Chapter 4: Supplementary Methods and GPG Arising from the Kyoto Protocol (Sections 4.1 & 4.2)

CLA: Bernhard Schlamadinger (Austria), Henry Janzen (Canada), Werner Kurz (Canada), Rodel Lasco (Philippines), Kansri Boonpragob (Thailand), and Pete Smith (UK)LA:Pascale Collas (Canada), El Nur Abdalla El Siddig (Sudan), Andreas Fischlin (Switzerland), Mitsuo Matsumoto (Japan), Alexander Nakhutin (Russia), Ian Noble (Australia), Gerome Pignard (France), Zoltan Somogyi (Hungary), and Xiao-Quan Zhang (China)CA: Mark Easter (USA), Genevieve Patenaude (Canada), Keith Paustian (USA, and Yoshiki Yamagata (Japan)

Presented by: Pete Smith, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, UK

Objective

To describe the information requirements, methods and good practice guidance for the reporting of CO2 and non-CO2 emissions by sources and removals by sinks as required by the Kyoto Protocol (Articles 3.3, 3.4, 6 and 12) that are supplementary to those for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.

General approach

Identify lands (definitional and temporal constraints) - eligible after human actions; provide supplementary methods to chapter 2

Establish estimate of C stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions on these lands; provide supplementary methods to chapter 3

Table of Contents

4.1 General overview 4.1.1 Roadmap to estimating and reporting supplementary information for

activities under articles 3.3, 3.4, 6 and 12 4.1.2 General rules for categorisation of land areas under articles 3.3 and

3.4 4.1.3 Relationship between annex I parties’ national inventories and

article 6 projects

4.2 Methods for estimation, measurement, monitoring and reporting of LULUCF activities under articles 3.3 and 3.4

4.2.1 Relationship between UNFCCC land categories and Kyoto Protocol (articles 3.3 and 3.4) land categories

4.2.2 Generic methodologies for area identification, stratification and reporting

4.2.3 Generic methodological issues for estimating C stock change and greenhouse gas emissions

4.2.4 Other generic methodological issues 4.2.5 Afforestation and reforestation 4.2.6 Deforestation 4.2.7 Forest management 4.2.8 Cropland management 4.2.9 Grazing land management 4.2.10 Revegetation

4.1.1. Roadmap

STEP 1. Defining “forest”, application of definitions to national circumstances, establishing a hierarchy among selected Article 3.4 activities

STEP 2. Identify lands subject to activities under Article 3.3 and any elected activities under Article 3.4

STEP 3. Estimate carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions on the lands identified under Step 2 above

STEP 4. Identify areas and estimate carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions in Article 12 projects.

Demonstration of classification of a unit of

land under Article 3.3 (ARD) or land under Article 3.4 (FM, CM,

GM and RV) as of year X of the Commitment Period (2008, 2009…

2012)

Classify unit ofland under D

YesHas the unit of land beensubject to a D activity since

31 December 1989?(Note 1)

Has the unit of land beensubject to an AR activity since

31 December 1989?

No Classify unit ofland under A

Classify unit ofland under R

Had the unit of landbeen non-forested for at least

50 years before the startof the conversion?

(Note 2)

Yes

Did yourcountry elect FM, CM, GM

or RV?

Did yourcountry elect FM, CM, GM

or RV?

Classify as unitof land under

AR or D

Classify underthis FM, CM,

GM or RVcategory for

year X

Classify as unit of land underAR or D with secondary (FM,CM, GM or RV) classification

for year X

Is theunit of land in

year X, or has the unitof land been previously (in thecommitment period) subject to

FM, CM, GM or RV?(Note 3)

No accounting ofthe unit of land

Is the unit of landsubject to FM, CM, GM or

RV in year X?

