.2 ÿ25.6 ÿ25.6 ÿ24.3 ÿ23.4 ÿ22.7

Derived from NGGIC (1998b), Table 7A for each year. GWPs are from IPCC (1996).

4 There is a third possible interpretation of the Australia clause,

viz., that the opportunity to adjust the 1990 baseline to include net

emissions from LUC (or LUC and forestry) applies to countries for

whom LUC (and not forestry) constituted a net source of emissions.

C. Hamilton, L. Vellen / Environmental Science & Policy 2 (1999) 145±152 149

3.3.2. Scenario 2This scenario is based on the statement by the Prime

Minister in November 1997 which announcedmeasures that are expected to see land clearing fall by20,000 ha/a. We assume that this starts in the year2000 and is sustained through to 2010. In this scenarioemissions from LUC fall to 23 Mt CO2±e in 2010.

Fig. 1 shows the path of net emissions from LUCunder each scenario along with, for comparison, asimple linear extrapolation based on actual ®gures in1990 and 1996.

3.4. Australia's emissions task

Table 4 sets out the emissions task facing Australiaunder two sets of assumptions about the course ofemissions from LUC between 1990 and 2010. In the

table, Australia's total emissions are divided into just

two categories:

1. net emissions from all sources other than land-use

change, including forestry, which we refer to as `fos-

sil fuels plus'; and

2. net emissions from land use change (excluding for-

estry).

Table 4 also considers the implications of the two

interpretations of the Australia clause of Article 3.7:

1. base year emissions cover total comprehensive emis-

sions including land-use change and forestry; and

2. base year emissions cover total comprehensive emis-

sions including land-use change but excluding for-

estry.

Australia's target (QELRO) under the Kyoto

Protocol is 108% of 1990 base year emissions by the

2008±2012 commitment period. This has been applied

to total comprehensive emissions in the 1990 base year

to calculate Australia's assigned amount or target.

If Article 3.7 is interpreted so that base year emis-

sions include forestry, it is apparent from Table 4 that

even if rates of land clearing do not continue to

decline (and LUC emissions fall to 50 Mt) then emis-

sions from Australia's fossil fuels plus sectors can

increase by 13% while Australia remains within the

8% overall target set at Kyoto. If the Government im-

plements its announced plan to reduce land clearing by

20,000 ha/a, and emissions from LUC fall to 23 Mt in

Fig. 1. Net emissions from LUC 1990 and 1996, two scenarios (Mt).

Table 4

Australian emissions from fossil fuels and LUC under di�erent LUC scenarios and di�erent interpretations of Article

3.7, 1990 and 2008±2012 (Mt)

Including forestry Excluding forestry

Mt

CO2±e

percent change

on 1990

Mt

CO2±e

percent

change on 1990

1990 emissions

Fossil fuel plus 385 410

LUC 90 90

Total 475 500

2008±2012 emissions scenario 1

Kyoto targeta 513 108 540 108

Expected LUC emissionsb 50 ÿ44 50 ÿ44Fossil fuel plus targetc 463 13 490 20

2008±2012 emissions scenario 2

Kyoto targeta 513 108 540 108

Expected LUC emissionsb 23 ÿ74 23 ÿ74Fossil fuel plus targetc 490 20 517 26

a Calculated as a percentage increase on the relevant 1990 total emissions.bCalculated as a percentage fall on the

relevant 1990 LUC emissions.cCalculated in both cases using the 1990 base ®gure for fossil fuel plus emissions exclud-

ing forestry, i.e. 410 Mt.

C. Hamilton, L. Vellen / Environmental Science & Policy 2 (1999) 145±152150

2010, then emissions from the fossil fuel plus sectorscan increase by 20%.

The last two columns of Table 4 show the emissionstask if the Australia clause of Article 3.7 is interpretedto exclude net emissions from forestry in the base year.This is the interpretation favoured by the AustralianGovernment. If the area cleared does not change from1996 levels (scenario 1) then fossil emissions canincrease by 20% while Australia remains within theoverall 8% Kyoto target. If land clearing falls by20,000 ha/a (the Government's target) then fossil emis-sions will be able to increase by 26%.

