INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE

IPCC/OECD/IEA Programme on National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories

Expert Group Meeting on
National Feedback on the Revised 1996 IPCC
Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Havana, Cuba
15-16 September, 1998

Meeting Report

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 processes.

PREFACE.............................................................................................................................................3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..................................................................................................................4
SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................................5
1. BACKGROUND...............................................................................................................................7
2. OBJECTIVES OF THE MEETING................................................................................................8
3. ISSUES..............................................................................................................................................8
4. RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................................................9
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE REVISED 1996 IPCC GUIDELINES ..................................9
PRIORITIES FOR IMPROVING NATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS INVENTORIES .....................................................12
5. CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................................................15
ANNEX I: WORKING GROUP REPORTS.....................................................................................162

Preface
The IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories were first published in
1995 to assist all Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change toprepare greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories that are consistent, comparable, complete,
and transparent. The Guidelines have been widely used, and most non-Annex I Parties
countries have followed the IPCC default methods by source and sink categories,
including the application of default emission factors and assumptions. The Guidelines
were revised and expanded in 1996 (Revised Guidelines) to improve methods andinclude new gases.
The IPCC identified as a priority area the assessment of national feedback on the use of
the Revised Guidelines. This to assure that country experience is incorporated into
future methods development. Twenty experts, mainly from non-Annex I Parties,
contributed to the definition of issues and procedures for the assessment.
The Inventories Programme Secretariat developed and distributed a questionnaire tofacilitate the compilation and evaluation of national feedback. The questionnaire wassent to IPCC focal points and national experts on GHG inventory in 60 countries.
Nineteen non-Annex I Parties and sixteen Annex-I Parties completed the questionnaire
at various levels of detail. The answers to the questionnaires are summarised in a
background paper prepared by the secretariat.
The IPCC Expert Meeting on the National Feedback on the Revised Guidelines washeld in Havana, Cuba, 15-16 September 1998, back-to-back with the UNFCCC
Workshop on Emission Factors and Activity Data (16-18 September). Participants fromboth meetings were asked to consider issues raised in the background paper andrecommend how best to improve the Revised Guidelines. All participants were also
asked how best to enhance national GHG emissions inventories and to define
procedures for data processing, exchange and assessment that could be carried out by
countries or group of countries with a common interest. This report summarises theproceedings and recommendations of the meeting.

3

Acknowledgements
The meeting was kindly hosted by the Cuban Meteorology Institute. This report was
prepared by the IPCC/OECD/IEA Inventories Programme Secretariat and Peter Frost.
We are grateful to the many inventory experts who submitted their national feedbackquestionnaires: Klaus Radunsky (Austria), Sergio Romero (Bolivia), Koen Smekens(Belgium), Newton Paciornik (Brazil), Art Jaques and Frank Neitzert (Canada), Ana
Rita Chacon (Costa Rica), Carlos López Cabrera (Cuba), Pavel Fott (Czech Republic),
Pirkko Heikinheimo (Finland), Jean-Pierre Fontelle (France), Michael Ernst(Germany), J.K. Adu (Ghana), Sharmila B Srikanth (India), Domenico Gaudioso(Italy), Toru Nagayama (Japan), Jaspar Agatsiva (Kenya), Rola Nasreddine (Lebanon),Azman Zainal Abidin (Malaysia), Abdoulaye Bayoko (Mali), Luis Gerardo Ruiz Suárez(Mexico), Jamila Buret and Faouzi Senhaji (Morocco), Jos Olivier and Jan Spakman(The Netherlands), Thomas Martinsen (Norway), Alexey Kokorin (Russian Federation),
Terence Coopoosamy (Seychelles), Katarina Mareckova (Slovakia), Angeles Cristóbal(Spain), Marie Jönsson (Sweden), Markus Nauser (Switzeralnd), Stephen
Mwakifwamba and Wilfred Kipondya (Tanzania), Wanna Tanuchaiwatana (Thailand),Skander Ben Abadallah (Tunisia), Geoff Salway (United Kingdom), Virginia Sena andLuis Santos (Uruguay), Victor Chub (Uzbekistan), Todd Ngara (Zimbabwe). We arealso grateful to the co-chairs of the meeting, Youba Sokona and Wanna
Tanuchaiwatana, to the co-chairs and rapporteurs of the working groups, and to all theexperts who attended the UNFCCC Workshop on Activity Data and Emission Factors
for their valuable contribution to the discussions.

4Summary
In September 1998, the IPCC/OECD/IEA Inventories Programme held an Expert
Meeting in Havana, Cuba, on National Feedback on the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines
for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. The meeting was held back-to-back with the
UNFCCC Workshop on Activity Data and Emission Factors. Fifty three experts from
non-Annex I Parties and thirteen from Annex-I Parties attended both meetings. The
objectives of the IPCC meeting were:••

to develop recommendations for improving the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines;
to identify priorities for improving national greenhouse gas emissions
inventories.

To address these issues, the meeting participants were divided into three working
groups: Africa, Asia and Latin America. The main conclusions of the meeting aresummarised below.
Effective use of the Revised Guidelines depends on several factors, including thecompleteness of the Revised Guidelines, the adequacy of methods themselves, how wellthey are described, the validity of assumptions used, and the adequacy and availabilityof data. The meeting addressed all of these issues.
On the whole, participants are satisfied with the methods provided by the Revised
Guidelines. However, participants identified methods that need to be improved ordeveloped as well as options to make the Revised Guidelines more user-friendly. Someparticipants wanted more detailed methods while others felt that they should be
simplified. Better judgements on the priorities for improvements may be made once the
Revised Guidelines are broadly used as many non-Annex I countries have not yet begun
to use the new or revised methods. But as part of an on-going process for improving the
Guidelines, several methodological gaps are apparent. For instance, the meeting
recommended developing or enhancing methods for estimating:
•
•
•
•
•

non-CO2 emissions from charcoal production
CH4 from hydroelectric dams
CH4 from enteric fermentation
NMVOCs from solvents and other product use,
CO2 from changes in soil carbon.

The issue of data availability arises in most non-Annex I countries. It is well known thatcountry-specific emissions factors are often inadequate or lacking at the national level
and that activity data for some sources are not reliable. The meeting identified several
steps at the institutional level for overcoming data needs. The first step is to compile
and review available data. The second step is to ensure that the data are accessible toexperts in developing countries. This constraint was identified as critical in many
countries. To disseminate data, the meeting suggested the use of regional networks suchas expert groups and institutions. Finally, data collection programmes, which can be
costly, should only be initiated once the data gaps are identified. The UNFCCC
Workshop on Activity Data and Emission Factors developed further proposals for data5

compilation, review and collection, a primary objective of that meeting. By building on
existing programmes, many of the identified processes can be cost-effective,
particularly if implemented at the regional level.
These suggestions are documented in this meeting report and could be addressed in thenext iteration of the Revised Guidelines. As there are no immediate plans for revision of
the Guidelines, the meeting suggested that updates could be provided in the interim.
For most sectors, the application of global default values was considered questionable.
The development of regional default values, or algorithms that take into account regionor country-specific circumstances, is recommended as a first step.
The meeting felt that improving the clarity of the Revised Guidelines was a priority.
The user-friendliness of the Revised Guidelines could be greatly enhanced by presenting
the information more concisely and by minimising duplication in the Reference Manualand Workbook.
Participants also identified the priorities for improving national GHG inventories. One
such priority is the strengthening of countries’ capacities for compiling inventories.
This could be achieved through the implementation of three different activities:•••

developing adequate institutional frameworks for the long-term monitoring andassessment of emission sources and sinks;
providing training to ensure successful compilation of inventories; andestablishing sectoral and regional networks of experts to exchange information andassist in the preparation of inventories, particularly for countries undertaking theprocess for the first time.