Classify under that FM,CM, GM or RV categoryunder which the land was

last during thecommitment period

Note 1: No matter whether it had beensubject to an AR activity beforeNote 2: The distinction between A and R isoften irrelevant, in particular if the samemethodologies apply. Yet sometimes Amay lead to soil carbon increase, while Rto a decrease.Note 3: Apply this test only to thoseactivities that your country has elected

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

Is theunit of land in

year X, or has the unitof land been previously (in thecommitment period) subject to

FM, CM, GM or RV?(Note 3)

Relationship between Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities and basic land-use categories

Table 4.2.1 Relationship between activities of Articles 3.3 and 3.4 of TheKyoto Protocol and the basic Land-Use categories of Section 2.2.1.

Initial

Final

Forest land Cropland Grassland Wetland Settlements Other land

Forest land FM A or R A or R A or R A or R A or R

Cropland D CM or RV RV RV RV RV

Grassland D RV GM or RV RV RV RV

Wetland D

Settlements D

Other land D

Land Classification in the national inventories under the UNFCCC of a Hypothetical Country in

Year X of the Commitment Period

Wetland, Settlements, OtherLands

Unmanagedforest

Unmanagedgrassland

Managed grasslandManaged forest

Cropland/arable/tillage

Land classification for Kyoto Protocol reporting for a hypothetical country in year

X of the commitment period.

Wetland, Settlements, OtherLands

Unmanagedforest

Unmanagedgrassland

Managed GrasslandManaged forest

Cropland/arable/tillage

RV D

D**

AR*

RV#

D**RV#FM Art 3.4

CM Art 3.4

Two Reporting Methods for Land Subject to Articles 3.3 and 3.4 Activities

Relationship between Approaches in Chapter 2

and Reporting methods in Chapter 4.

Approaches

in Chapter 2

Reporting Method 1

(Broad area identification)

Reporting Method 2

(Completeidentification)

Approach 1 Not applicable

Could be good practice with the additionalspatial information

Not applicable

Approach 2 Not applicable

Could be good practice with the additionalspatial information

Not applicable

Approach 3 Good practice Good practice

with fine-scale spatial information

(statistical only)

(land-use transitions)

(full tracking of all land)

Decision Tree for Choosing Reporting Method for Land Subject to Activities

under Articles 3.3 and 3.4Start

Do you use Approach 3for national report?

Do you have spatialinformation of boundaries

encompassing units ofland or land under Article

3.3 and 3.4?

Do you have fine-scale spatial

information of unitsof land or land underArticle 3.3 and 3.4?

Development of spatialinformation of the

boundaries

Reporting Method 1 Reporting Method 2

Yes

Yes Yes

No

No

Development of additional spatialinformation by re-compiling detailed

inventory database

Common subsections for AR, D, FM, CM, GM and RV

Definitional and Methodological issues 1990 BASE YEAR (CM, GM, RV) Choice of methods for identifying lands Choice of methods for estimating C stock changes

Choice of activity data and emission factors Completeness Developing a consistent time series Reporting and documentation QA/QC

For CM, GM & RV – the following sections Mineral soils CO2 emissions/removals from organic soils

CO2 emissions from liming

Choice of methods for estimating non-CO2 emissions

Decision tree to determine

whether a land qualifies as

forest management

No

Yes

Use Tier 1(Note 1)

Yes

Obtain data from regionalor national measurement/research programmes or

other reliable sources

Use Tier 2(Note 2)

Use Tier 3

Are dataavailable to

calculate regional orcountry-specific C emission /

removal factors associated withmanagement practices, and

their duration ofimpact?

AreCO2 emissions

from croplands a keycategory?

Is therea national carboninventory system

available that allows CMactivities to beaccounted forseparately?

No

Yes

No

Note 1: Use the matrix/database of default values.Note 2: Use regionally specific parameters, soil data and duration of impact.

Decision tree to select the tier for estimating for carbon emissions/removals from mineral soils under the Kyoto Protocol

Summary table of greenhouse gas emissions by sources and

removals by sinks by articles 3.3 and 3.4 activities for the inventory

year y

Reporting is annual but measurements might be less frequent

Status

Meeting in KL - mainly to deal with comments from first government review

Focus in KL was on addressing comments, rationalisation and some major restructuring

Translation of statement of the scientific problem to practical GPG

Draft for Second Review submitted