INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
WMO

NATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORIES PROGRAMMEIPCC Expert Group Planning Meeting on the Elaboration ofGood Practice Guidance in Land-Use Change and Forestry
for the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories

Meeting Report

Geneva, Switzerland
6-8 August 2001

Supporting material prepared for consideration by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
This supporting material has not been subject to formal IPCC review and approval process.

UNEPAcknowledgements

This report was prepared by Riitta Pipatti, Leandro Buendia, Kiyoto Tanabe, and Kyoko
Miwa, in consultation with the Co-chairs of the Task Force Bureau on National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories (TFB) Taka Hiraishi and Buruhani Nyenzi. Additional
contributions were received from breakout group (BOG) Co-chairs namely Ian
Carruthers, Wojciech Galinski, Thelma Krug, Dina Kruger, Jim Penman, andMohammad Soltanieh; from BOG rapporteurs Kenneth Byrne, Harry Ganoo, Bo Lim,
Audun Rosland, Kristin Rypdal, and Martina van der Merwe; and from plenary
rapporteurs Ian Noble and John Stone. We are also grateful to the contributions of thethirty-seven experts from developed and developing countries and from countries witheconomies in transition; four experts from international organisations; members of the
TFB; and representatives of the IPCC Secretariat.

2

Table of Contents
Page
1. Executive Summary...............................................................................................................4
2. Introduction............................................................................................................................6
3. Organisation of the Planning Meeting ...................................................................................6
4. Highlights of the Planning Meeting.......................................................................................9
5. Conclusion.. .........................................................................................................................11
Attachment 1: Implications of a late completion of the report on GPG on LULUCF .............12
Attachment 2: Provisional Outline of the Report .....................................................................14
Attachment 3: IPCC 17 Decision on LULUCF........................................................................15
Attachment 4: COP6 bis decision (FCCC/CP/2001/L.11/Rev.1); Sections 2 & 3...................16
Attachment 5: Expert Consultation on Forest-Related Definitions, Rome, Italy, 3 – 5
December 2001 .................................................................................................18
Attachment 6: Breakout Group Co-chairs, Rapporteurs, and Members,
and Plenary Rapporteurs...................................................................................20
Attachment 7: Terms of Reference of IPCC project on Land-Use Land-Use Change andForestry (LULUCF) ..........................................................................................23
Attachment 8: Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF
Table of Contents..............................................................................................25
Attachment 9: Draft scoping paper to address request outlined in L.11/Rev.1 COP decision3(c) on ‘degradation’ and ‘devegetation’..........................................................32
Attachment 10: Draft Scoping Paper to Address Request Outlined in
FCCC/CP/2001/L.11/Rev.1 Decision CP.6 3d (Direct v. indirect humaninduced changes …)..........................................................................................34
Attachment 11: Options Assessment Paper,
Development of Biome-specific Forest Definitions.........................................36
Attachment 12: Option Assessment Paperon issues related to afforestation and reforestation project activities
under Art. 12 of Kyoto Protocol (§2(e))..........................................................38
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ......................................................................................................403

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The IPCC Expert Group Planning Meeting (EGPM) on the Elaboration of Good PracticeGuidance in Land-Use Change and Forestry for the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories was held on 6-8 August 2001 in Geneva. The meeting
aimed to develop a work programme in response to IPCC XVII decision and to the invitationof Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC), in its draft decision at the resumed COP6 in July 2001, to prepare areport on good practice guidance and uncertainty management and to elaborate and develop
methods, methodologies, and definitions on specified activities in Land Use, Land-Use
Change, and Forestry (LULUCF).
Thirty-seven experts on LULUCF and greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories, from developed
and developing countries and from countries with economies in transition, and four experts
from international organisations, in addition to the members of the Task Force Bureau on
Inventories (TFB) and staff of the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories ProgrammeTechnical Support Unit (NGGIP-TSU), participated in the EGPM. The meeting wasorganised by having a series of Plenary Sessions and Breakout Group Sessions. Three
Breakout Groups worked in parallel to develop the Terms of Reference (TOR), Table ofContents (TOC), and work plan to address the different issues in LULUCF as related to goodpractice and the inventory reporting requirements of the Parties under the UNFCCC. Three
major documents became the basis of breakout group discussions on how to proceed with thework: 1) the Provisional Outline of the Report, which was developed in March 2001 at the
TFB Co-chairs Informal Consultations; 2) the IPCC XVII decision in April 2001; and 3) theinvitation to IPCC in the resumed COP6 draft decision (FCCC/CP/2001/L/11/Rev.1).
The meeting made significant development to advance the work in Good Practice Guidance
for the Land-Use Change and Forestry Sector of the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. It developed draft TOR and TOC for this work
including the supplementary method development and good practice guidance work for the
relevant Articles of the Kyoto Protocol. It prepared the structure to proceed with the work on
good practice guidance and uncertainty management relating to measurement, estimation,assessment of uncertainties, monitoring and reporting of carbon stock changes and GHG
emissions and removals. It explored the scope and laid out the work plan to address the issueof definitions for direct human-induced degradation and devegetation of forest and othervegetation types. A scoping paper for the work to factor out direct human-induced changes incarbon stocks and GHG emissions and removals was also developed.
The EGPM also considered issues with inter-linkages to the above methodological work but
not directed to the IPCC in the draft decision in document FCCC/CP/2001/L.11/Rev.1. It
prepared options assessment papers to address the issue of developing biome-specific forest
definitions and issues related to afforestation and reforestation project activities under Article
12 of the Kyoto Protocol. Further guidance on these issues would be needed from the 18th
Session of the IPCC and COP7/SBSTA 15.
The Food and Agriculture Organisation announced at the meeting its intention to organise aworkshop on forest definitions in late 2001 or early 2002. The close link with the IPCC workand the need for collaboration was recognised.

4The draft TOR, TOC, scoping papers, and options assessment papers would be forwarded to
the Sixth Session of the TFB, in August 2001, for consideration and improvement prior topresentation/submission to the 18th Session of the IPCC in September 2001.
The EGPM agreed that it was premature to finalise the work plan and to propose a slate of
authors for the work described in the 5 draft papers in view of the necessity to call for
additional expertise as identified in the discussion. This work plan would be presented andfinalised at future meetings of the IPCC (TFB, IPCC Bureau, and Panel).

52. INTRODUCTION
The Expert Group Planning Meeting (EGPM) was organised to respond to the request of
IPCC XVII (Nairobi, 4-6 April 2001) to pursue further work on the elaboration of Good
Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management, in order to meet the inventory reporting
requirements of the Parties under the UNFCCC in relation to Land-Use Change and Forestry(LUCF). The existing IPCC Report on Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management
in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories does not encompass the LUCF sector. At the time thegood practice report was being prepared, the IPCC was also preparing a Special Report on
Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry (SR LULUCF). The good practice guidance forthe LUCF sector was to be prepared after the finalisation of the SR LULUCF. The SR
LULUCF was accepted by the IPCC in its Sixteenth Session in May 2000.
IPCC XVII noted that any further decisions or guidance from meetings of the Conference of
the Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC would be taken into account in the planning of the work on
LULUCF. The resumed COP6 in Bonn, in July 2001, reached a decision on theimplementation of the Buenos Aires Plan of Action that includes core elements related to
LULUCF. This is contained in Section 4 of FCCC/CP/2001/L.7. The Bonn meeting also
forwarded a draft decision for further consideration by COP7 (-/CP.6, document
FCCC/CP/2001/L.11/Rev.1) on matters relating to LULUCF. Section 3 of the draft decision /CP.6 contains an invitation to the IPCC. The EGPM took this invitation into consideration in
the planning of the work on LULUCF.
The main objectives of the EGPM were to:
1. Develop a work programme, including the terms of reference, work plan, table of contents
for the work;
2. Formulate a proposal, from the list of experts nominated by governments, of a slate of
authors (CLAs, LAs, REs) for the report on Good Practice Guidance and the other issues
in the UNFCCC request to the IPCC;
3. Prepare a report on conclusions and proposals by the planning meeting for approval by the
6th Session of the Task Force Bureau for the IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Programme in August 2001 and for consideration by the IPCC Panel at its 18th Session in
September 2001.

3. ORGANISATION OF THE PLANNING MEETING
1. Thirty-seven experts on Land-Use Change and Forestry and greenhouse gas inventories
from developed and developing countries and from countries with economies in transition,and four experts from international organisations, in addition to the members of the Task
Force Bureau on Inventories (TFB) and staff of the NGGIP-Technical Support Unit(NGGIP-TSU), participated in the EGPM.
2. The EGPM was organised into four sessions: 1) Sessions of the “Planning Group” which
include the TFB Co-chair and Members, breakout group (BOG) Co-chairs and6

Rapporteurs, and Plenary Rapporteurs; 2) Opening Session; 3) series of BOG/Plenary
Sessions; and 4) Closing Session.
3. Sessions of the Planning Group were held before the start of each day session. In day one,the first meeting of the group set out the plan for the Opening Session and the work
program for the succeeding days. In days two and three, sessions of the group were held toassess the progress of the work and to determine cross-cutting issues that have to beaddressed in Plenary Sessions. All meetings of the Planning Group and all Plenary
Sessions were chaired by Taka Hiraishi, one of the Co-chairs of the TFB.
4. In the Opening Session, the following topics were presented:•

Opening Remarks by the TFB Co-chair (Taka Hiraishi) – The TFB Co-chair welcomed
the experts/participants and introduced the agenda for adoption.

•

Welcome remarks by the Secretary of the IPCC – N. Sundararaman expressed words ofwelcome to all participants and invited them to give more attention to the technicalissues of LULUCF rather than procedures.