In addition, the Revised Guidelines have to be widely available to and understood byusers. The meeting recommended that the Revised Guidelines be translated into
different languages, made more widely available to users and that they be disseminatedthrough training and other means. As the IPCC does not have a mandate to implement
these tasks, existing processes for translation, dissemination, and training may need to
be strengthened under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC).
Participants considered that providing relevant and up-to-date information andestablishing self-verification procedures should also be a high priority for improving
GHG inventories. The meeting recommended the development of an archive or a
database of sources of activity data, emission factors, and ancillary information,
preferably organised on a regional basis. Inventory verification could be achieved
through the use of top-down and bottom-up approaches, and national data comparisonswith independently derived data or international statistics for countries or regions withbroadly similar socio-economic and bio-physical circumstances. Finally, the importanceof transparency in the reporting process, for countries to document fully their data
sources and assumptions, was stressed by most working groups.

6

1.

Background

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been assessing the use of
the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (Revised
Guidelines) by soliciting national feedback through the use of a questionnaire. The aimof the assessment is to identify problems faced by countries in preparing their national
inventories. The questions covered four different aspects:••••

the institutional frameworks that have been established in order to produce national
GHG inventories;
the main problems faced when using the Revised Guidelines;
the priorities for improving both the Revised Guidelines and national greenhousegas (GHG) inventories;
the work being carried out within countries to improve methods and data
availability.

The questionnaire was sent to IPCC focal points and national experts on greenhouse gas(GHG) inventory in 60 countries. Responses were received from 12 Annex I and 18
non-Annex I Parties. Responses to the questionnaire were analysed in the background
paper, National Feedback on the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories, prepared by the IPCC/OECD/IEA Inventories Programme
secretariat.
In general, the respondents believed that the Revised Guidelines provide adequate
methods and guidance for preparing national GHG inventories. Nevertheless, therespondents identified deficiencies and developed recommendations to improve the
Guidelines. Some relevant issues identified in the background paper are summarised
below:•The use of default emission factors was considered by many to be a major source of
uncertainty in compiling national inventories. Most non-Annex I Parties, forexample, currently have to rely on the IPCC default emission factors because theylack appropriate national data.

•

The available scientific information may be used to a greater extent when compiling
activity data and emission factors.

•

The advantage of developing regional emission factors was stressed. If countries
could obtain better activity data and use more applicable emission factors thereliability of their national GHG inventories would be enhanced. To this end, many
Annex-I Parties and some non-Annex I Parties are now implementing initiatives
designed to improve their activity data and derive national emission factors.

•

The respondents also called for clearer guidance on how to report country-specificsources and sinks that do not fit clearly into the IPCC reporting framework. The
differences between natural and anthropogenic sources and sinks within the land-use
change and forestry sector, and for agricultural soils, also need clarifying.

7•

Several respondents suggested ways to make the Revised Guidelines more userfriendly. These included clarifying the scientific rationale for the methods used;providing complete examples of how to calculate the more complicated emissions;improving the consistency of wording between the Reference Manual andWorkbook, minimising repetition; ensuring similar levels of detail among sectors;
and improving the description of the background to and procedures for estimating
uncertainties.

•

Supplying the Revised Guidelines and software together to facilitate compiling andelectronic reporting of national inventories was also recommended.

2.

Objectives of the Meeting

The overall objective was to identify ways of improving the Revised 1996 IPCC
Guidelines for National GHG Inventories (Revised Guidelines) as a means of enhancing
national GHG emissions inventories.
To discuss these topics, the meeting divided into three regional working groups
representing Africa, Asia and Latin America. Representatives from other regions
distributed themselves among these groups.

3. Issues
A number of issues were identified during the working group and plenary sessions.
These issues are summarised below. In general, the participants agreed with theconclusions reached from the analysis of the responses to the questionnaire but
amplified some points and added others.
Use of the Revised Guidelines. The meeting affirmed that effective use of the Revised
Guidelines depends on several factors, including the adequacy of methods used, howwell they are described, the validity of assumptions underpinning the methods, and theadequacy and availability of data. The Revised Guidelines also have to be widely
available to and understood by users. The meeting recommended that, as a priority, theRevised Guidelines should be made more widely available to users and that they be
disseminated through training and other means. As the IPCC does not have a mandate
to implement this task, existing procedures for distributing the Revised Guidelines willneed to be reviewed and strengthened under the Framework Convention on Climate
Change.
Availability of data. Country-specific data on both emissions factors and activity areoften inadequate or lacking. Several steps for overcoming these deficiencies wereidentified. First, there is a need to compile and review the available data, both in thescientific literature and in unpublished reports to encompass key information andunderstanding. Second, efforts are needed to ensure that the available data are more
widely accessible to countries. This is a critical need in many countries. Regional
networks of experts and institutions could be appropriate vehicles for disseminating
data. The possibility of developing a database of activity data, emission factors andother relevant information was suggested. Building on existing programmes,
particularly at a regional level, could enhance the cost-effectiveness of these initiatives;
the importance of a regional approach was stressed several times. Finally, research8

programmes aimed at collecting new data, which can be costly, should be initiated only
after the real data gaps are identified. The UNFCCC Workshop on Activity Data andEmission Factors developed further proposals for data compilation, review andcollection (this was a primary objective of that meeting). Participants emphasised theneed for undertaking these initiatives within a broader institutional framework.
Completeness of the Guidelines. The methods provided by the Revised Guidelines are
generally considered to be acceptable though some deficiencies were noted. Particular
deficiencies are present in the land-use change and forestry sector and in estimating
emissions from agricultural soils. Some participants wanted more detailed methods,
others felt that they should be simplified. It will take several years, however, before theutility of the Revised Guidelines can be fully assessed as most non-Annex I countries
initiated their national inventories before the Revised Guidelines were completed.
Nevertheless, as part of the process of improving the Guidelines, several
methodological issues can be identified. These include developing or enhancing
methods for estimating emissions from:
•
•
•
•
•

non-CO2 emissions from charcoal production
CH4 from hydroelectric dams
CH4 from enteric fermentation
NMVOCs from solvents and other product use,
CO2 from changes in soil carbon.