The comprehensive inventory ®gures calculated forthis paper reveal some interesting trends. Fig. 2 showsthe change in emissions from all sources. While totalemissions displayed a signi®cant rate of declinebetween 1990 and 1994, in the last two inventory yearsthey turned sharply upwards. This is because, in theabsence of serious policy response in the energy sec-tors, the fall in emissions from land-use change has

not been able to continue to o�set the rapid growth inemissions from the fossil fuel sectors. This is apparentin Fig. 3, which shows the changing sectoral shares inAustralia's total emissions.

4. Conclusions

The inclusion of the Australia clause in Article 3.7of the Kyoto Protocol opened up a large loop-holewhich only one country is in a position to exploit.Parties other than Australia were unaware of the im-plications of this clause at Kyoto. Had they beenaware of the facts, the land clearing concession madeto Australia would have provided the Kyoto negotia-tors from other parties with the evidence to demandthat Australia cut its emissions by considerably morethan Europe, Japan and the USA.

The inclusion of the Australia clause in the KyotoProtocol will have signi®cant rami®cations in nego-tiations to include developing countries in the emis-sions cutting process since several major developingcountries continue the practice of widespread landclearing.

This paper demonstrates, using o�cial inventorystatistics, that land clearing emissions have becomeAustralia's equivalent to Russian `hot air'.

If Australia had agreed to reduce land clearing emis-sions to 23 Mt by 2010 and to limit fossil emissionsgrowth to 18% above 1990 levels by 2010 Ð both ofwhich were clearly announced Government policies Ðthen Australia could have agreed to a target of 100%of 1990 emissions by 2008±1012. As it stands,Australia's fossil emissions will be able to increase by26% while other industrialised countries are cuttingtheir emissions. This is especially anomalous because,as we have demonstrated elsewhere (Hamilton, 1997),Australia will ®nd it easier to cut fossil emissions thanother industrialised countries.

The solution to the land-use change loop-hole maybe to insist on the application of the `additionality'requirement of Article 6 or Article 12.5 of the KyotoProtocol. In that case, only emission reductions belowthose that are expected to occur in the absence ofgreenhouse gas abatement measures would be allow-able in calculating a country's assigned amount.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Professor Ian Noble of theAustralian National University for discussions onthese issues. See his analysis of the land-use changeissues at http://www.IGBP.kva.se/. We would also liketo thank Bernhard Schlamadinger and two anonymousreferees for comments that have improved the paper.

Fig. 2. Total comprehensive emissions in Australia 1990±1996 (Mt

CO2±e).

Fig. 3. Sectoral shares of total comprehensive emissions in Australia

1990±1996 (%).

C. Hamilton, L. Vellen / Environmental Science & Policy 2 (1999) 145±152 151

References

ABARE and DFAT (Department of Foreign A�airs and Trade), 1995.

Global Climate Change: Economic Dimensions of a Cooperative

International Policy Response Beyond 2000. ABARE, Canberra.

Commonwealth of Australia, 1997. State of the environment report

1996. CSIRO Publishing.

DNR, 1998. Interim results from the Statewide Land and Tree Study

(SLATS). Queensland Department of Natural Resources.

Hamilton, C., 1997. Climate change policies in Australia. Australia

Institute Background Paper No. 9.

Hamilton, C., Quiggin, J., 1997. Economic analysis of greenhouse pol-

icy: a layperson's guide to the perils of economic modelling.

Australia Institute Discussion Paper No. 15.

IPCC, 1996. Climate Change 1995. Cambridge University Press.

National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Committee (NGGIC), 1997.

Carbon Dioxide from the Biosphere: Workbook for Carbon

Dioxide from the Biosphere (Workbook 4.2). Environment

Australia, Canberra.

National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Committee (NGGIC), 1998a.

National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1996. Australian Greenhouse

O�ce, Canberra.

National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Committee (NGGIC), 1998b.

National Greenhouse Gas Inventory: Land Use Change and

Forestry Sector 1990±1996. Australian Greenhouse O�ce,

Canberra.

Resource Assessment Commission, 1992. Forest and Timber Inquiry

Final Report. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.

Clive Hamilton (B.A., B.Ec. (Hons), Ph.D) is Executive Director of

The Australia Institute. He is also a visiting fellow at the Australian

National University and Adjunct Professor, University of

Technology, Sydney. He has published extensively on climate change

policy.

Lins Vellen (B.Sc. (Hons)) specialises in plant physiology. She has

been a research assistant compiling the land-use change and forestry

sector of Australia's o�cial inventory.

C. Hamilton, L. Vellen / Environmental Science & Policy 2 (1999) 145±152152