•

Background and Objectives of the Meeting (Leandro Buendia, NGGIP-TSU) – This
presentation provided the background and objectives of the EGPM, the expected
outcome, and possible activities after the meeting.

•Introduction to Good Practice Guidance (Dina Kruger, USA) – This presentation
introduced the purpose of good practice, its principles, and the importance of practicalexperience in preparing greenhouse gas inventories. It discussed the structure of the
IPCC report on Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories (GPGAUM) which consisted of two major components:
1) source-specific guidance; and 2) cross-cutting guidance. The presentationemphasised that no Kyoto Protocol related issues were included in GPGAUM. Thus, inthis presentation, the participants (experts) were challenged to plan and organise this
IPCC LUCF Project in a way that leads to addressing the issues covered in GPGAUM
as well as those requested by the Parties.

•

The UNFCCC Common Reporting Format for LUCF Sector (Roberto Acosta,
UNFCCC) – The topic presented the Common Reporting Format (CRF) for the LUCF
sector used by Annex I Parties in reporting their annual inventories to the UNFCCC.
An informal paper on “Alternative Formats for Sectoral Background Data Tables 5A-D
on Land-Use Change and Forestry of the Common Reporting Format’ was prepared by
the UNFCCC Secretariat and was distributed to the participants. The paper was
prepared on the basis of document FCCC/SBSTA/2001/MISC.4 which can be obtainedat the UNFCCC web site - http://www.unfccc.int/resource/docs.html. The UNFCCC
Secretariat also prepared an informal paper on “Tables and Other Relevant Parts of the
CRF for Reporting LUCF Information” on the basis of document FCCC/CP/1999/7
which can also be acquired from the above-mentioned web site. This topic also
included a presentation on the time frame for considering the completion of the reporton LULUCF GPG and the implications of a late completion of the report (Attachment
1: Informal Paper #3). Finally, the presentation recalled the decision of COP (3/CP.5)
to consider the revision of the reporting guidelines after the trial period by COP7 andthe agreement of Parties to the UNFCCC to the use of good practice guidance inpreparing their LUCF inventories.

7

•

Provisional Outline of the Report (Jim Penman, UK) – This presentation introduced theProvisional Outline of the Report (Attachment 2) that was developed in March 2001, in
Geneva, during the TFB Co-chairs Informal Consultations on LULUCF. The
presentation highlighted the five sections of the Provisional Outline namely: 1)
Introduction; 2) Good Practice for categories of Chapter 5 of the Revised 1996 IPCC
Guidelines; 3) Cross-cutting issues; 4) Good practice requirement arising from thedecisions of the UNFCCC; and 5) Glossary. The issues under Sections 2 and 3 of theProvisional Outline were expressed in detail, except for Section 4 where details are to
be based on the outcomes of the negotiations of the COP to the UNFCCC. It was
mentioned that the Fifth Session of the TFB took note of the Provisional Outline andagreed to make it available at the Planning Meeting. In the light of the agreement
reached at the resumed COP6, Section 4 of the Provisional Outline was updated during
the presentation to include the invitations to IPCC to prepare a report on good practiceguidance and uncertainty management and to address other methodological issues
related to LULUCF activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4, and Articles 6 and 12 of the
Kyoto Protocol.

•

Mandate and Procedural Requirements (Taka Hiraishi) – This presentation recalled the
mandate from IPCC XVII which included, among others, the decision to pursue further
work on the elaboration of Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management inLand Use Change and Forestry to meet the inventory reporting requirements of theParties under the UNFCCC (Attachment 3). The presentation also recalled the draft
decision at the resumed COP6 which included an invitation to IPCC to prepare a reporton good practice guidance and uncertainty management relating to the measurement,
estimation, assessment of uncertainties, monitoring and reporting of net carbon stockchanges and anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals bysinks in the land use, land-use change and forestry sector. Other invitations andrequests from COP6 which were discussed, and of equal importance, are found in
Attachment 4 (FCCCP/CP/2001/L.11/Rev.1) of this report. In terms of the IPCC
procedures, the presenter enumerated some of the activities and requirements that may
be involved in translating those requests into tangible products. These included therequest for government nominations of additional experts, the selection of authors by
the TFB under the guidance of the Panel, the review process that will be required, andthe procedures for the adoption/acceptance of the final report.

•

Expert Consultation Meeting on Forest-Related Definitions (Rene Gommes, FAO,
Rome) – The representative of FAO announced the tentative schedule of the joint
FAO/IPCC/CIFOR Expert Consultation Meeting on Forest-Related Definitions to beheld in FAO, Rome, sometime in December 2001 or early January 2002. The purposeof the meeting is to start a process to review, improve, and harmonise forest related
definitions for consideration by the IPCC, SBSTA of the UNFCCC, and other relevant
conventions or fora (Attachment 5).

•

Breakout Groups (BOGs) Organisation of the Work and Expected Outcome (Riitta
Pipatti, NGGIP-TSU) – This was the last part of the Opening Session. Participants
were informed of the three breakout groups: BOG1 – Source Specific Issues; BOG2 –Cross-cutting Issues; and BOG3 – Additional Issues Arising from the UNFCCC
invitation to IPCC. Attachment 6 provides the list of BOG Co-chairs, rapporteurs, andmembers, and the rapporteurs for the Plenary Sessions. The list of available meeting
documents or materials that the NGGIP-TSU had prepared was presented for use in
BOG sessions. Finally, the presenter discussed the expected outputs from BOGs

8sessions, which include the following: Terms of Reference (TOR), Table of Contents(TOC), and Work Plan. These outputs would be forwarded for consideration by the 6th
Session of the TFB in August 2001 and by the 18th Session of the IPCC in September
2001.
5. BOG/Plenary Sessions – Two BOG sessions and three Plenary Sessions were conductedwithin the duration of the EGPM. The first BOG session was done immediately after theOpening Session on the first day.
6. The meeting closed at 5:30 P.M., on 8 August 2001 with words of thanks from the TFB
Co-chair for the warm support and cooperation of all the expert/participants. In return, an
expert/participant, on behalf of all the experts/participants, expressed his appreciation to
the work/leadership of the TFB Co-chair.

4. HIGHLIGHTS OF THE PLANNING MEETING
1. Three major documents became the basis of initial BOG discussions on how to proceedwith the work: 1) the Provisional Outline of the Report, which was developed in March
2001 at the TFB Co-chairs Informal Consultations; 2) the IPCC XVII decision in April
2001; and 3) the resumed COP6 draft decision (FCCC/CP/2001/L.11/Rev.1).
2. The first round of BOG Sessions resulted in the delineation of topics to be handled byeach BOG. The identified topics were as follows: 1) Selecting Reporting Approach; 2)Good Practice Measuring – 1996 Guidelines; 3) Kyoto Protocol related issues; and 4)
Cross-cutting issues. Topic 1 covers the issues related to representation of land areas in
the inventory. Topic 2 deals with good practice guidance at source level. Topic 3 covers
requirements arising from the decisions of the COP to the UNFCCC and Topic 4 deals
with cross-cutting issues such as statistical and management methodologies, uncertainty,
QA/QC, verification, etc. These four topics were distributed to the BOGs for discussion
and further development. BOG1 was tasked to handle Topic 2; BOG2 for Topics 1 and 4;
and BOG3 to deal with Topic 3. The BOGs were challenged to list items under eachsection to clearly see areas of complementation and linkages.
3. The second round of BOG Sessions produced provisional TORs and TOCs for eachassigned topic. A draft TOCs for Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF of the draft
decision (L.11/Rev.1) was developed. This draft was presented to the plenary of themeeting. Major discussions during the Plenary Sessions were given to the issue onpracticable methodologies that may enable factoring out direct human-induced changes incarbon stocks and GHG emissions and removals from those caused by indirect humaninduced and natural effects. Ian Carruthers and Gary Richards (Australia), Dina Kruger(USA), and Jim Penman (UK) were requested to finalise the TOR and TOC taking into
consideration the issues and suggestions brought out at the Plenary Session. The final
draft of the TOR is in Attachment 7 and the TOC for Good Practice Guidance for
LULUCF is found in Attachment 8. The draft TOC has five chapters and an annex. The
chapters are:91) Introduction;2) Basis for Consistent Representation of Land Areas;
3) LUCF Sector Good Practice Guidance;4) Supplementary methods and Good Practice arising from the Kyoto Protocol; and5) Cross-cutting Issues.
An Annex with a proposed elaboration of the TOC developed by BOG3 for Chapter 4 was
attached in the TOC.
4. A proposed work plan to complete the work on Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF waspresented and discussed in the meeting. The draft workplan was based on the plansdeveloped independently by Taka Hiraishi (TFB Co-Chair) and John Stone (TFB
Member). A two-stage sequential review process was recommended in view of the policy
relevance of the report. The EGPM agreed that it was premature to finalise the work planand to propose a slate of authors for the work in view of the necessity to call for additional
expertise as identified in the discussion. The meeting decided to forward the issue to
TFB6 for further discussion.
5. The meeting agreed that the developed TOC for Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF
addressed Sections 3(a) and 3(b) of the draft decision of COP6 in
FCCC/CP/2001/L.11/Rev.1 and IPCC XVII decision.
6. The meeting also addressed the issues, in the same draft decision of COP6, in Section 3(c)on degradation and devegetation and Section 3(d) on factoring out of direct humaninduced changes in carbon stocks and GHG emissions and removals. The meeting agreed
to the request of the TFB Co-chair to form small groups or task forces to conduct parallelsessions to enable the development of a draft Scoping Paper for the two sections. The taskof developing a draft scoping paper for Section 3(c) was given to Claudio Forner(UNFCCC) and Audun Rosland (Norway). Developing a draft Scoping Paper for Section
3(d) was given to Thelma Krug (Brazil), Bill Hohenstein (USA), Ian Noble (Australia),
and John Stone (Canada).
7. The Chairman of the IPCC, Bob Watson, was informed of the progress made at the
EGPM at telephone conferences arranged during the meeting. These telephone
conferences were attended by the IPCC Vice-chair Gylvan Meira Filho; TFB Co-chair
Taka Hiraishi; the BOG Co-Chairs Jim Penman, Dina Kruger, Thelma Krug and Ian
Carruthers; the Plenary Rapporteurs John Stone and Ian Noble; representatives of the
IPCC Secretariat Ram Sundararaman and Renate Christ; TSU Head Riitta Pipatti; andRoberto Acosta from the UNFCCC Secretariat.
8. The telephone conference initiated discussions at the EGPM on Sections 2(b) and 2(e) of
the above draft decision at the resumed COP6. The issues in the draft decision are notdirected to the IPCC but they have inter-linkages with the methodological work. The
meeting again agreed to the request of the TFB Co-chair to form small groups or task
forces to work on these issues. The task forces were requested to prepare Options
Assessment Papers on how these issues could be included in the work of the IPCC, in casea request to the IPCC would be made by the SBSTA at a later stage. For Section 2(b),10Options Assessment Paper to develop biome-specific forest definition, the task was given
to Werner Kurz (Canada) and Bernhard Schlamadinger (Austria). The development of
Options Assessment Paper for Section 2(e), on issues related to afforestation andreforestation project activities under Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol, was given to Heikki
Granholm (Finland) and Jose Domingo Miguez (Brazil).
9. All the final drafts of the above-mentioned papers were presented and discussed in
Plenary Session and were approved for consideration and further discussion by TFB6. The
draft Scoping Papers and Options Assessment Papers are found in Attachments 9, 10, 11,
and 12 of this report.