These and other suggestions are elaborated below. Most of the suggestions could be
addressed in the next iteration of the Revised Guidelines but, as there are no immediateplans for revision of the Guidelines, the meeting suggested that updates should be
provided in the interim.
Clarity of the Revised Guidelines. Improving the clarity and user-friendliness of the
Revised Guidelines, particularly the Workbook, was considered to be a priority. The
utility of the Revised Guidelines could be greatly enhanced by presenting theinformation more concisely and by minimising duplication in the Reference Manualand Workbook. These suggestions could be implemented in possible future iterations of
the Revised Guidelines.

4.

Recommendations

Recommendations for improvements to the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines
Recommendations for improving the Revised Guidelines fell into various categories:
•
•
•
•
•

novel or overlooked emission sources requiring the development of new methods;
modifications to existing methods;
revisions of default values;
examples of calculations, especially for the more complicated methods; andimprovements to the layout and design of the Revised Guidelines.

New methods. Methods are needed to account for emissions from a number of sources
currently not included in the Revised Guidelines. Among these are methane emissions
9

from charcoal production and flooded vegetation during the construction ofhydroelectric dams. Algorithms for estimating variable emission factors, such as those
associated with biomass burning and CH4 emissions from domestic livestock, should be
developed. Tiered approaches for calculating emissions from the agriculture sector andin land-use change and forestry are also needed.
Methods are also required for calculating GHG emissions from the following sources:
waste incineration, anaerobic polluted lagoons, septic tanks, and mining of cobalt andnickel. At least one group felt that the development of methods for these sources ofemissions should be accorded low priority. They could be dealt with in the proposed
section for special cases and country-specific emissions. In this case, the methods used
to estimate the emissions would be the responsibility of the country concerned todevelop and report (see below: Improved layout).
Modifications to existing methods. The proposed modifications include the need forsome emissions pathways to be elaborated in greater detail, simplification or
clarification of methods, and revision of emission factors.
Overall, there was concern about the adequacy of methods in the land-use change andforestry sector. In particular, the method for calculating changes in soil carbon inagricultural soils was considered difficult to apply. A less complex method is required.
The inconsistency in land-cover classification between the Forest and Grassland
Conversion module (based on vegetation cover) and that for CO2 Emissions and Uptake
by Soils from Land-Use Change and Management (based on land use) was especiallynoted. For many countries, the forest and grassland categories given in the Guidelines(based on the FAO classification) do not clearly correspond to those used withincountries, nor is it always clear how the national data can be aggregated into thecategories used in the Revised Guidelines. While there is a rational for using the FAO
classification (many default values are derived from FAO data and given in relation tothese categories), further consideration needs to be given to making the classification
scheme more widely acceptable.
Where the information required for default approaches is complex and not typicallyavailable at the national level, simpler methods need to be provided in addition to theexisting ones. Examples included the estimations of emissions in land-use change andforestry and emissions of N2O from agriculture. The existing methods could become
Tier 2 methods with the new methods being Tier 1.
More detailed background information and better explanation is needed for emissions
from agricultural soils, non-CO2 emissions from fuel combustion, and the combustionof a range of traditional biomass fuels. (these include wood, charcoal, agricultural
waste, animal dung). Clarification is needed on whether emissions from charcoal
production should be counted in the energy sector or under land-use change andforestry. Currently, they do not seem to be accounted for at all. Methane, in particular,
is emitted in significant amounts during the production of charcoal.
The current Tier 2 approach for methane emissions from enteric fermentation inruminants needs to be extended to other livestock species (e.g. llamas in SouthAmerica). The current default values are limited to only a few of the domestic livestock
species and do not cover some species that are important in some regions. Methane10

production by ruminants is a function both of the body size of the animal concerned andof the energy content of the diet. These emissions might be better estimated through thedevelopment and use of algorithms rather than the application of simple default values(see New methods above).
Other suggested modifications to existing methods include:
•

•
•
•
•
•

Revisions to some of the equations proposed for Tier 2 calculations of CH4
emissions from enteric fermentation. Some participants suggested that for certain
regions these equations may incorrectly estimate emission factors (e.g. . equation 13
of Tier 2 approach seems to assume zero growth for mature animals while this may
not be the case in some countries).
Emission factors are needed for sugar production from sugar cane. The current
emission factors are based on the processing of sugar beet.
Default factors for the proportion of venting and flaring by region should be
developed. It is doubtful if a single default value will apply as the proportions arelikely to vary considerably among countries and regions.
Better methods are needed to account for fugitive emissions. Losses of fuel and gas,during transportation may be important sources of CH4 emissions and need to be
included.
Better methods are needed for estimating carbon storage in non-energy products.
The explanations of how to calculate and manage uncertainties were considered to
be insufficient and needing improvement. In part, this could be done by developing
tiered approaches for calculating uncertainties.

Relevant information from recent scientific research carried out in several parts of theworld, particularly in non-Annex I countries, needs to be incorporated into the Revised
Guidelines. This includes information on activity data and emission factors for forest
fires, carbon density in forests and forest soils, carbon density in agricultural soils, CH4emissions from domestic livestock, and the combustion of traditional biomass fuels.
Revisions to default emission factors. Better default values are needed. For most
sectors, the application of global default values is questionable. The development ofregional default values, or algorithms that take into account region- or country-specificcircumstances, is recommended as a priority. This would include providing Tiered
approaches for the calculation of emission factors in order to allow countries to apply
them on the basis of best available data. The parallel development of regional databases
would greatly facilitate this process. More information is also needed on how theexisting and any future default values are derived. This includes providing information
on scientific background of algorithms and default emission factors.
When emission factors have a range of values, additional information is needed to
explain the circumstances under which the different values in the range apply. This
would help in determining the uncertainties associated with these factors.
The need for worked examples. The Workbook provides examples of some of thecalculations required for calculating emissions. More examples are needed to cover theremaining calculations, particularly where these are not straightforward. Examples of
uncertainty calculations were considered as important. Overall, these examples should

