Report of IPCC Scoping Meeting for a
Methodology Report(s) to refine the2006 IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories
29-31 August 2016, Minsk, BELARUS

IPCC Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
November 2016

1

Supporting material prepared for consideration by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This
supporting material has not been subject to formal IPCC review processes. Neither the papers presented at thescoping meeting nor this report have been subjected to IPCC review.

The IPCC would like to thank the Government of Belarus and its Ministry of Natural Resources andEnvironmental Protection and Research Center “Ecology” for their generous support by hosting this meeting.

Published by the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Hayama, Japan on behalf of
the IPCC © Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2016
Please cite as:
IPCC (2016). Report of IPCC Scoping Meeting for a Methodology Report(s) to refine the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Eds: Ngarize, S., Kranjc, A., Baasansuren, J.,
and Shermanau, P. Report of the IPCC Scoping Meeting, Pub. IGES, Japan.
IPCC Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (TFI)
Technical Support Unit
℅ Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
2108 -11, Kamiyamaguchi
Hayama, Kanagawa
JAPAN, 240-0115
Fax: +81-46-855-3808
http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp

ISBN 978-4-88788-196-9

Note: Annexes 2 and 4 to this report have been modified by the IPCC at its 44th Session. Officiallyapproved Terms of Reference (TOR) and Table of Contents (TOC) are contained in the decision
IPCC/XLIV-5 as Annexes 1 and 2.
2

Table of Contents
Foreword .......................................................................................................................................................... 4
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................. 5
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 6
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 7
2. Meeting Discussions ............................................................................................................................... 9
2.1
BOG 1: TOC for Cross-Sectoral issues (Volume 1 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines)......................... 12
2.2
BOG 2: TOC for issues on Energy Sector (Volume 2 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines) .................... 17
2.3
BOG 3: TOC for issues on IPPU Sector (Volume 3 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines) ........................ 21
2.4
BOG 4: TOC for issues on AFOLU Sector (Volume 4 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines) .................... 25
2.5
BOG 5: TOC for issues on Waste Sector (Volume 5 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines) ...................... 40
3. Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................. 48
4. Annexes………………………………………………………………………………………………………………49
Annex 1: Agenda of the Scoping Meeting
Annex 2: Draft Terms of Reference (TOR), including Work Plan and Instructions to Experts and Authors
Annex 3: Annotated lists of issues for all sectors
Annex 4: Draft Integral Table of Contents (TOC)
Annex 5: Proposal for a technical note on reporting of carbon from Harvested Wood Products (HWP) between
importing and exporting countries
Annex 6: List of Participants3Foreword
We are pleased to present this report of the scoping meeting for a Methodology Report(s) to refine the IPCC
2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories which was held on 29-31 August 2016 in Minsk,
Belarus.
The IPCC, at its 43rd Session on 11-13 April 2016 in Nairobi, Kenya, decided the strategy and timeline for its
next series of reports during the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) cycle. Following those decisions by the IPCC,
its Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (TFI) will embark upon a new project to produce a
Methodology Report(s) to refine methodologies on national greenhouse gas inventories which will be one of
the main products by the IPCC in the next few years.
The first important step in this process is to convene a scoping meeting to prepare an outline of the Methodology
Report(s) in accordance with the IPCC procedures. Preparation of the scoping meeting started in May 2016
with a call for nomination of experts to participate in the meeting which was issued to IPCC Member States andObserver Organizations. Invitees to the meeting were selected by the Bureau of TFI (TFB) with assistance of
the TFI Technical Support Unit (TFI TSU), taking account of balance of expertise, geographical representation,
gender balance and so on. The selection went well enough to result in a list of participants with a good andbalanced coverage of sectors and issues, which eventually helped achieve an overall success of the scoping
meeting held on 29-31 August 2016 in Minsk, Belarus.
The conclusions of this scoping meeting were agreed by the TFB, and submitted to the IPCC for consideration
at the 44th Session in October 2016 in Bangkok, Thailand.
We would like to thank all those involved in this meeting, namely, the experts who participated, the membersof TFB, and the members of TFI TSU, for their contribution to make this meeting a success. In particular, we
would like to express our sincere gratitude to the Government of Belarus and its Ministry of the Natural
Resources and Environmental Protection and Research Center “Ecology” for their generous support by hosting
this meeting.