5. CONCLUSIONThe EGPM made significant development to advance the work on good practice guidance for
LULUCF. It developed draft TOR and TOC for this work. It prepared the structure to proceedwith the work on good practice guidance and uncertainty management relating tomeasurement, estimation, assessment of uncertainties, monitoring and reporting of carbon
stock changes and GHG emissions and removals. It explored the scope and laid out the work
plan to address the issue of definitions for direct human-induced degradation and devegetationof forest and other vegetation types. It developed a Scoping Paper to factor out direct humaninduced changes in carbon stocks and GHG emissions and removals. It prepared Options
Assessment Papers to address the issue of developing biome-specific forest definitions andissues related to afforestation and reforestation project activities under Article 12 of the Kyoto
Protocol.
Overall, the EGPM produced 5 draft papers in response to IPCC XVII decision and to theinvitation of the COP to the UNFCCC in its draft decision in document
FCCC/CP/2001/L.11/Rev.1. These draft TOR, TOC, scoping papers, and options assessment
papers will be forwarded to the Sixth Session of the TFB, in August 2001, for considerationand further development prior to presentation/submission to the 18th Session of the IPCC in
September 2001. Further discussions will be needed to finalise the draft Scoping and Options
Assessment Papers, to develop a work programme, and to propose a slate of authors for thework. It is expected that future meetings of the IPCC (TFB, IPCC Bureau, and Panel) willconcretise the work plan (including TOR and TOC) and will allow more participation ofqualified authors or experts to complete the work.

11

Attachment 1
Informal Paper No. 3 prepared by the UNFCCC secretariat for the IPCC Expert Group
Planning Meeting on the Elaboration of Good Practice Guidance in Land-Use Change
and Forestry for the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories
6-8 August 2001, Geneva, Switzerland)

Implications of a late completion of the report on GPG on LULUCF
1) The IPCC report on GPG on LULUCF will impact the following activities (as indicated in
the Figure 1):
•
•
•
•
•
•

The review of LUCF greenhouse gas emissions and removals under the Convention;
The revision of the 1996 IPCC Guidelines;
The first review of the Protocol (Article 5) and the consideration of commitments for thesecond commitment period (Article 3.9);
The development of methodologies for adjustments (Article 5.2), including in LUCF
sector;
The establishment of national systems (Article 5.1, in particular for the estimation ofgreenhouse gas emissions and removals from LULUCF; andThe preparation of the report on the establishment of assigned amounts (related tomethodological and reporting requirements under Articles 5, 7, and 8 of the Kyoto
Protocol) that may be necessary to meet eligibility criteria for participating in mechanisms
under the Kyoto Protocol (proposal for guidelines for Article 7 and decision 5./CP.6).

2) Most of these activities are planned to be initiated or completed between 2004 and 2007.
3) The SBSTA or COP may need at least 2 sessions to operationalise in guidelines ormodalities text the outcome of the IPCC report on GPG on LULUCF.
4) Parties may require at least two years to implement any COP decision adopted on thebasis of the IPCC report on GPG on LULUCF.
Therefore, it is a key element for the successful development of the Convention and/or Kyoto
Protocol processes that the IPCC report on GPG on LULUCF or most of the report will becompleted by COP 9, under the understanding that this does not undermine its quality.

12Figure 1. Timeframes for considering the times for completion of the report on GPG on
LULUCF

Timeframes set by
the Kyoto Protocol

Timeframes set by
the Convention and the IPCC

2001

2001

Parties are encouraged
to use GPG from 2001

COP 7
2002
COP/MOP 1?
2003
Development of methods foradjustments including LUCF

Encouragement of early reporting and review, to start participating in the mechanisms

First review of theProtocol by COP/MOP 2(Article 9)

COP/MOP 1/2?
2004

COP/MOP 2?
Review commitments
for the 2nd Com. Per.
No later than 2005 (Art. 3.9)

2005

2002
G
P
G

SBSTA 16
COP 8

Revision of reporting
and review guidelines
completed (without LUCF)

2003
SBSTA 18
COP 9
2004
SBSTA 20
COP 102005

Inventories shall be reviewed
annually since 2003
Parties shall use
GPG from 2003**
Revision of IPCC Guidelines tobe completed (including GPG)
Revised IPCC
Guidelines adopted

COP 11

Report for the establishmentof the assigned amount *relevant for eligibility criteria

National systems
in Place (Art. 5.1)
No later than 1.1/2007

2006

2006

COP 12
2007

Pre-commitment period
review(Review report for eligibility
criteria)

2007
COP 132008

2008

Start of the Kyoto
Protocol* Includes: national systems,
registries, all inventories
from 1990, LUCF definitions, 3.4
activities** EIT-Annex 1 Parties
might phase-out 2 years

13Attachment 2
PROVISIONAL OUTLINE OF THE REPORT
Note: An outline including chapter headings will be a product of the planning meeting.
1

Introduction to good practice concept

Unbiased estimation plus reduction of uncertainties by making best use of resources available.
2

Good practice for categories of Chapter 5 of the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories

Covers organisation and structure of categories, tiered methods, consistent with 96 Guidelines but
updating values and correcting any errors and omissions and providing default values and uncertainty
ranges. Use layout consistent with existing good practice guidance. Includes linkages to other sectorsof the Guidelines (e.g. waste, agriculture), methods for dealing with wood products– that would ofcourse be confined to technical matters pending UNFCCC decision on preferred accounting approach.
3

Cross cutting issues

Includes statistical sampling methods (e.g. frequency and stratification), remote sensing, treatment ofrotational land uses, land use change matrix methods, field measurements, use of periodic survey data
in annual inventories, forest inventory data, updating yield tables, reference plots, size of assessment
units, geographical identification, quantification and propagation of uncertainties, methodologicalchoice, recalculation, quality assurance and quality control, verification, data archiving to facilitate
review, reporting requirements.
4

Requirements arising from decisions of the UNFCCC

Includes:a) methods to estimate, measure, monitor and report changes in carbon stocks and anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks resulting from land use, land use change
and forestry activities under Article 3.3 and 3.4, and Articles 6 and 12 of the Kyoto Protocol,
consistent with the other sections of this report, the decision FCCC/CP/2001/L.71 (taking into account
FCCC/CP/2001/L.11/Rev.1), and relevant decisions at COP7.
b) proposed definitions and associated inventory and reporting methods for direct human induced
degradation and devegetation emissions, as set out in FCCC/CP/2001/L.11/Rev.1 and relevant
decisions at COP7.
51Glossary

Provisional numbering until the report of COP6 bis becomes available.

14

Attachment 3
IPCC 17 Decision on LULUCF(Nairobi, 4-6 April 2001)
ITEM (5) B
The Panel concurred the following recommendation submitted by
the TFB Co-chairs on behalf of TFBNATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORIES - LAND USE CHANGE AND
FORESTRY
The Panel:a) noted the previous requests by the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological
Advice of the UNFCCC to progress activities related to good practice guidance anduncertainty management for the Land Use Change and Forestry Sector of National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories;b) noted that the report on Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories, which had been accepted by the Panel at its XVIth Session,
had covered all Inventory Sectors other than Land Use Change and Forestry;c) decided to pursue further work on the elaboration of Good Practice Guidance andUncertainty Management to meet the Inventory reporting requirements of the Parties
under the UNFCCC related to Land Use Change and Forestry;d) noted that the IPCC will need to take into account any further decisions or guidance frommeetings of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC;e) requests the Task Force Bureau on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories to organise thework on Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management for the Land Use Change
and Forestry Sector, beginning with an Expert Group Planning Meeting to be held in
advance of the XVIIIth meeting of the Panel;f) requests the Secretary of the IPCC to write to governments inviting nominations forparticipants in the Planning Meeting and nominations for Lead Authors;g) decides to consider the report of the Planning Meeting and proposed work programme at
the XVIIIth session of the Panel.