11

probably not be included in the Workbook because this would make it too bulky.
Instead, the examples could be issued as a separate volume or on request.
Improved layout. The considerable duplication of information in the Reference Manualand Workbook was noted. Whereas some working groups supported the idea of merging
the Reference Manual and Workbook, others felt that this was not feasible as theresulting product would be too bulky. Instead, it was agreed that the duplication of
information should be reduced. This would be done in a possible future revision of the
Guidelines. The Workbook needs to contain all the essential information required forcompleting the worksheets. The Reference Manual should provide the scientificbackground and key references needed to understand the emissions pathways, methods,
default factors and assumptions used in the Workbook.
A list of required activity data and emission factors needed to complete the calculations
on each worksheet should be provided at the head of each worksheet. This would makeit clearer what information needs to assembled beforehand.
Assumptions underlying the calculations in the inventory need to be specified andclearly explained. An auxiliary worksheet could be added in which the assumptions canbe stated, thereby making them more transparent. Examples include the assumptions
made in tracking changes in land area under different land uses through time, estimatesof deforestation rates, and the rates of conversion of forest and grassland to other land
uses. In particular, it is necessary to specify whether the estimates are derived solely
from data collected for the assessment period in question, extrapolation from earlier
studies, or interpolation between earlier and subsequent figures (this would apply
particularly when recalculating earlier inventories). In the last two cases, the underlying
assumptions need to be given.
Methods with different levels of complexity for estimating and reporting uncertainty
should be developed. This could include providing more clear guidance on how expert
judgement can be used to assess uncertainty and step-by-step examples of different
approaches.
A section is needed in the Workbook to deal with special cases or country-specificsources of emissions. In these cases, responsibility for developing a method for
estimating the emissions would lie with the country concerned. The methods,
assumptions and data used in the assessment would need to be reported in an annex tothe national GHG emissions inventory.
Guidelines and software need to be translated into a wider range of languages. The
current Workbook is available in English, Spanish and Russian, and will soon beavailable in French. Provision of the Reference Manual and software in Spanish,
Russian and French is also desirable.
Priorities for improving national GHG emissions inventories
As with the recommendations for amending the Revised Guidelines, the priorities for
improving the national GHG emissions inventories can be arranged into a number ofgroups. Many of the recommendations fall outside the mandate of the IPCC, but they
are reported here as a record of the working groups’ discussions and because they12

address larger issues relating to the framework within which national GHG emissions
inventories are carried out.
Capacity building. The working groups identified the need to strengthen national
capacities for compiling national GHG inventories. This could be achieved through theimplementation of three different activities: developing adequate institutionalframework, providing training, and establishing experts networks.
Institutional development.
It is crucial to institutionalise the process of compiling
national GHG emissions inventories and preparing national communications to the
UNFCCC. Without this, it will not be possible to internalise the process and make itsustainable. This institutional development is ultimately a national issue. A key aspect isthe need to show that the benefits of supporting expanded institutional capacities
outweigh the costs. Strong institutions would provide the basis for long-termmonitoring and assessment of emission sources and sinks, including developing anational databank. It would also encourage greater continuity, and hence lower
turnover, among the technical personnel responsible for compiling inventories, thereby
increasing the cost-effectiveness of training programmes.
Training. To ensure successful compilation of inventories on an continuing basis
requires appropriate training of the personnel involved. Experience gained in doing an
inventory is itself a form of training. However, there is still need for specialist training
courses similar to those run under the US Country Studies Program and the
UNITAR:CC Train initiative. Nevertheless, the long-term effectiveness of these courses
has been somewhat diminished by the subsequent high turnover among the personnel
who attended the courses, and because key people do not always receive training. The
issue of training falls outside the mandate of IPCC though it remains a key factor
affecting the quality and comprehensiveness of the national GHG emissions inventories.
In turn, this can affect the timely submission of national communications.
Networking. The working groups recommended the establishment of sectoral andregional networks of experts to exchange information about compiling inventories andto advise on and assist with the preparation of inventories, particularly for countries
undertaking the process for the first time. Among other things, these networks would
provide opportunities to collate information on activity data and emission factors foremission sources not covered in the Guidelines. The experts could also provide
technical peer review of national GHG inventories, though some participants stressedthat this should remain a national responsibility. Obviously, any peer review at aninternational level would have to be by invitation of the host country.
These networks of experts could also assist with further reviews of the Revised
Guidelines as well as providing regular feedback to the IPCC on their utility. All thesebenefits would be enhanced if the networks were institutionalised on some basis, not yet
clearly defined.
Dissemination of the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines. Almost all the working groups
stressed the need for wider dissemination of the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines. At
present, copies of the Guidelines are sent to national focal points but further distribution
is limited in some countries. Although the Guidelines are available on the World Wide13

Web, access to the Internet is still limited for many in the developing world. Moreover,while copies of the Guidelines are freely available, on request, this fact is not widely
known. Efforts should be made to put the Guidelines on CD-ROM and other electronic
media, and to advertise their availability more widely. Producing the Reference Manualin languages other than English would also help accelerate uptake.
Data management. Three issues were raised concerning data management. First,
participants identified the need for an archive or a database of sources of activity data,
emission factors, and ancillary information, preferably organised on a regional basis.
This would contribute greatly to improved GHG inventories by providing relevant andup-to-date information to specialists compiling inventories who might not have theirown. Second, the sources of data used in preparing the national GHG emissions
inventories need to be cited, either as footnotes in the National Communication or in an
Annex. Not only would this promote transparency in reporting, but it would also
contribute to building a database of information on the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Third, there is a need for liaison among institutions to collate a list of activity data andemission factors for methods that are not provided for in the Guidelines (seeNetworking above). More discussion of this issue is found in the meeting report of the
UNFCCC Workshop on Emission Factors and Activity Data.
Top-down and bottom-up approaches. The need to estimate emissions from fuelcombustion using both top-down and bottom-up approaches was stressed by a numberof working groups. This is considered to be important for self-verification purposes.
Differences in the estimated emissions between the two approaches need to be analysed.
The top-down approach would normally be expected to give higher estimates than those
calculated from the bottom up. If the bottom-up estimate is higher it indicates a possible
error in the data or the calculation. If the top-down approach produces much higher
estimates than the bottom-up approach this could indicate substantial losses from flaring
in the transportation and distribution of fossil fuels. For some countries, statisticaldifferences between production and consumption are reported in energy statistics andthe Revised Guidelines could specify whether such differences ought to be reported.
Assessment. One working group recommended that activity data and emission factors in
one country could be evaluated by comparing these with independently derived data orinternational statistics for countries or regions with broadly similar socio-economic andbio-physical circumstances. This could help to identify apparently anomalous data andstimulate further consideration of the sources prior to incorporation of the data into thenational GHG emissions inventory. Nevertheless, there are problems. First, to takeaccount of differences in population, such assessments need to be done with data
expressed on a per capita or per household basis (e.g. fuel wood consumption;
household energy consumption); the population data may not always be reliable.
Second, it may not always be easy to find countries with sufficiently comparable socioeconomic and environmental conditions. Finally, if done at all, this assessment would
need to be done prior to completion and submission of the national GHG emissions
inventory, and only on a voluntary basis for Parties to the Convention.
Reporting. The provision of the software for the Workbook in electronic format waswelcomed as a positive move towards electronic reporting of emissions inventories.
Further developments in this field were recommended.

14

The importance of transparency in the reporting process, for countries to document
fully their data sources and assumptions, was stressed by most working groups. Without
this, the process of improving both inventories and Guidelines is ineffective.

5.

Conclusions

The meeting participants broadly concurred with the findings of the paper on the
National Feedback on the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories. Whereas the Revised Guidelines are not perfect, they represent a significant
step towards the goal of complete, accurate, consistent, comparable, and transparent
accounting of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. A full analysis must wait until
the Revised Guidelines have been used more widely, particularly within non-Annex I
countries. This process will likely take several years. Nevertheless, it is apparent that
there is room for improvement, in both the short and the long-term. Many of therecommendations contained in this report concern the way the Guidelines are used.
Substantive changes to the content of the Guidelines will need to wait until they arerevised, something for which there is no immediate provision. In the interim, minor
additions to existing methods could be prepared and circulated as addenda to the present
Guidelines.