Eduardo Calvo Buendia
Co-ChairTask Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Kiyoto Tanabe
Co-ChairTask Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

4List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
AD

Activity Data

AFOLU

Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use

BOG

Break-out Group

CDM

Clean Development Mechanism

EF

Emission Factor

EFDB

Emission Factor Database

FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions

GHG

Greenhouse Gas

GFOI

Global Forest Observations Initiative

GOFC-GOLD

Global Observation of Forest and Land Cover Dynamics

FFPRI

The Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute

HWP

Harvested Wood Product

IPCC

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IPCC AR6Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change- Sixth Assessment Report

IPPU

Industrial Processes and Product Use

ISOInternational Standards Organisation

MCFs

Methane Conversion Factors

MGD

Methods and Guidance Document

REDD+

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation and the role of conservation,
sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing
countries

RS

Remote Sensing

PA

Paris Agreement

TFI

Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

TOC

Table of Contents

TOR

Terms of Reference

VS

Volatile Solids

UNFCCC

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

5Executive Summary
The goal of the scoping meeting was to prepare the proposal of the scope and format of the Methodology
Report(s) to refine the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2006 IPCC Guidelines),
and to discuss and amend, as appropriate, draft terms of reference (TOR), draft table of contents (TOC) anddraft work plan for the Methodology Report(s), prepared by the TFI Technical Support Unit (TFI TSU). To
achieve these aims, the scoping meeting took full account of issues identified by the four technical assessment
expert meetings held in 2015 and 2016 as well as decisions taken at the 43rd Session of the IPCC.
At the first plenary, scene-setting presentations were delivered by the TFI TSU so that all the participants could
share understanding of objectives and expected outcome of the meeting. Discussion on the format of the
Methodology Report(s) and some other issues followed these presentations. Subsequently the meeting split
into 5 break-out groups (BOGs) for further detailed discussion, particularly on the draft TOC based on the
annotated list of issues prepared by TFI TSU. Some of these BOGs split into smaller sub-groups during thediscussion.
The scoping meeting agreed on the scope and format of the Methodology Report and forwarded it to the Task
Force Bureau (TFB) for its consideration.
Regarding the draft TOC and the draft TOR including the work plan and the instructions to experts and authors,
the scoping meeting recognized that further work is required to harmonize and integrate the outputs from each
BOG as well as to reflect discussion at the final plenary. The scoping meeting agreed that TFI TSU should
undertake that work in consultation with TFB.

6

1. Introduction
The (TFI) held an Expert Meeting on Systematic Assessment of TFI Products from 25-27 August 2014 in Ottawa,
Canada, which assessed the TFI products currently available, including the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Taking thediscussion at this expert meeting into account, the (TFB) at its 26th Meeting in Ottawa (28 - 29 August 2014)concluded that the 2006 IPCC Guidelines) provide a technically sound methodological basis of national
greenhouse gas inventories. However, to maintain their scientific validity, certain refinements may be required,taking into account scientific and other technical advances that have matured sufficiently since 2006.
Following these conclusions by the TFB, the TFI carried out a technical assessment of IPCC Inventory
Guidelines through an on-line questionnaire survey and four expert meetings in 20151,2 and 20163,4. The online survey revealed that there had been abundant new scientific and empirical knowledge published since2006 which the IPCC should take into account, particularly with respect to data for emission factor development
for some categories and gases.
Therefore, the refinement of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines is necessary in order to provide an updated and soundscientific basis for supporting the preparation and continuous improvement of national greenhouse gas
inventories. The refinement work would not revise the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, but would update, supplement
and/or elaborate them where gaps or out-of-date science are identified by the scoping meeting and agreed by
the Panel. The outcome of this refinement work would be used in conjunction with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines
and would provide supplementary guidance.
A Methodology Report(s) would be produced as a major output(s) of this refinement work to address thefollowing three needs while avoiding a fundamental revision of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, taking full accountof issues identified by the technical assessment expert meetings held in 2015 and 2016.
Providing supplementary methodologies for sources or sinks of greenhouse gases only where
currently there are gaps or where new technologies and production processes have emerged requiring
elaborated methodologies or for sources or sinks that are not well covered by the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines;

Providing updated default values of emission factors and other parameters based on the latest
available science only where significant differences from currently adopted factors are identified;Providing additional or alternative up-to-date information and guidance, where possible, as clarification
or elaboration of existing guidance in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