15

Attachment 4
COP6 bis draft decision (FCCC/CP/2001/L.11/Rev.1); Sections 2 & 3

The Conference of the Parties,
Recalling its decisions…
Acknowledging with appreciation the scientific advice…
2. Requests the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice:(a) To consider, following the completion of the methodological work by theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as outlined in paragraph 3 (c) below,
and adopt methodologies to account for anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions resulting
from direct human-induced degradation and devegetation activities, with a view to theConference of the Parties at its tenth session recommending a decision for adoption by the
Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol at its
first session regarding whether such activities should be included in the first commitment
period;(b) To investigate the possible application of biome-specific forest definitions for the secondand subsequent commitment periods with a view to the Conference of the Parties at its
tenth session recommending a decision for adoption on the use of such biome-specificforest definitions for future commitment periods to the Conference of the Parties serving
as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol at its first session;(c) To incorporate the work of the IPCC as outlined in paragraph 3 (d) below, into any
revisions of modalities, rules and guidelines prior to the second commitment period, forthe accounting of activities under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol;(d) To develop at its fifteenth session terms of reference for the work to be conducted underparagraph 2 (e) below;(e) To develop definitions and modalities for including afforestation and reforestation project
activities under Article 12 in the first commitment period, taking into account the issues of
non-permanence, additionality, leakage, uncertainties and socio-economic andenvironmental impacts, including impacts on biodiversity and natural ecosystems, andbeing guided by the principles in the preamble to decision -/CMP.1 (land use, land-use
change and forestry) and the terms of reference referred to in paragraph 2 (d) above, withthe aim of adopting a decision on these definitions and modalities at the ninth session of
the Conference of the Parties, to be forwarded to the Conference of the Parties serving as
the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol at its first session;
3. Invites the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:(a) To elaborate methods to estimate, measure, monitor, and report changes in carbon stocks
and anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks resulting
from land use, land-use change and forestry activities under Article 3.3 and 3.4, andArticles 6 and 12 of the Kyoto Protocol on the basis of the Revised 1996
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories, taking into account the decisions -/CMP.1 and -/CP.6, to be submitted for16

consideration and possible adoption to the Conference of the Parties at its ninth session;(b) To prepare a report on good practice guidance and uncertainty management relating to themeasurement, estimation, assessment of uncertainties, monitoring and reporting of net
carbon stock changes and anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources andremovals by sinks in the land use, land-use change and forestry sector, taking into
consideration decisions -/CMP.1 and -/CP.6, to be submitted for consideration andpossible adoption to the Conference of the Parties at its ninth session;(c) To develop definitions for direct human-induced ‘degradation’ and ‘devegetation’ offorests and other vegetation types and methodological options to inventory and report on
emissions resulting from these activities, to be submitted for consideration and possible
adoption to the Conference of the Parties at its ninth session; and,(d) To develop practicable methodologies to factor out direct human-induced changes incarbon stocks and greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks fromchanges in carbon stocks and greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks
due to indirect human-induced and natural effects (such as those from carbon dioxide
fertilization and nitrogen deposition), and effects due to past practices in forests (prereference year), to be submitted to the Conference of the Parties at its tenth session;

17

Attachment 5
Expert Consultation on Forest-Related Definitions, Rome, Italy, 3 – 5
December 2001
Sponsors: FAO, IPCC, …
Objective
Forest-related definitions are harmonizedBackground
Much global or regional information on forest resources is derived from national data. FAO
has therefore developed forest-related definitions for national inputs to globally aggregatedforest assessments and outlook studies. The IPCC has developed forest-related definitions foruse in monitoring land use related to climate change. Other organizations have developed
other definitions for other purposes, such as monitoring biological diversity in forests. Thereis a need to improve the compatibility and consistency of definitions in order to permit
comparability and thus to improve the quality and usefulness of forest information, increase
the synergy among organizations, and more effectively use scarce resources for information
monitoring, assessment and reporting.
Major uses of forest-relation information at global and regional levels
There is a need for globally- and regionally-aggregated information on forest resources andforest ecosystems to:•

Define the concept of, and monitor progress toward sustainable forest management•

Assess the role of forests in climate change•

Assess the attributes and changes affecting forest biomes with respect to biologicaldiversity•

Analyze the social, economic and environmental roles of forests

The information required differs between uses but with consistent and comparable definitions,
it could be exchanged between different users.
Expected outputs•

Identify key forest-related terms whose definitions are critical to international processes•

Where possible, agree on the definitions of these key terms; derive working alternatives
or indicate how information using different definitions can be compared•

Develop recommendations for consideration by relevant policy processes with respect to
key definitions and their application18

Process•

Experts will be invited in a personal capacity, recognizing, however, that many
participants will present viewpoints of their respective organization or country•

To facilitate the process, the organizers will distribute background documents and themeeting will include presentations and working group discussions•

The meeting will be held in English; interpretation in other languages will depend on
available funding

Participants
Invited experts of key international organizations, NGOs, and national institutions
Venue
FAO Headquarters, Rome Italy
Time
December 3 - 5, 2001

19

Attachment 6
Breakout Group Co-chairs, Rapporteurs, and Members,
and Plenary Rapporteurs

BREAKOUT GROUP I: SOURCE SPECIFIC ISSUES
Co-Chairs:
1.
2.
Rapporteurs:
3.
4.

Dina KRUGER (USA/TFB)
Wojciech GALINSKI (Poland)Martina van MERWE (South Africa)
Kenneth BYRNE (Ireland)Members:
5. Harald AALDE (Norway)
6. Abdulaziz ALKAHLAN (Saudi Arabia)
7. Rizaldi BOER (Indonesia)
8. David Cruz CHOQUE (Bolivia)
9. Pascal COLLAS (Canada)
10. Albertus Johannes DOLMAN (Netherlands)
11. Juerg FUHRER (Switzerland)
12. Jean-Claude GERMON (France)
13. Hector GINZO (Argentina)
14. Michael GYTARSKY (Russian Federation)
15. John KIMBLE (USA)16. Antonio LUMICISI (Italy)
17. Mitsuo MATSUMOTO (Japan)
18. Ronald MILNE (UK)19. Jozef MINDAS (Slovakia)
20. Bangzhong WANG (China)
21. Tom WIRTH (USA)TFB Member:
22. Mingxing WANG (China)
NGGIP-TSU:
23. Leandro BUENDIA

20

BREAKOUT GROUP II: CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES
Co-Chairs:
1.
2.

Jim PENMAN (UK/TFB)
Mohammad SOLTANIEH (Iran)

3.
4.

Harry GANOO (Mauritius)
Kristin RYPDAL (Norway)

Rapporteurs:

Members:
5. Roberto ACOSTA (UNFCCC)
6. James BARTON (New Zealand)
7. Rene GOMMES (FAO)
8. Bill HOHENSTEIN (USA)
9. Carlos MONREAL (Canada)
10. Ian NOBLE (Australia) – Plenary Rapporteur
11. Michael STROGIES (Germany)
TFB Members:
12. Marc GILLET (France)
13. Carlos LOPEZ (Cuba)
14. Igor NAZAROV (Russian Federation)
NGGIP-TSU:
15. Kiyoto TANABE

21

BREAKOUT GROUP III: ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS ARISING FROM THE
UNFCC INVITATION TO IPCC
Co-Chairs:
1.
2.

Ian CARRUTHERS (Australia/TFB)
Thelma KRUG (Brazil)

3.
4.

Bo LIM (UK/UNDP)
Audun ROSLAND (Norway/TFB)

Rapporteurs:

Members:
5. Lorenzo CICCARESE (Italy)
6. Claudio FORNER (UNFCCC)
7. Heikki GRANHOLM (Finland)
8. Werner KURZ (Canada)
9. Klas OSTERBERG (Sweden)
10. Gary RICHARDS (Australia)
11. Maria SAN SANCHEZ (Spain)
12. Dieter SCHOENE (European Commission)
13. Bernhard SCHLAMADINGER (Austria)
TFB Members:
14. Taka HIRAISHI (Japan) – Plenary Chair
15. Jose Domingo MIGUEZ (Brazil)
16. Richard ODINGO (Kenya)
17. John STONE (Canada) - Plenary Rapporteur
IPCC Secretariat:
18. N. SUNDARARAMAN
19. Renate CHRISTNGGIP-TSU:
20. Riitta PIPATTI
21. Kyoko MIWA

22

Attachment 7
Terms of Reference of IPCC project on Land Use, Land-Use Change, andForestry (LULUCF)
In response to the decision of IPCC XVII and related decisions and requests from the
UNFCCC, the IPCC will develop Good Practice Guidance (GPG) to ensure that country
inventories on LULUCF are neither over- nor underestimated as far as can be judged, anduncertainties are reduced as far as practicable and facilitate the best use of available resources,
taking different national circumstances into account. The GPG on LULUCF should ensurethat countries use of the same criteria as listed in the Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty
Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories2.
IPCC will base its work, inter alia, on:
1. The Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
2. The IPCC 2000 Report on Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management
3. Relevant decisions of the COP
4. IPCC Special Report on Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry.
In preparing this Terms of Reference, the IPCC has further been guided by the draft decision(L11/Rev 1), paragraphs 3(a) and 3(b). Consistent with this draft decision, a workplan has
been developed that provides for completion of this work by COP9.
The work required has been organised into three technical areas which are briefly summarised
below :•

Source-specific good practice guidance on the 1996 IPCC Guidelines for the requirementsof the UNFCCC : This work is to be undertaken in response to the request of IPCC XVII
and several requests from SBSTA, dating back to SBSTA 8. The proposed work isoutlined in Chapter 3 of the attached TOC. This would be consistent with the 1996
Guidelines.