15

ANNEX I: Working Group Reports(Havana, 15-16 September 1998)
Working Group 1: Africa
Day 1Co-chairs:
Faouzi Senhaji, Todd Ngara
Rapporteurs: Wilfred Kipondya, Katarina Mareckova
Working group participants were asked to review and make additions to Sections 3 ofthe background document. Additions are highlighted.
The Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National GHG Inventories
Some of the issues identified by countries in the use of the Revised Guidelines are
summarised below.
Applying the Methods.
Several Parties believed the Revised Guidelines need to include all the relevant
information from scientific research carried out at regional or national levels. With afew exceptions, however, no specific references were made to the type of research
missing. Some countries attributed these information gaps to the fact that some research
work was only available after the Revised Guidelines were completed. Furthermore,
only two countries reported that, in some cases, the background information provided isperipheral to the task of estimating GHG emissions. Instead, they suggested that the
Revised Guidelines should focus on the most relevant components of national
inventories.
The Revised Guidelines allow countries to use their own inventory methods with theproviso that countries report these methods. With very few exceptions, non-Annex I
Parties are using the default methods for all sectors. The methods in the Workbook areconsidered to be adequate in most cases, but some countries reported that national
circumstances were not always reflected in these methods. Rather than using different
methods, however, several countries changed the assumptions underlying the default
methods or the breakdown of IPCC categories (e.g., CH4 emissions from entericfermentation in cattle, emissions of N 2O in the manufacturing of fertiliser).
Countries also reported the difficulties encountered when applying the methods. Thesedifficulties refer either to unclear instructions or to the complexity of the method itself(e.g. the number of steps and assumptions used in the method) such as in calculating
N2O emissions from agricultural soils.
The main suggestions for improving the methods in the Revised Guidelines can begrouped as follows:•

Simplifying methods where the required information is complex and is not usuallyavailable at the national level: land-use change and forestry, N 2O from agriculture.

16

•
•

•

Developing methods for sources that are not included in the Revised Guidelines:
solvent and other products use, anaerobic polluted lagoons, waste incineration,
septic tanks.
Providing more detailed information for some methods: non-CO2 emissions fromfuel combustion, traditional biomass fuels; methane emissions from charcoal
production; CO2 emissions from harvesting the gas from underground sources forindustrial and other purposes (Tanzania).
Including relevant information from scientific research carried out in several partsof the world: forest fires, domestic animals, and agricultural soils.

Reporting Instructions
The Reporting Instructions contain the reporting framework for national GHG
inventories and the section on Managing Uncertainties. In general, the reporting
framework covers the relevant sources and sinks and provides clear definitions of thesecategories. Nevertheless, some respondents felt that the categories were too rigid andsuggested that they should be more flexible. Although the Revised Guidelines allow
reporting of country-specific sources and sinks under ‘other’, several respondents feltthat more guidance or clarification was needed about how to report such categories.
The section on Managing Uncertainties was generally considered to be useful, thoughmany countries felt that the information provided is limited. Several suggestions weremade for improving this section to provide more effective guidance on how to estimate
and report uncertainties in emission estimates. In summary, these are:
•
•
•

•
•
•
•

Clearer guidance is needed on how to report country-specific sources and sinks that
do not neatly fit within the IPCC reporting framework.
Differences between natural and anthropogenic sources and sinks in land-use
change and forestry, and in agricultural soils should be clearly established.
Methods with different levels of complexity for estimating and reporting uncertainty
should be developed. This could include providing clearer guidance on how expert
judgement can be used to assess uncertainty and step-by-step examples of different
approaches.
A section needs to be inserted in the Workbook to cater for special cases andcountry-specific activities and associated emissions. Guidelines may need to be
developed to explain the use of this section.
Assumptions used in the calculations of the inventory need to be specified andclearly explained. Required headings and sections might assist this process.
Citations of data or annexes should provided, where necessary, to ensuretransparency (e.g. energy balances).
Describe sectors and how information is handled in introductory sections.

Layout of the Revised Guidelines
Several countries suggested ways to make the Revised Guidelines more user-friendly.
The main suggestions were:• Establish clearer links between the scientific background and the methods for
estimating emissions• Provide examples of the calculations• Make chapters more consistent and wording better

17

•

•
•
•
•
•

Include a section on Managing Uncertainties in the Introduction of the Revised
Guidelines in order to provide the user with basic knowledge on uncertainties at the
beginning of inventory preparation. The level of detail is not sufficient and it shouldbe improved.
Supply the Revised Guidelines and software together to facilitate the compilationand electronic reporting of national inventories.
List of activity data and emissions factors needed to complete the calculations at
beginning of each worksheet.
Add a diagram showing relationships and linkages between sectors and possible
overlapping or double counting.
Merge the reference manual and the workbook.
Move towards electronic reporting.

There were various views on the role of the Workbook and the Reference Manual. One
suggestion was that they should be merged to reduce duplication; another was that the
Workbook should be made more self contained and that the Reference Manual be a
supporting volume providing additional detail.
In addition to the changes highlighted above, a number of cross-cutting issues wereidentified. These were:
•
•
•
•
•

Ensure adequacy of training in order to successfully complete inventories with theaim of making this a continuous process.
Establish a formal network on a sectoral and regional and/or a global basis in order
to assist preparation of inventories.
Liase with institutions to generate a list of sources for which methods are notprovided in the Guidelines.
IPCC Guidelines for emissions inventory and the UNFCCC guidelines on national
communications need to be better co-ordinated.
Guidelines and software should be translated in a wider range of languages.

Group 1: Africa
Day 2Co-chairs:
Youba Sokona, Willie Makundi
Rapporteurs: Bubu Jallow, Vicky Simpson
Working group participants were asked to review and make additions to Sections 5 ofthe background document. Additions are highlighted.
Priorities for Improving National GHG Inventories
Based on the priorities defined by countries and the types of initiatives being
undertaken, the improvements needed in national inventories can be grouped into shortterm (less than 3 years) and long-term priorities (more than 3 years). Addressing theseissues depends on what technical and financial resources are needed and can beprovided; on the time frame involved; and on possible institutional constraints. They
too can be categorised into those that can be addressed at a national level, by individual
countries, and those that have to be dealt with at the international level, by bodies such18