With this background, a proposal on “Refinement of 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories, including production of a Methodology Report(s)” was considered by the IPCC at its 43rd Session(11-13 April 2016, Nairobi, Kenya). The Panel approved the proposal5, and decided to consider the outline of
the Methodology Report(s) at the 44th Session of the IPCC in October 2016, and to consider the draft
Methodology Report(s) at a Plenary session of the IPCC in May 20196.
In accordance with these decisions, a scoping meeting for a Methodology Report(s) to refine the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines was held on 29-31 August 2016, followed by the 28th meeting of TFB, on 1-2 September, in Minsk,
Belarus. The meeting was attended by 94 experts, 14 members of TFB, and 7 members of TFI TSU. The work
was carried out in the plenary, 5 break-out groups (BOG’s) and 3 sub-break-out groups.
The scoping meeting aimed to consider the scope and format of the Methodology Report(s), and to prepare
draft TOR, draft TOC and draft work plan for the Methodology Report(s).
1 Expert Meeting for Technical Assessment of IPCC Inventory Guidelines (Energy, IPPU, Waste Sectors), 29 June - 1 July 2015,
Geneva, Switzerland
2 Expert Meeting for Technical Assessment of IPCC Inventory Guidelines (AFOLU Sector) 13-16 July 2015, São Paulo, Brazil
3 Expert meeting for Technical Assessment of IPCC Inventory Guidelines: follow-up on specified issues from the 2015 expert meetings
25-26 April 2016, Wollongong, Australia
4 Expert meeting for Technical Assessment of IPCC Inventory Guidelines (Cross-sectoral issues) 27-29 April 2016, Wollongong,
Australia
5 Decision IPCC/XLIII-8 “Update of methodologies on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories”
6 Decision IPCC/XLIII-7. Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) Products. Strategic Planning

7

Discussions and conclusions of the meeting are summarized in this report, and the above mentioned draft
documents are also presented.

82. Meeting Discussions
The scoping meeting for a Methodology Report(s) to refine the 2006 IPCC Guidelines started with a welcome
address from His Excellency Dr. Andrei Kovkhuto, the Minister of the Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection of the Republic of Belarus, followed by opening remarks from IPCC TFI Co-Chairs. The opening
session was followed by presentations from TSU. In addition to the presentations, the following meeting
documents were prepared by the TFI TSU for consideration by the meeting participants: the two options on
recommendation on the format of the Methodology Report(s), Draft (TOR), Draft (TOC), Draft work Plan, Draft
instructions to Authors.
Mr Andrej Kranjc (Head, TSU) gave the first presentation and explained the background, objectives, tasks, andorganization of the meeting. Mr Kiyoto Tanabe (Co-Chair, TFI) highlighted the procedures for the preparation,
review, acceptance, approval, adoption and publication of IPCC reports plus question on the format of the new
Methodology Report(s). This included, but not limited to, either a single Methodology Report which covers
multiple sectors/categories/issues or a set of multiple Methodology Reports, each of them addressing aparticular category/issue. Mr Pavel Shermanau (TSU) gave a presentation on the background, aims, scope,
significance and prioritisation criteria, approach, IPCC 43 (April 2016) mandate for work on the Refinement of
the 2006 Guidelines and outcomes of the Cross-sectoral issues identified for the Methodology Report(s) fromthe Expert and Follow-up Meetings conducted in 2015 and 2016. Ms Baasansuren Jamsranjav (TSU) gave
presentation on an overview of the Technical Assessment of the 2006 IPCC Inventory Guidelines: Sectoral
Issues plus the outcomes of the Expert and Follow-up Meetings conducted in 2015 and 2016. Finally, Ms Sekai
Ngarize (TSU) gave a presentation on the Expected Outcomes and Outputs of the scoping meeting. The
presentation also highlighted that these outputs will be the core of the proposal documents to the IPCC Panelfor its consideration in October 2016.
In the ensuing plenary discussions as well as in the final plenary discussions that took place on Day 3,
participants commented on several items as listed below:










Format of the methodology report(s) - There were two options on format of methodology report:
some participants expressed a view “to have a consolidated version of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, the2013 Wetlands Supplement and the 2019 Refinement of the 2006 Guidelines, including additional
supporting material”, whilst others preferred a single Methodology report which covers multiple
sectors/categories/issues, consistent with the current structure of the 2006 Guidelines. However, on
the first option some participants indicated that before seeing final product it would be premature to
discuss integration.
Terms of Reference - The TOR sets out the background, scope, mandate for the refinement work,
approach and a work plan for the production of the methodology report(s). Participants raised someconcerns on the references to the Paris Agreement (PA) in the TOR and agreed to delete any
references to the PA, given the diverging views and the fact that negotiations under the PA are stillongoing. The TFI Co-Chair clarified that when the technical assessment of the 2006 Guidelines started,
there was no PA and it was simply recognized by IPCC that there are some areas that can be enhanced
or improved due to recent scientific advancements. Therefore, the primary purpose of this refinement
work was not supporting the PA, however, this refinement will be useful to the Parties to the UNFCCC.
Some participants argued that the scoping meeting need to note that the global stock take process
under the UNFCCC considers emissions of GHGs and GHGs emissions estimates need to be verified
including the use of the most recent IPCC methodologies. The IPCC-TFI play a key part of the global
stock take by providing methodological guidance on GHGs estimation and this clarified our connection
with the PA, in particular its articles 12 and 14.
The scoping meeting agreed that the TOR should clarify the scope of the methodology report toprovide supplementary guidance. It was agreed that the three types of refinements include update,elaboration and new guidance plus use of no refinement where no changes are indicated in therelevant chapter, section or paragraph. The types of refinements are attached as an Annex to the TOR,
and these refinements should reflect the latest developments in the science.
Table of Contents - There was overall agreement that the TOC needs to reflect the current structureof the 2006 Guidelines and, where relevant, the design of TOC must have a place-holder and allow
9







authors to add required additions. To that effect, the scoping meeting agreed that the issue of flexibility
in dealing with additional items not raised during the technical assessment or scoping meeting, could
be addressed via a more detailed TOC with guidance to authors.
Draft Instructions to Experts and Authors - These instructions to experts and authors are intended
as guidance to experts and authors contributing to a new Methodology Report. They are intended toensure a consistent and coherent approach across all the volumes or chapters, including the use ofcommon terminology.
Participants were encouraged to send comments to the TFI-TSU during the course of the scoping
meeting week. Comments on the Draft Instructions to Experts and Authors were circulated toparticipants during the scoping meeting. Overall, there was general agreement that the Draft
Instructions to Experts and Authors should reflect that this work aims to cover all the different IPCC
inventory sectors but only the categories where the science is considered to be sufficiently developedor where new or additional guidance is required, namely the categories that were selected throughtechnical assessment conducted in 2015 and 2016, and the Scoping Meeting held in August 2016using the significance and prioritization criteria (see para 21 of the Draft Instructions to Experts andAuthors).
Draft Work Plan - No major amendments were made to the draft work plan prepared by the TFI TSU
as it reflected the “Strategic Planning Schedule AR6” which was agreed and proposed by the IPCC
Executive Committee. Some participants expressed their concern about the timing of the expert review
of first-order draft as well as the government/expert review of second-order draft because they arescheduled for vacation seasons.

Some participants also highlighted the need to verify issues arising from the UNFCCC GHG reviews on the useof the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and find a way to make linkages to the UNFCCC reviews and for authors to
capture experiences of using the 2006 Guidelines in the methodology report. It was considered that given thelimited experience on the use of the 2006 Guidelines, the UNFCCC would be able to make a detailed summaryof issues arising from the use of 2006 Guidelines, possibly in 2017 at the latest. It was agreed that it would be
useful if the UNFCCC Secretariat could continue to provide feedback to the IPCC.
Other relevant issues coming of the plenary discussions included, the need to better understand what will
happen to issues addressed by other means other than the methodology report, and this included issues to beaddressed via FAQs, EFDB, expert meeting with its technical bulletin or meeting report and FAQs. The TFI
indicated that these processes are ongoing; our mandate for the scoping meeting is to provide guidance to theplenary on what needs to be done in terms of the outline of the methodology report. However, it may be complex
and resource intensive to address all of these issues immediately. TFB will consider prioritisation of these issues
in due course. In addition, the EFDB Editorial Board last November already took into account some of the issues
raised during the technical assessment.
After the TSU presentations and plenary discussions, five BOGs were convened in the afternoon of Day 1 tocontinue discussions with the main objective of producing sectoral TOCs as a key output of the scoping meeting:

BOG1: TOC for Cross-Sectoral Issues (Volume 1 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines)



BOG2: TOC for issues on Energy Sector (Volume 2 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines)



BOG3: TOC for issues on IPPU Sector (Volume 3 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines)



BOG4: TOC for issues on AFOLU Sector (Volume 4 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines),
This BOG was further divided into 3 sub-BOGs: (i) Agriculture sub-BOG, (ii) Forestry and Other Land Use– FOLU sub-BOG and (iii) Flooded Lands sub-BOG.