•

Elaboration of Methods and Good Practice on Kyoto Protocol Issues : This section has
been considered in response to the draft decision FCCC/CP/2001/L.11/Rev1, paragraphs3(a) and 3(b), and the decision of the IPCC XVII. The approach is outlined in Chapter 4of the TOC. For eligible land use, land use change and forestry activities under Articles
3.3 and 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol and for eligible LULUCF project activities under
Articles 6 and 12 of the Kyoto Protocol, the IPCC will elaborate (i.e. identify and address
additional or supplementary features) methods and develop good practice guidance, toestimate, measure, monitor and report changes in carbon stocks and anthropogenic

2

These criteria are: transparency, completeness, consistency, comparability, accuracy andverifiability. These should be applied to inventories of changes in carbon stocks andanthropogenic GHG emissions from sources and removals by sinks.

23

greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks required to supplement
National Greenhouse Gas Inventory practices for eligible activities.
•

Underlying Issues of Good Practice : This section responds to the decision of IPCC XVII,
and the previous requests of SBSTA. It addresses two key issues. First, an approach toensure a consistent representation of land areas for use across the source and sinkcategories, as outlined in Chapter 2 of the TOC. Second, a number of additional crosscutting issues – including identification of key sources and sink categories, uncertainty
analysis, recalculation, QA/QC, and verification are addressed in Chapter 5 of the TOC.

24

Attachment 8
Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF3
Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction
The report responds to the decision of IPCC XVII (6th April 2001, ITEM(5)B). It
provides good practice guidance on how to prepare unbiased LULUCF inventory
estimates and reduce uncertainties as far as practicable, while making the best use ofresources available. Good practice in LULUCF needs to address characteristic features ofthe sector, including spatial disaggregation and temporal dynamics, and the requirement
to consider carbon stocks as well as greenhouse gas emissions and removals.
(The structure of the report should be summarised in this chapter.)
Chapter 2: Basis for Consistent Representation of Land Areas
The LULUCF inventory needs a consistent representation of land areas for use acrosssource and sink categories considered. Methodological options include the full spectrum
from conventional inventory approaches to remote sensing and GIS based systems.
2.1. Decision tree for selecting among the methods available, taking account of national
circumstances including geographic and ecological circumstances and inventory
history. Representative data collection within the chosen framework including
treatment of missing data reconstructed as described in 5.3.
2.2 Good practice in the derivation and application of land use change matrices, including
issues such as temporary land cover and rotational land use changes. Good practicein the combination data collected at various time scales such as periodic survey andannual census data and remote sensing data.
2.3 Consistency in disaggregation of spatial and temporal subsets of land areas forreporting under the Convention or the Kyoto Protocol.
Chapter 3: LUCF Sector Good Practice Guidance

3.1 Overview: Provision of good practice guidance for Chapter 5 of the Revised 1996
IPCC Guidelines, sections 5A-5E. Guidance is consistent with the 1996 Guidelines,
3

In the 1996 Guidelines, the sector is called LUCF (Land-Use Change and Forestry). LUCF
and LULUCF are both used. This document adopts LULUCF except where there is a clear
reference to the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines, without implying any policy judgement
thereby.

25

while clarifying certain issues such as attribution of soil carbon, providing guidanceon how to manage interlinkages among the subsectors 5A-5E and with other chaptersof the 1996 Guidelines, especially Chapter 1 “ Energy” and Chapter 4 “Agriculture”,
whilst avoiding double counting, taking into consideration the experience gained inusing the common reporting format tables of the UNFCCC.
This chapter addresses methodological issues and reporting specifically linked to the
Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines. For the sections listed below, good practice should
be prepared following the format of the IPCC 2000 Good Practice Report (including
discussion of methodological approaches and choice among them, factors,
parameters and activity data; completeness and avoiding double counting;development of consistent time series; uncertainty assessment; reporting anddocumentation; and QA/QC)4. It should be recognised that there is a need for thegood practice to clarify the scope and inter-relationships of particular source and sinkcategories in the LUCF Chapter of the 1996 Guidelines.
3.2 Changes in Forest and Other Woody Biomass Stocks (IPCC 5A):
3.2.1 Changes in Biomass5
3.2.2 Changes in Soil Carbon
3.2.3 Harvested Wood6
3.3 Forest and Grassland Conversion (IPCC - 5B)
3.3.1. Changes in Biomass7
3.3.2. Changes in Soil Carbon
3.4 Abandonment of Managed Lands (IPCC - 5C): Clarification of the scope anddescription of this sub-category.
3.4.1 Changes in Biomass
3.4.2 Changes in Soil Carbon
3.5 CO2 Emissions and Uptake by Soils (IPCC - 5D)8
3.5.1 Mineral soils
3.5.2 Organic soils
3.5.3 Liming
3.6 Others (IPCC - 5E)
4

See the last sentence in the footnote 1 in the Draft Scoping Paper to Address Request 3(d)outlined in FCCC/CP/2001/L.11/Rev.1.
5This section should cover issues related to forests, plantations, and other land-use (i.e. urban, village forests),
all relevant carbon pools (i.e., above- and below-ground biomass, litter, and dead wood), CO2 and non-CO2
emissions related to fires, other disturbances, and forest management practices, and provision of any data needed
for subsequent consideration under Chapter 4 of this report.
6

Treatment of harvested wood products will be consistent with decisions of the COP.
This section should cover all relevant carbon pools, shifting cultivation, and CO2 and nonCO2 emissions, and provide any relevant data for subsequent consideration under Chapter 4 ofthis report78This section needs to reconsider all land use and land use transitions not covered elsewhere (i.e., sections 5A to5C), linkages to Chapter 4 of the 1996 Guidelines, treatment of above-ground carbon stocks (if non-negligible)
and linkage to other sectors, clarification of scope and definition of sub-categories, and utility of separatingmineral and organic soils.

26

3.6.1 Other non-CO2 GHG fluxes
3.6.2 GHG fluxes from flooding and wetland drainage9

Chapter 4: Requirements arising from decisions of the Kyoto Protocol
4.1 General Overview: This chapter describes the supplementary methods and goodpractice guidance specifically linked to the Kyoto Protocol and requiring guidance
beyond the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines. The chapter gives full consideration to
the requirements of Article 3.3, as well as choices made related to Articles 3.4, 6 and12. The planning meeting held in Geneva 6-8 August 2001, discussed the technicalapproach in extensive detail and these discussions are summarised in Annex 1.
4.1.1 Identification and stratification of relevant land areas
4.1.2 Estimation of C stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions
4.1.3 Specific Requirements of the accounting system required
4.2. Methodological issues related to estimation, measurement, monitoring and reportingof changes in carbon stocks and anthropogenic GHG emissions by sources andremovals by sinks resulting from LULUCF activities.
4.2.1. Afforestation and reforestation
4.2.2 Deforestation
4.2.3. Forest management
4.2.4 Revegetation
4.2.5. Cropland management
4.2.6. Grazing land management
4.2.7.Article 6: Additional/supplementary methodological issues related toestimation, measurement, monitoring and reporting of changes in carbon stocks
and anthropogenic GHG emissions by sources and removals by sinks resulting
from LULUCF activities under Art. 6.
4.2.8.Article 12: Methodological issues related to estimation, measurement,
monitoring and reporting of changes in carbon stocks and anthropogenic GHG
emissions by sources and removals by sinks resulting from LULUCF
afforestation and reforestation activities under Art. 12.
Chapter 5: Cross-Cutting Issues
5.1. Identification of key source and sink categories required for reporting and resource
prioritisation.
5.2 Uncertainty analysis in the framework of the overall approach chosen.

9

May be treated here or under other sections (i.e. 3.2 or 3.5)

27

5.3 Recalculations and reconstruction of missing data using proxy variables for
integration into general framework identified under section 2.
5.4 QA/QC including procedures for data collection and archiving taking into account theneed for transparency and review.
5.5 Verification Comparison with independent data sources and techniques specific to
LULUCF Linkage to international scientific programmes and data sets.

28

Annex 1: Elaboration of Notes from Planning Meeting, 6-8 August 2001,
Breakout Group 3Part 1 – Overall Framework for estimating, measuring, monitoring and reportingchanges of carbon stocks and non-CO2 GHG emissions as requested by the Kyoto
Protocol and COP6 L.11 Rev.1

This is the general overview of issues related to the Kyoto Protocol that require guidance
beyond the revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines. This section will outline the reporting
requirements, resulting data requirements, and available options for a country’s design ofmethods for developing the relevant parts of its National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. The
emphasis will be on helping inventory compilers, forest managers and other experts involvedin the inventory preparation understand how data and forest inventories can contribute toestimation of C stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions and what additional information
may be required.
General Introduction•••

Additional requirements for the Kyoto Protocol beyond those of national UNFCCC
reporting.
Introduce general steps (identify land areas and conduct C stock change and non-CO2
GHG emission estimation).
Note that requirements for the first Commitment Period may differ from those in secondand subsequent CP, which may have implications for system design.

Identification and stratification of land areas on which C stock changes and non-CO2
GHG emissions will be estimated and reported••••

Summary of Land Categories (e.g. forest, managed forest, ARD, Article 6, etc.) as definedin part by the activities that occurred on the land.
Methods for assignment of land categories (activities, which conditions must be met).
Cause of changes in land cover and land use (direct/indirect, natural disturbances vs.
deforestation).
Tracking of land areas (including transitions between categories).