as IPCC and UNFCCC. These are summarised as follows:
National Level
1) Identify areas in which minor changes can be made to improve the procedures forcollection activity data. – include procedures for analysis of data; improve sharingof data between departments; ensure data is collected in units that is appropriate forclimate change (e.g. to express the impact of deforestation in tons of carbon perhectare). Provide guidance for solvent sector.
2) Compare activity data, emission factors or emission estimates with independentsources or international statistics, where feasible, to identify discrepancies andpossible sources of errors. Suggest comparison of statistics (e.g. per capita basiswith similar socio-economic and biophysical circumstances).
3) Establish procedures to check on the reliability of the data used, especially for thehistorical activity data needed for agriculture and land-use change and forestry (e.g.
getting information on how the data are collected). Document procedure to checkreliability and to ensure transparency of inventory process, particularly datacollection. While interpolation can be a useful tool, extrapolation may not beappropriate.
4) Develop procedures for expert peer review of the data used in the preparation ofnational inventories. Develop mechanisms for technical peer review of the nation
inventories to enable positive feedback.
5) Where possible examine assumptions used in the IPCC methods (including default
emission factors) by comparing the defaults with specific local circumstances toassess their applicability.
6) Priorities should always be given to time series where available.
7) Promote wider circulation of Revised Guidelines within countries using a range of
media.
Long-term priorities: These include activities that might involve reorganisation of datacollection procedures at the national level; implementation of specific studies toimprove activity data or generate new data not available in the country; and carryingout research studies to develop and validate emission factors. They also include efforts
to co-ordinate government departments, universities, research institutions, and theprivate sector in standardising the collection, archiving and storage of data in therelevant sectors. Some of the priorities include:
1) Exchanging information with the relevant institutions at the national level toestablish consistent approaches for data collection. Develop a database specifying
the nature and sources of data sets relevant to approaching GHG inventories.
2) Improving the collection of activity data by modifying procedures or (re)assigning
resources in national statistics systems. This would include sectors in which data areroutinely collected, such as energy and agriculture production, as well as those inwhich information is not generated on a regular basis, such as land-use change and19forestry. This activity would involve developing adequate co-ordination for datacollection with relevant government institutions, trade associations and the private
sector, among others. Investigate means to develop legislation to obtain necessary
information from all relevant institutions. Institutionalise process of compiling
national GHG inventories and preparing national communications. This will
require obtaining necessary long-term funding.
3) Using statistical procedures to assess the reliability of the data used in national
inventories. This activity may include assessment and revision of sampling methods
and techniques for ensuring data quality.
4) Adopting cost-effective ways of collecting and processing activity data. This may
include the use of remote sensing techniques and geographical information systems
to monitor land-use changes, or carrying out surveys to verify the reliability of thedata in particular sectors. It should be recognised that data are used for multiple
purpose and wider range of benefit, therefore spreading costs.
5) Carrying out focused research to improve activity data and develop country-specificemission factors. This would involve close co-operation with universities andresearch institutes to take advantage of the existing scientific infrastructure andexpertise. Due to the cost involved, many countries may not have the resources
required to pursue this option at a large scale.
International Level
1) Ensuring dissemination of the Revised Guidelines in a wider range of languages.
2) Provide regular and adequate training, especially for non-Annex I Parties.
3) Wider review of scientific literature to establish the range of emission factors foundunder conditions similar to those occurring in individual countries and regions.
Deriving regional emission factors and activity data to improve national inventories.
This may have implications in terms of costs, time frame, representativeness ofdata, number of countries involved, methodological approaches adopted,
institutional arrangements, and funding. Conversely, there would be benefits interms of availability of more applicable data, improved national GHG emissions
estimates, improved technical capacity, and establishment of a framework forregular updating and compiling of data.
4) Providing clearer guidance and regular feedback to countries on how to improve

national inventories. This may involve developing good practices guidelines forcollecting activity data and developing emission factors, for setting up proceduresfor internal verification, and for developing the institutional framework.
5) Establishing a forum for the exchange of information and experience among

countries. This would help inventory experts learn what countries are doing to
improve their national inventories and assess whether similar approaches could beapplied to address similar problems.
Priorities
20

The working group considered that the issues raised in the background paper and during
the working group discussions were all both important and urgent, although the need
for wider dissemination of the Revised Guidelines within countries was a priority. The
need for region-specific emission factors was also emphasised.

21

Working Group 2: Asia
Day 1
Co-Chairs:
Wanna Tanuchaiwatana, Rizaldi Boer
Rapporteurs: Rajarathnam Uma, Geoff Salway
Suggestions for Improving the Revised Guidelines
The suggestions in Section 3 of the Draft Background Paper were accepted with minorchanges, namely:•••

Provision of simpler methods in addition to the existing ones where the required
information is complex and is not usually available at the national level: land-use
change and forestry; N2O from agriculture. The existing methods would then be
Tier 2 and the new methods would be Tier 1.
Providing more detailed information for some methods: non-CO2 emissions fromfuel combustion; traditional biomass fuels
Including relevant information from scientific research carried out in several partsof the world: domestic animals and agricultural soils

It was felt, however, that the suggestion to add methods for the sources: solvent andother product use; anaerobic polluted lagoons ; waste incineration; septic tanks; forest
fires which are not currently included in the Revised Guidelines should be given low
priority. An improved methodology for open dumping was more important
Additional suggestions for the proposed list were:
•
•
•

•

There should be improved guidance on the reporting of CO2 emissions from sources
where fuels are used as feedstocks (e.g. Ammonia production) in order to prevent
double counting between the energy and industrial processes modules.
More scientific information should be provided on stored carbon .
It was noted that there will be a difference in the top down reference approach andthe more detailed bottom up approach. Normally the top down approach would be
expected to give higher estimates than the bottom up method. However if thebottom up approach shows a higher value it would indicate an error in the statistical
data. If the top down approach is very much higher than the bottom up, this could
be indicative of losses in transportation and distribution of fuels. In some countries,
statistical differences between production and consumption are reported in energy
statistics so the Revised Guidelines should specify whether such differences should
be reported.
Tier 2/3 methods produce estimates which are less uncertain but Tier 2/3
methodologies should only be used where the data is of good quality. Where thedata is of poor quality or limited, this will produce poor estimates. In such cases
Tier 1 should be used.

The draft suggestions for improving the reporting instructions were accepted, namely:•

Clearer guidance is needed on how to report country specific sources and sinks that
do not fit clearly fit within the IPCC reporting framework

22•

Methods with different levels of complexity for estimating and reporting uncertainty
should be developed. This could include providing clearer guidance on how expert
judgement can be used to assess uncertainty and step-by-step examples of different
approaches

On the first point there was considerable discussion on land use change and forestry.
The methods were thought to be adequate but significant improvements were requiredin the definitions given and clarity of the Reference Manual and Workbook, inparticular:•

More detailed information is needed particularly on the definitions for all data in theworksheet.
Definition of the distinction between managed and natural forests is not clear. All
forests could be considered as anthropogenic sources and sinks.
Categories in the Guidelines did not match countries’ categorisation systems.
Background information on the characteristic properties of each category should be
provided to enable countries to best apply their data.
Commercial harvest could be changed to commercial use and traditional use.
Fractions for on site, off site burning and decay need clearer definition.
Data on land use changes over 20 years or more are not feasible. Alternative
approaches to derive the data may need to be explained.
Categories for soil types in the Guidelines are not familiar.

•
•
•
•
•
•

Some additional points on reporting were made:•Revised Guidelines define certain levels of disaggregation that can be used forreporting. However, for some sources (e.g. coal mining), a certain minimum levelof detail is necessary in order that the estimates are transparent, whilst for others theless detailed level is sufficient. The Guidelines should indicate where a high levelof detail is necessary
The Guidelines invite the reporting of halocarbons disaggregated by species if
available. The format to be used to report this data should be specified andappropriate columns should be inserted in the tables.
Table 8A reports the level of documentation and disaggregation for each sector but
not each gas. They may differ.

••

The following points from the Draft Background Paper for revising the layout of the
Revised Guidelines were accepted:••••

Establish clearer links between the scientific background and the methods for
estimating emissions.
Harmonise the numbering of tables and sections in the different volumes of the
Revised Guidelines.
Include a section on Managing Uncertainties in the Introduction of the Revised
Guidelines in order to provide the user with basic knowledge on uncertainties atthe beginning of inventory preparation.
Supply the Revised Guidelines and software together to facilitate the compilationand electronic reporting of national inventories.

23

The proposed example calculations should not be included in the Workbook as thiswould make it too bulky. Examples could be issued as a separate volume or on request.
Examples of uncertainty calculations were considered the most important.
The issue of whether the Workbook and the Reference Manual should be remain
separate or be merged was discussed. It was considered that the key aims were to avoid
duplication and to achieve a self contained Workbook. Hence the Workbook would
contain the worksheets, details of the methods and sufficient scientific information to
apply them. The reduction in repetition would provide more space in the Reference
Manual, which could then contain more detailed scientific information which would
supplement the Workbook.

Working Group 2: Asia
Day 2
Co-Chairs:
Sharmila B. Srikanth, Xu Deying
Rapporteurs: Kansri Boonpragob, Jan Spakman
Suggestions for priorities to improve National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Priorities at the National level

Urgent:In addition to the issues mentioned in Section 5 of the Draft Background Paper, theAsia working group addressed. Fuel losses as a very important potential source ofemissions. For example, transportation losses of coal in China can be as large as
10%. The same goes for natural gas losses in pipelines, causing major emissions ofmethane (CH4).
Improving access to existing satellite data in order to obtain better activity data on
forestry and land use change.
Establish networking on data collection. Many Asian countries experience
difficulties with the existence of different data sets within the country, stemmingfrom various institutions.
Data formats from different sources (like institutions, ministries, etc.,) should be
more compatible with the reporting format of the inventory.
Establish an institutional framework for national GHG inventory.








Less urgent, though important:Stimulate peer review, but only within the country as there is no mandate forinternational peer review
Comparison of emission factors and emission estimates with data from independentsources (international statistics). Although in the Draft Background Paper, it wassuggested to also compare activity data, the working group found that this is lessuseful countries themselves usually have better knowledge on actual activity datathen international institutes.
Test the assumptions used in the IPCC methods (default values) to assess theirapplicability under specific local circumstances.

24 Establish procedures to affirm the reliability of the data, such as gatheringinformation on the methods of data collection. This is particularly important forhistorical data..
Modify the procedures to improve the collection of activity data, especially the data
which are not collected on a regular basis. This requires coordination of datacollection within relevant national institutions, etc. This implies networking,mentioned above in the urgent priorities.
Introduction of statistical procedures (like sampling methods and control
techniques) to assess the reliability of the data used in the national inventories.
Management Information Systems (MIS), with other words: hardware. Somecountries do not have access to Internet-data connection.
Establishment of new Remote Sensing techniques for better analyses and activity
data on forestry and land use change.

Priorities at the International Level

UrgentWider dissemination of the Guidelines through Internet or other ways (hard copies)
as well as ensuring that they are received by the right persons. Improve circulationof the Guidelines within a country.
Provide regional / international training on the use of the Guidelines. The mostefficient way to do so is let the countries learn by practice and then give positive
feedback.
Better activity data and emission factors on a regional basis must be obtained byarrangements between international institutes.
Guidance on how to improve inventories by establishment of standard procedureson collecting and handling data, internal verification, developing emission factors,
etc. Remark: this point does not include guidance on how to use the Guidelines
themselves. (This was already dealt with in the urgent training issue, see above).
Immediate funding for activities on the deriving of country-specific emission
factors.








Less urgent, though important
Establishment of the range of emission factors and source / sink categories
applicable under conditions similar to those in individual countries. This should bedone by reviewing the scientific literature.
Establish an international or regional forum for exchange of information andexperiences.



25

Working Group 3: Latin America
Day 1Co-chairs: Newton Parcionik, Ana Rita Chacon
Rapporteurs: Omar Masera and Javier Hanna
The Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National GHG Inventories
Some of the issues identified by countries in the use of the Revised Guidelines are
summarised below.
Applying the Methods.
The Revised Guidelines allow countries to use their own inventory methods with theproviso that they report these methods. With very few exceptions, non-Annex I Parties
are using the default methods for all sectors. The methods in the workbook areconsidered to be adequate in most sectors but at the same time there is still room for
improvement.
The main improvements in the Revised Guidelines can be as follows:
•
•
•

•
•
•

•

•

Develop tier approaches for other sectors, including agriculture, land use change.
Include algorithms that allow the development of emission factors, whereappropriate (e. g. CH4 emissions from domestic livestock).
Improve information on default values. Data should be disaggregated by region.
There should be a database with regional default values. More information is neededon how these default values were derived. When emission factors have a range ofvalues, additional information is needed to explain the circumstances under which
the different values in the range apply. This will also help determine uncertainties
associated to these factors.
An auxiliary worksheet should be added in which assumptions can be specified.
This should help to make the assumptions more transparent (e.g., tracking country
land area by land use along time, deforested area by land conversion use)
Develop methods for sources that are not included in the Revised Guidelines:
solvent and other products use, anaerobic polluted lagoons, waste incineration,
septic tanks, and CH4 emissions from hydroelectric dams.
Provide more detailed background information and better explanation for somemethods: non-CO2 emissions from fuel combustion, traditional biomass fuels,
emissions from agricultural soils.
Include relevant information from scientific research carried out in several parts of
the world, particularly in non-Annex I countries: forest fires, carbon density inforests and soils, domestic animals, agricultural soils, combustion of traditional
fuels.
Include background information on how to develop emission factors.

More specific points by sector are provided below.