Estimation of C stock changes and non-CO2 GHG emissions to meet Kyoto requirements•••

Methods for estimating C stock changes (top down e.g., sampling, bottom up e.g. spatialmodelling).
Accounting methods (measurements, default values, modelling, mixtures).
Differentiation of net-net approach for agricultural activities and gross-net approach forforestry.

29

Specific Information Requirements that affect the design of national accounting systems•••

Information requirements arising from Kyoto Protocol (e.g. Art. 3.3 and
FCCC/CP/2001/L.11/Rev.1 Para 19).
Discuss how a country’s choice for inclusion or exclusion of eligible LULUCF activities(e.g. Art. 3.4, 6, [Art. 12]) affects additional information requirements.
Overview of Good Practice in system design and implementation.

Part 2 – Good Practice Guidance for the estimation, measurement, monitoring andreporting of changes in carbon stocks and anthropogenic GHG emissions by sources andremovals by sinks resulting from LULUCF activities

Overview
This part addresses the Good Practice Guidance Issues related to the methodological choices
outlined in Part 1. The format is consistent with that of the overall Good Practice Guidance
for the Revised 1996 Guidelines, but accommodates additional issues, largely related tospatial and temporal disaggregation required by the Kyoto protocol.

ACTIVITY 1: Afforestation and Reforestation
Methodological Issues
Addressing the choice of methodology (e.g. activity specific decision tree), activity data (e.g.
land areas included within the system, timing of the activity), choice of emissions andremoval factors (if relevant), conversion and expansion factors by different carbon pools andby non-CO2 gases, completeness and avoiding double accounting and time series consistency,
uncertainty assessment.
Reporting and Documentation
Concerning the selection of definitions and classifications, selection of spatial assessment
units, identification of land areas included, identification of land areas subject to harvesting,determining of GHG balances of these lands, linkages with national inventory and reporting
on LULUCF, (Additional/supplementary requirements related to Art. 6 afforestation andreforestation projects, Additional/supplementary requirements related to Art. 12 afforestation
and reforestation projects)
Quality assurance/Quality control (QA/QC) and any other requirements arising from
Articles 5, 7, and 8
Establishment of systems for identification of lands (beyond the first commitment period,
verification, recalculation,. Etc.)
ACTIVITY 2: Deforestation (See ACTIVITY 1)

30

ACTIVITY 3: Forest management
Methodological Issues
Address the choice of methodology (e.g. activity specific decision tree), activity data (landareas included within the system, timing of the activity and dynamics of process (e.g.
increment, harvesting and other removals), choice of emission and removal factors (ifrelevant), conversion and expansion factors by different carbon pools and by non-CO2 gases(if relevant), completeness and avoiding double accounting and time series consistency, anduncertainty assessment.

31

Attachment 9
Draft scoping paper to address request outlined in L.11/Rev.1 COP
decision 3(c) on ‘degradation’ and ‘devegetation’Scope
To develop a short Technical Paper and/or workshop report comprising definitions for direct
human induced degradation of forests and devegetation of other vegetation types, andmethodological options to inventory and report on emissions resulting from these activities.
The purpose of this Technical Paper and/or workshop report is to respond to the request byParties to address some concerns that selection of eligible activities under article 3.4 could
give rise to an unbalanced accounting if activities such as forest degradation and devegetation
are not included. The paper should analyse the implications of different options to include theaccounting of these activities under the provisions of article 3.4, including its relation to forest
management and revegetation.
Elaboration of the definitions, methodologies for inventorying and reporting requirements
should have as a basis:• The Special Report on LULUCF• Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management to meet the inventory reporting
requirements of the parties under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
related to Land-Use Change and Forestry and the Kyoto Protocol
WORKPLANThe Technical Paper and/or workshop report should be presented for its consideration at COP
9. Given the linkages of this paper to the workplan of the Good Practice LULUCF report, thedrafting of the present paper can start at a later stage, after the approval of the terms ofreference/scoping paper of this report at IPCC XIX.
One 1-2 days expert meeting/workshop will be allocated to draft the paper back to back withan expert meeting of the Good Practice LULUCF report early in 2003. The meeting willcomprise 10-20 experts. A zero-order draft paper prepared by e.g. three lead authors could
serve as background for the expert meeting/workshop. These authors and the participants tothe expert meeting/workshop could be selected from those ones involved in the drafting of theGood Practice LULUCF report.
TIMELINE10••
10

Draft scoping paper to be presented for its consideration at IPCC XVIII
Terms of reference/scoping paper to be discussed and approved at TFB 7
May be adjusted pending on the workplan for Good Practice on LULUCF

32

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Approval of terms of reference/scoping paper at IPCC XIX
Zero-order draft paper two weeks before the expert meeting
Expert meeting/workshop early in 2003
Report for governmental/expert review [March 2003]
Final government distribution [July 2003]
Approval at IPCC XX in August 2003
Presented at UNFCCC SBSTA 19/COP 9 in December 2003

33

Attachment 10
Draft Scoping Paper to Address Request Outlined in
FCCC/CP/2001/L.11/Rev.1 Decision CP.6 3d(Direct v. indirect human induced changes …)
Scope of work
Elaboration of the list of indirect effects, including both positive and negative effects on
carbon sequestration
Practicable methods that might be used to separate direct from indirect and natural effects,
including those that combine the indirect and natural effects.
Practicable methods for separating out the effects of past practices in forests pre-reference
year
Feasibility of applying these methods given the range of potential LULUCF management
actions
Application at various scales
Costs of implementing these approaches
Implications of separating direct from indirect and natural including• Interactions between direct and indirect factors• Practicability of separation across multiple time periods• Relationship to inventory accounting
Links to good practice guidanceLatest evidence of the scale of potential indirect effects and the effects of past practices (areview of literature)
OutputGiven the need to incorporate the latest scientific information as well as drawing on existing
IPCC reports, we recommend that this issue be addressed through a special report
Expertise required to address request

Governments and other bodies should be requested to nominate authors in line with the scopeof the Report, including those working outside the field of inventory development, such as
those involved in the IPCC Assessment Reports and the Special Report on Land Use, Landuse Change and Forestry.
Interaction with SBSTA

Process for dialogue with SBSTA to resolve questions and to refine request including theconsistency between request 3d and the principle outlined in -/CMP.1 1.h and specifically (i)the implication of a pre-industrial CO2 baseline.
Timeline••

Draft scoping paper to be considered by TFB 6 and IPCC XVIII (Sept 2001)
Input from SBSTA on draft scope of work (Nov. 2001)

34

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Planning meeting December / January to develop final scoping paper
Final scoping paper considered by IPCC XIX (February / March 2002)
Request for authors (sent March)
Initial technical workshop to further develop the scientific content of the Special Report(May/June 2002)
Feedback from SBSTA (June 2002)11
Series of technical workshops
Production of Expert, Expert and Government review drafts
Preparation of Special Report for consideration at COP-10

11

A decision could be made after this meeting by IPCC whether it is feasible to complete thereport by CoP9 in late 2003. In addition, an initial assessment of the elements that may
enable factoring out direct human-induced changes in carbon stocks and GHG emissions andremovals from those caused by indirect human-induced and natural effects, including thepotential relationship to Good Practice Guidance, will be provided to the SBSTA. This
assessment will also be forwarded to the LULUCF Good Practice Guidance Working Group.

35

Attachment 11
OPTIONS ASSESSMENT PAPER
Development of Biome-specific Forest Definitions
Background
Paragraph 2(b) of FCCC/CP/2001/L.11/Rev.1 calls for the investigation of “the possible
application of biome-specific forest definitions for the second and subsequent commitment
periods”. The use of biome-specific definitions12 was considered in the IPCC Special Reporton LULUCF as a means to address differences in the ecological forest conditions and theinventory data describing these forests. Biome-specific forest definitions, in combination withthe definitions of activities covered under Articles 3.3. and 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol, may be
an alternative to a single definition of forests that is applied globally. Here we assess thepossible contribution IPCC could make to addressing paragraph 2(b) of the COP-6.2 request.
Scope
Biome-specific forest definitions were considered in the IPCC Special Report to account for
carbon stock changes that may not be captured by a single definition of forests with respect toafforestation, reforestation and deforestation (ARD).
The work would analyse the implications of different options for the choice of definition forforest with regard to ARD activities, including its relation to the definitions of aggradationand degradation, revegetation and devegetation, and its relation to the estimation of carbon
stock changes resulting from activities covered under Article 3.4 (work according to 3(c) in
L.11/Rev.1).
This could include the following steps:• To outline criteria for the choice of biome-specific definitions (ecological, existing
inventories, other national circumstances) and criteria for selection of biomes.
• To outline available options for the biome-specific definitions.
• To compile a draft list of possible biome types and their possible definitions of forest
cover and tree height.
• To elaborate methodologies for inventorying and reporting requirements for each option.
• To assess implications of each option (comprehensiveness, symmetry of stock change
counting, relationship to Article 3.4), including implications for Article 12.
This work would build on:• the IPCC Special Report on LULUCF,
12“Forest is an area of land that has A% cover of woody vegetation with > B metres in height,
or would contain at maturity of existing vegetation with continuation of current land use. For
each biome, a minimum crown cover and tree height would have to be established todetermine what would qualify as a forest. Determination of biome types would have to be
carried out systematically through the use of common criteria.” (IPCC SR p. 142, Table 3-4)36•

any available draft of the Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management related to
LULUCF, and• draft decision FCCC/CP/2001/L.11/Rev.1 and subsequent COP decisions,and would be carried out in close collaboration with other IPCC expert groups, and with otherinternational organisations, in particular the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),
dealing with forest definitions.
Process
As a minimum, there would be consideration of the above issues by two groups of experts.
Group one would address the implications of current definitions, group two would addresspossible biome-specific definitions. Experts, with broad geographical representation, should
combine expertise in the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol, and in existing vegetation inventories
and ecological characteristics of biome types. The output of this work would include a written
report addressing the issues identified under “Scope”.