26

Global Warming Potentials• There should be agreement on the time scale of Global Warming Potentials (GWP)
to be used for each gas. It is important to have GWP for all greenhouse gases.
Agriculture• Revise the equations proposed for Tier 2 calculations of CH4 from entericfermentation.
• Emission factors for enteric fermentation in llamas and guanacos should be
included. These species of domestic animals are important in the Andean Region.
• More background information is required for agriculture soils.
Industrial Processes• Emission factors are needed for sugar production from sugar cane. The current
emission factors are those for sugar beet.
• Methods are required for calculating GHG emissions from the mining of cobalt andnickel.
Energy• CO2 accounting should discount losses from oil production (in CO2 form) not as CH4
fugitive emissions. Currently, the method assumes that all the energy is burned. An
option is to include losses as an increment in the stock.
• Natural gas flaring should distinguish between the gas burned and not burned.
However, it is difficult to generalise an assumption for the whole Latin American
region. Country data should be used as much as possible.
• Clarification is needed on where to include emissions from the transformation of
fuelwood to charcoal (e.g. whether these emissions should be reported in the energy
sector or in the land-use change and forestry sector).
Land-Use Change and Forestry• Some methods are not adequate, particularly regarding land clearing, abandoned
lands, and wood harvesting.
• There are inconsistencies between the forest classification required for the landclearing module and the one used for soil carbon (e.g. the first is based onvegetation types while the second is based on land use).
• Guidance for differentiating between natural and anthropogenic forest fires should
be provided.
• The method for estimating carbon emission from soils needs to be improved.
Currently, the method is not easy to apply.
Layout• Assure consistency between the Reference Manual, Workbook and Reporting
Instructions.
• Include a checklist with the information needed for the compilation of national
GHG inventories.
• The workbook should contain the essential information needed to do thecalculations. Additional information should be added in the reference manual.
• Improve distribution of the Revised Guidelines. There is a need to update the list of27

IPCC focal points to assure that national experts in charge of developing GHG
inventories get the Revised Guidelines.

Working Group 3: Latin America
Day 2
Co-Chairs:
Luis Ruiz Suarez, Eduardo Calvo
Rapporteurs: Ismael Sanchez, Virginia Sena
Priorities for Improving National GHG Inventories
Based on the priorities defined by countries and the types of initiatives being
undertaken, the improvements needed in national inventories can be grouped into shortterm (less than 3 years) and long-term priorities (more than 3 years). Addressing theseissues depends on what technical and financial resources are needed and can beprovided; on the time frame involved; and on possible institutional constraints. They
too can be categorised into those that can be addressed at a national level, by individual
countries, and those that have to be dealt with at the international level, by bodies suchas IPCC and UNFCCC. These are summarised as follows:
National Level
Short-term priorities
These may include activities designed to improve national inventories without
introducing significant changes to data compilation procedures or demanding highfinancial and technical resources for implementation. Some of these priorities include:
1) Provide training on the methodological scope and use of IPCC Guidelines fornational teams belonging to countries that have not yet prepared inventories.
2) Identify areas in which minor changes can be made to improve the procedures forcollecting activity data.
3) Identify national priorities in the collection of activity data so as to focus investmentin those areas where data are most urgently needed, for example where there aregaps in the data or where it is necessary to disaggregate the activity data to a finerscale.
4) Compare activity data, emission factors or emission estimates with independentsources or international statistics, where feasible, to identify discrepancies andpossible sources of errors, especially on the sectors that presents more problems:e.g. Agriculture and Land-Use Change and Forestry sectors. For countries with few
independent national data sets, comparisons could be made with data from countries
with similar socio-economic, biological and physical conditions.
5) Establish procedures to check on the reliability, origin and means of collection ofdata used in an inventory, especially historical activity data used in the Agricultureand Land-Use Change and Forestry sectors.
6) Develop procedures for expert peer review of the data used for preparing national28

inventories.
7) Test assumptions (including default emission factors) used in the IPCC methods bycomparing these with specific local circumstances to assess their applicability. The
exchange of experiences among researchers in a region would be helpful.
8) Collect data on the origin and consumption of traditional fuels (biomass, naturalgas) and improve information on their respective emission factors. Firewood isimportant as a source of energy within the region, especially at a residential level.
9) Revise the framework for national statistics to include those data sets needed forcompiling the inventories, and propose how best to include them.
10) Take advantage of GHG emissions-related data generated by other national
activities (such as environmental auditing by industry) to compile a database thatcan be used for developing local emission factors for GHG emissions inventories.
11) Aim to heighten the priority given to initiating, updating and improving inventories
through sensitising policy makers by distributing information about the GHG
emissions inventory process.
Long-term priorities
These include activities such as reorganising national data collection procedures;
implementing studies designed to improve existing or generate new activity data; andcarrying out research studies to develop better emission factors or validate existing
ones. They could also include efforts to co-ordinate the standardisation of datacollection procedures among government departments, universities, research
institutions, and the private sector. Some of the priorities include:
1) Exchanging information with relevant national institutions to establish consistent
approaches for data collection.
2) Improving the collection of activity data by modifying procedures or (re-)assigning
resources in national statistics systems. This would include sectors in which data areroutinely collected, such as energy and agriculture production, as well as those inwhich information is not generated on a regular basis, such as land-use change andforestry. This activity would involve developing adequate co-ordination for datacollection with relevant government institutions, trade associations and the private
sector, among others.
3) Introducing statistical procedures to assess the reliability of the data used in national
inventories. This activity may include sampling methods and control techniques.
4) Adopting cost-effective ways of collecting and processing activity data. This may
include the use of remote sensing techniques and geographical information systems
to monitor land-use changes, or carrying out surveys to verify the reliability of thedata in particular sectors.
5) Carrying out focused research to improve activity data and develop country-specificemission factors. This would involve close co-operation with universities andresearch institutes to take advantage of the existing scientific infrastructure and29expertise. Due to the cost involved, many countries may not have the resources
required to pursue this option at a large scale.
6) Providing solid long-term institutional support to ensure the maintenance andimprovement of national technical capabilities acquired during the inventory
process, and to incorporate expertise that was not involved in compiling the initial
inventory.
International Level
The following international efforts are needed to improve the basis for compiling
national GHG emissions inventories:
1) Update and improve the mailing list for distributing the Revised Guidelines.
2) Provide adequate training, especially to non-Annex I Parties.
3) Review the scientific literature to establish the range of emission factors foundunder similar bio-physical and socio-economic conditions.
4) Provide clearer guidance on how to improve national inventories. This could
involve developing guidelines on ‘best practices’ for collecting activity data anddeveloping emission factors; for setting up procedures for internal verification; andfor developing an appropriate institutional framework.
5) Improve national inventories by obtaining regional emission factors and activity
data. This may have implications in terms of costs, time frame, representativenessof data, number of countries involved, methodological approaches adopted,
institutional arrangements, and funding. This would be offset by the benefits of
having more applicable data, better national GHG emissions estimates, improved
technical capacity, and the establishment of a framework for regular updating andcompiling data.
6) Establish a forum for exchanging information and experience among individuals
and institutions in different countries. This would help inventory experts to learn
what countries are doing to improve their national inventories and assess whether
similar approaches could be applied to their own national situations.
7) Establish mechanisms to ensure adequate and timely funding the allow countries todevelop better emission factors and improved activity data. Priority should be given
to the largest national sources of GHG emissions.
8) Take advantage of OLADE’s network of regional partners to establish mechanisms
for collecting, comparing and distributing the results of national GHG inventories
and local emission factors, to make these more readily available to the countries of
the region.
9) Define and establish a regional organisation, such as OLADE, to address issues in
the non-Energy sectors.

30