37

Attachment 12
OPTION ASSESSMENT PAPER
on issues related to afforestation and reforestation project activities
under Art. 12 of Kyoto Protocol (§2(e))13
Scope
According to paragraphs 2(d) and 2(e) of the Draft decision -/CP.6 on land-use, land-use
change and forestry, the COP requests the SBSTA:(d)
To develop at its fifteenth session terms of reference for the work to be conductedunder paragraph 2(e) below;(e)
To develop definitions and modalities for including afforestation and reforestation
project activities under Article 12 in the first commitment period, taking into account theissues of non-permanence, additionality, leakage, uncertainties and socio-economic andenvironmental impacts, including impacts on biodiversity and natural ecosystems, and being
guided by the terms of reference referred to in paragraph 2(d) above, with the aim of adopting
a decision on these definitions and modalities at the ninth session of the Conference ofParties, to be forwarded to the Conference of Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties tothe Kyoto Protocol at its first session;
At the moment, there is no request/invitation from the COP or SBSTA to IPCC to address
issues arising from paragraph 2(e). However, paragraph 3(a) (and indirectly 3(b)) refers also
to Article 12. Moreover, there is scientific and technical expertise within IPCC that may
facilitate the consideration of scientific issues related to Art. 12.
Alternative ways forward
There are a number of approaches how the expertise of IPCC may contribute to the process,e.g.
1. IPCC will wait for a formal invitation of the COP or SBSTA to begin the formal
consideration of work. An invitation would be possible at the beginning of the SBSTA
consideration (e.g. SBSTA15), or after the completion of the SBSTA consideration (COP9/SBSTA-19).
2. IPCC will focus on strictly scientific/socio-economic issues concerning non-permanence
and uncertainties based on invitation of the draft decisions (§3(a)). This work issues
related to estimation, measurement, monitoring and reporting of changes in carbon stocks
and anthropogenic GHG emissions by sources and removals by sinks resulting fromafforestation and reforestation activities under Art. 12. This work would be based, to theextent possible, on the GPG on LULUCF to avoid duplication.
13

Refer to document FCCC/CP/2001/L.11/Rev.1

38

3. Upon request IPCC could also contribute to SBSTA consideration of wider socioeconomic and environmental issues related to Art 12, including cooperation with otherinternational organisations such as CBD and CCD, as appropriate.

Substantial/scientific issues
A key issue is to determine issues that scientific/socio-economic work could focus on. The
field covers non-permanence, uncertainties and leakage. Relationships with estimation,measurement, monitoring, and reporting on LULUCF may need further clarification (See§3(a)). Issues related to socio-economic and environmental impacts, including impacts tobiodiversity and natural ecosystems may also be addressed (e.g. these issues could also betackled through a joint working group to be established by the UNFCCC, CBD and CCD).

39LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
IPCC Expert Group Planning Meeting
Elaboration of Good Practice Guidance in Land-Use Change and Forestry for
the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
6 – 8 August 2001
WMO Headquarters
Geneva, Switzerland

ARGENTINA, REPUBLICAMr Hector Daniel GINZO
Consejo National de Investigaciones
Cientificas y Tecnologicas (CONICET)IDNEUSerrano 669
1414 Buenos Aires
Tel:(54 11) 4855 7674 ext. 56 / 4783 7467
Fax: (54 11) 48 54 56 02
hdginzo@arnet.com.ar
AUSTRALIAMr Gary RICHARDS
Australian Greenhouse Office
GPO Box 621
Canberra ACT, 2601
Tel: (61 2) 6274 1926
Fax: (61 2) 6274 1301
Gary.richards@greenhouse.gov.au
AUSTRALIA
Prof Ian NOBLE
CRC for Greenhouse Accounting, RSBS
Australian National University
Canberra 0200
Tel: (61 2) 6125 5092
Fax: (61 2) 6125 5095
noble@greenhouse.crc.org.au
AUSTRIADr Bernhard SCHLAMADINGER
Joanneum ResearchInstitute of Energy Research
Elisabethstrasse 5
A-8010 Graz
Tel: (43 316) 876 1340
Fax: (43 316) 876-91340
bernhard.schlamadinger@joanneum.at

BOLIVIAMr David Cruz CHOQUE
Ministry of Sustainable Development andPlanning
P.O.Box 5546
Av.Mariscal Santa Cruz 1092
esquina Oruro, Edificil ExComibol, piso 2,
of.206
La Paz - Bolivia
Tel: (591 2) 311813
Fax: (591 2) 311813
davidcruz@coord.rds.org.bo
BRAZILDr Thelma KRUGNational Institute for Space Research INPE
Av. Dos Astronautas, 1758
P.O.Box 515 - ZIP CODE 12227-010
Sao Jose Dos Campos, SP
Tel: (55 12) 39 45 64 50
Fax: (55 12) 39 45 64 60
thelma@ltid.inpe.br
CANADA
Ms Pascale COLLAS
Environment Canada
351 St. Joseph Blvd, 9th Floor
Hull, Quebec, K1A 0H3
Tel: (1 819) 994 0888
Fax: (1 819) 953 9542
pascale.collas@ec.gc.ca

40

CANADADr Werner KURZ
Natural Resources Canada
Canadian Forest Service
506 West Burnside Road
Victoria, BC, V8Z 1M5
Tel: (1 250) 363 6031
Fax: (1 250) 363 0775
wkurz@pfc.forestry.ca
CANADADr Carlos M. MONREAL
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Room: 771, Sir John Carling Building,
930 Carling Ave
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0C5
Tel: (1 613) 759 1053
Fax: (1 613) 759 7769
monrealc@em.agr.ca
CHINA
Mr Bangzhong WANG
Department of Prediction and Disaster
Mitigation
China Meteorological Administration
Baishiqiao Road 46
Beijing 100081
Tel: (86 10)62176290 / 68406272
Fax: (86 10) 62174797
dmscdccc@public3.bta.net.cn
FINLANDMr Heikki GRANHOLM
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
Hallituskatu 3aP.O. Box 30
FIN-00023 Government
Tel: (358 9) 160 2431 / (358 40) 561 4494
Fax: (358 9) 160 2450
heikki.granholm@mmm.fi

FRANCEMr Jean-Claude GERMON
Institut National de Recherche Agronomique
INRA-CMSE
17, rue Sully
BU 154021034 Dijon Cedex
Tel: (33 03) 80 69 30 91
Fax: (33 03) 80 69 32 24
germon@dijon.inra.fr
GERMANYMr Michael STROGIES
German Federal Environmental Agency
P.O.B. 33 00 22
Bismarckplatz 1
D-14191 Berlin
Tel: (49 30) 8903 2088
Fax: (49 30) 8903 2285
michael.strogies@uba.de
INDONESIA
Dr Rizaldi BOER
Bogor Agricultural University
JURUSAN GEOMET, FMIPA IPB
Faculty of Mathematics and Natural
Sciences-IPB
Jalan Raya Pajajaran
Bogor-West Java
Tel: (62 251) 376 817
Fax: (62 251) 313 384/ 376 817
rboer@fmipa.ipb.ac.id
rizaldiboer@hotmail.com
IRAN, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF
Dr Mohammad SOLTANIEH
Department of Environment
Pardisan Nature Park,
Shahid Hemmat High Way
TehranTel: (98 21) 826 4002
Fax: (98 21) 826 7994
msoltanieh@kanoon.net

41

IRELANDDr Kenneth BYRNE
Faculty of Agriculture
University College Dublin
Belfield, Dublin 4
Tel: (353 1) 716 7725
Fax: (353 1) 716 1102
kenneth.byrne@ucd.ie
ITALY
Mr Antonio LUMICISIMinistry of Environment
Via Cristoforo Colombo 44
00147 Rome
Tel: (39 06) 57 22 81 22
Fax: (39 06) 57 22 81 77
lumicisi.antonio@minambiente.it
ITALY
Dr Lorenzo CICCARESE
Italian Environment Protection Agency
Via V.Brancati 48
00144 Rome
Tel: (39 06) 50 07 26 18
Fax: (39 06) 50 07 26 49
ciccarese@anpa.it
JAPAN
Dr Mitsuo MATSUMOTO
Forestry and Forest Products ResearchInstitute
P.O.Box 16
Tsukuba-Norin
Ibaraki 305-8687
Tel: (81 298) 73 3211 (Ex.641)
Fax: (81 298) 73 3799
machan@ffpri.affrc.go.jp
MAURITIUS
Mr Harry GANOOSecretary for Home Affairs
Chairman, National Climate Change
Committee
Prime Minister’s OfficePort Louis
Tel: (230 201)1017
Fax: (230 211) 9272
pmosha@intnet.mu

NETHERLANDS
Dr Albertus Johannes DOLMAN
Alterra
P.O.Box 47
6700 AC
WageningenTel: (31 317) 474 304
Fax: (31 317) 419 000
a.j.dolman@alterra.wag-ur.nl
NEW ZEALAND
Mr James BARTON
Ministry for the Environment
Grand Annex
84 Boulcott Street
Wellington
Tel: (64 4) 917 7538
Fax: (64 4) 917 7529
james.barton@mfe.govt.nz
NORWAYMr Harald AALDE
Norwegian Institute of Land Inventory(NIJOS)
P.O.Box 115
N-1430 As
Tel: (47 64) 94 97 76
Fax: (47 64) 94 97 86
harald.aalde@nijos.no
NORWAYDr Kristin RYPDAL
Statistics Norway (SN)
P.O.Box 8131 Dep.
N-0033, Oslo
Tel: (47 21) 09 49 49
Fax: (4721) 09 49 98
kristin.rypdal@ssb.no
POLAND
Dr Wojciech GALINSKI
Silvatica Research Consultants
Zabieniec, ul.Glowna 29
05-500 Piaseczno
Tel: (48 22) 756 78 54
Fax: (48 22) 756 78 54
wgalinski@silvatica.pl

42

RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Dr Michael GYTARSKY
Institute of Global Climate and Ecology
20B, Glebovskaya Str.,
Moscow, 107258
Tel: (7 095) 169 2198
Fax: (7 095) 160 0831
Mike.Gytarsky@g23.relcom.ru
SLOVAK REPUBLICDr Jozef MINDAS
Forestry Research Institute Zvolen
T.G. Masaryka Street 22
SK- 960 92 Zvolen
Tel: (421 45) 5314 206
Fax: (421 45) 5321 883
mindas@fris.sk
SOUTH AFRICA
Ms Martina, R. VAN DER MERWE
CSIR
Environmentek
P.O.Box 395
Pretoria 0001
Tel: (27 12) 841 3397
Fax: (27 12) 841 2028
mvdmerw@csir.co.za
SAUDI ARABIAMr Abdulaziz ALKAHLAN
Ministry of Agriculture and Water
Hydrology Department
Tel: (966) 14020564
Fax: (966) 14020564
Akahlan@hotmail.com
SPAIN
Dr Maria-Jose SANZ-SANCHEZ
Fundocion Centro de Estudios Ambientalesdel Mediterraneo(CEAM)
Parque Technologico C/ Charles R. Darwin,
1446980 PATERNA Valencia
Tel: (34 96) 131 8227
Fax: (34 96) 131 8190
mjose@ceam.es

SWEDENMr Klas OSTERBERG
Swedish Environment Protection Agency
10648 Stockholm
Tel: (46 8) 6981321
Fax: (46 8) 6981042
klo@environ.se
SWITZERLAND
Dr Juerg FUHRER
Federal Research Station forAgroecology and Agriculture
Liebefeld, CH-3003 Bern
Tel: (41 31) 323 8371
Fax: (41 31) 323 8415
juerg.fuhrer@iul.admin.ch
UNITED KINGDOMDr Bo LIM
UNDP-GEF
Room 1607
304 East 45th St
NY, NY 10017
USA
Tel: (1-212) 906 5730
Fax: (1-212) 906 6568
bo.lim@undp.org
UNITED KINGDOMDr Ronald MILNE
Centre for Ecology & Hydrology(Edinburgh)Bush Estate
Penicuik
Midlothian
EH26 0QB UK
Tel: (44 131) 445 4343
Fax:(44 131) 445 3943
rmilne@ceh.ac.uk
UNITED STATESMr William HOHENSTEINUS Department of Agriculture
Room 112 A.J.L. Whitten Building
1400 Independence Ave. SW
Washington, DC 20250-3810
Tel: (1 202) 720 6698
Fax: (1 202) 401 1176
whohenst@oce.usda.gov

43

UNITED STATESDr John KIMBLEUSDA-NRCS-NSSC
Fed. Bldg. Rm 152 ms 34
100 Centennial Mall N
Lincoln, NE 68508
Tel: (1 402) 437 5376
Fax: (1 402) 437 5336
john.kimble@usda.gov

UNITED STATESMr Tom WIRTHUS Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. (6202J)
Washington DC 20460
Tel: (1 202) 564 9108
Fax: (1 202) 565 2254
wirth.tom@epa.gov

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONEUROPEAN COMMISSION
Mr Dieter SCHOENE
European Commission
200 rue de la Loi
B-1049 Bruxelles
Tel: (32 2) 296 5582/295 7997
Fax: (32 2) 296 9557
dieter.schoene@cec.eu.int
FAO
Mr Rene GOMMES
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
Via delle Terme di Caracalla
FAO/SDRN, Rome
Tel: (39 06) 57054121
Fax: (39 06) 57055731
Rene.gommes@fao.org

UNFCCCDr Roberto ACOSTA
Martin Luther King Strasse 8
D-53175 Bonn
Tel: (49 228) 815 1419
Fax: (49 228) 815 1999
racosta@unfccc.de
UNFCCCMr Claudio FORNER
Martin Luther King Strasse 8
D-53175 Bonn
Tel: (49 228) 815 1445
Fax: (49 228) 815 1999
cforner@unfccc.int

TASK FORCE BUREAU MEMBERS
AUSTRALIA
Mr. Ian CARRUTHERS
Australian Greenhouse Office
GPO Box 621
Canberra 2602
Tel: (61 2) 6274 1405
Fax: (61 2) 6274 1439
Ian.carruthers@greenhouse.gov.au

BRAZILMr José Domingos MIGUEZ
Ministry of Science and Technology
Ministerio da Ciencia e Tecnologia
Esplanda dos Ministerios
Bl."E" 2nd Floor, Room 240
70067-900 Brasilia DF
Tel: (55 61) 317 7523
Fax: (55 61) 317 7657
miguez@mct.gov.br
mlorena@mct.gov.br44

CANADA
Dr. John M. R. Stone
Meteorological Service of Canada
Environment Canada
10, Wellington Street
Hull, Quebec
CanadaTel: (1 819) 997 3805
Fax: (1 819) 994 8864
john.stone@ec.gc.ca

JAPAN
Mr Taka HIRAISHINational Institute for Environmental Studies
C/o Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies (IGES)
1560-39 Kamiyamaguchi
Hayama, Miura, Kanagawa 240-0198
Tel: (81 468) 55 3750
Fax: (81 468) 55 3808
hiraishi@iges.or.jp

CHINA
Prof Mingxing WANG
Institute of Atmospheric Physics
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Deshengmenwai str.
Beijing 100029
Tel: (86 10) 6236 0445
Fax: (86 10) 62028604
wmx@mail.iap.ac.cn

KENYA
Prof Richard ODINGO
University of Nairobi
P.O.Box 30197
Nairobi
Tel: (254 2) 334 244
Fax: (254 2) 336 885
R.Odingo@meteo.go.ke

CUBA
Dr Carlos LOPEZ
Institute of Meteorology
Apartado 17032
CP 11700 Habana 17
Tel: (537) 670721-28
Fax: (537) 33 8010
cimaa@met.inf.cu
obilbao@comuh.uh.cu
FRANCEMr Marc GILLET
Mission Interministérielle de l'Effet de Serre
35, rue Saint Dominique
75700 Paris
Tel: (33 1) 42 75 87 17
Fax: (33 1) 47 53 76 34
m.gillet@mies.pm.gouv.fr

NETHERLANDS
Mr. Leo MEYER
Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning, andthe Environment
IPC 640, P.O. Box 30945
2500 FX The Hague
Netherlands
Tel: (31) 703394407
Fax: (31) 703391310
l.a.meyer@dle.dgm.minvrom.nl
leo.meyer@minvrom.nl
NORWAYMr Audun ROSLAND
Norwegian Pollution Control Authority
PO Box 8100 Dep.
N-0032 OSLO
Tel: (47 22) 57 35 47
Fax: (47 22) 67 67 06
audun.rosland@sft.no45

RUSSIAN FEDERATIONProf Igor M. NAZAROVInstitute of Global Climate and Ecology
20-b, Glebovskaya str
Moscow
107258
Tel: (7 095) 169 2410
Fax: (7 095) 160 0831
I.Nazarov@g23.relcom.ru

UNITED STATES
Ms Dina KRUGERUS Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. (6202J)
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: (1 202) 564 9039
Fax: (1 202) 565 2134
kruger.dina@epamail.epa.gov

UNITED KINGDOMDr Jim PENMAN
Global Atmosphere Division,
Department of the Environment,
Transport & the Regions
3/F2 3rd Floor
Ashdown House
123 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6DE
Tel: (44 171) 890 5225
Fax: (44 171) 890 5219
jim_penman@detr.gsi.gov.uk

IPCC SECRETARIATDr Renate CHRIST
c/o WMO Headquarters
7 bis Avenue de la Paix,
C.P. N° 2300, 1211 Geneva 2
Tel: (41 22) 730 8208/8254
Fax: (41 22) 730 8025/813

IPCC SECRETARIAT
Dr N. SUNDARARAMAN
c/o WMO Headquarters
7 bis Avenue de la Paix,
C.P. N° 2300, 1211 Geneva 2
Tel: (41 22) 730 8208/8254
Fax: (41 22) 730 8025/8013
ipcc_sec@gateway.wmo.ch

IPCC-NGGIP/TSU
Mr Leandro BUENDIA
Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies (IGES)
1560-39 Kamiyamaguchi
Hayama, Miura, Kanagawa 240-0198
Tel: (81 468) 55 3750
Fax: (81 468) 55 3808
buendia@iges.or.jp

IPCC-NGGIP/TSU
Ms Kyoko MIWA
Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies (IGES)
1560-39 Kamiyamaguchi
Hayama, Miura, Kanagawa 240-0198
Tel: (81 468) 55 3750
Fax: (81 468) 55 3808
miwa@iges.or.jp

46

IPCC-NGGIP/TSU
Dr Riitta PIPATTI
Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies (IGES)
1560-39 Kamiyamaguchi
Hayama, Miura, Kanagawa 240-0198
Tel: (81 468) 55 3750
Fax: (81 468) 55 3808
pipatti@iges.or.jp

IPCC-NGGIP/TSU
Mr Kiyoto TANABE
Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies (IGES)
1560-39 Kamiyamaguchi
Hayama, Miura, Kanagawa 240-0198
Tel: (81 468) 55 3750
Fax: (81 468) 55 3808
tanabe@iges.or.jp

47