BOG5: TOC for issues on Waste Sector (Volume 5 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines)

Scoping meeting presentations are summarised under section 2 of this report (Meeting Discussions) and thepresentation files are available at the IPCC-TFI website http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/ .The list of participants
is attached in Annex 6.

10

The BOGs discussions were focused on issues identified during the technical assessment and outcomes of theExpert Meeting in 2015 and Follow-up meeting in 2016. However, some new items were added during thescoping meeting that had not been raised during the technical assessment.
The BOGs presented the outcome of their discussions to the plenary during the course of the week and in theafternoon on the final day. Summaries of BOG discussions are included under each BOG, please note that across-sectoral sub-BOG was convened in day 2 to address two items: (a) How to deal with non-CO2 emissions
due to biogas production, and (b) Reporting of CO2 emissions from biomass for energy. The following sectionsof the report summarize the BOG outcomes including the results of the cross-sectoral sub-BOG and TOC, plus
the final discussions/conclusions of the meeting.
The cross-sectoral sub-BOG was made up of experts from Energy BOG, FOLU sub-BOG and Agriculture sub–BOG, the aim of the cross-sectoral BOG was to agree a harmonised approach to the treatment and reportingof non-CO2 emissions due to biogas production and CO2 emissions from biomass for energy, in the relevant
sectors.
On the reporting of CO2 emissions from biomass for energy, the BOG agreed that the IPCC could identify
the scientific consequences around which HWP approach to implement. Noting that if a political decision
was made not to use the production approach, then the scoping meeting, which is mainly a technical andscientific process, should not attempt to prejudge the decision of SBSTA46 under the UNFCCC.



The group acknowledged emissions of CO2 from biomass fuels which are estimated and reported in the
AFOLU sector as part of the AFOLU methodology. In the reporting tables, emissions from combustion of
biofuels are reported as information items but not included in the sectoral or national totals to avoid double
counting. For biomass, only that part of the biomass that is combusted for energy purposes should be
estimated for inclusion as an information item in the Energy sector. The emissions of CH4 and N2O,
however, are estimated and included in the sector and national totals because their effect is, in addition
to the stock changes, estimated in the AFOLU sector.

Some participants highlighted that because these emissions are reported as memo item, in practice, itmeans that some countries are not reporting these emissions and therefore better guidance was needed;
for example, there is not enough information on decay rates and guidance on how to treat wood pellets,though some recent work from the Chatham House (UK) showed how these missing emissions could be
captured. Whilst other indicated that if the importing country uses the production approach, the assumptionof carbon neutrality is not valid, particularly for cases where a developing country which does not reportemissions from HWP exports to Annex 1 countries; there is a risk that these emissions will not be reported
by either country or even a risk of double counting.

Participants noted that a harmonised/consistent approach used by all countries would work but in themeantime a solution was a proposal for a technical note guidance box in the AFOLU sector explaining theimplications on the choice of approaches for the reporting of carbon from HWP, in particular when theimporting country is using a different method than the exporting country. (See Annex 5 to this report for
proposal). The BOG agreed that from a reporting perspective the technical note should also be includedin the energy sector that allows countries to distinguish HWP from domestic and imported sources.



On the issue of how to deal with fugitive loss of methane due to biogas production, participants agreed
that these emissions should be divided based on where the amount of biogas comes from, i.e., waste,agriculture or energy. Participants expressed the need for an additional section in the methodology reportthat would deal with guidance on fugitive loss of methane due to biogas production in the relevant sectors.

11

2.1 BOG 1: TOC for Cross-Sectoral issues (Volume 1 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines)
Co-facilitators: Justin Goodwin (UK) and Fahmuddin Agus (Indonesia)
Rapporteur: Justin Goodwin (UK)The participants of BOG1 agreed to consider all cross-cutting issues. A technical survey indicated the necessity
to expand a methodological work focusing on developing countries and their country-specific emission factors.
In many cases developing countries cannot accommodate emission factors which are based on developed
countries’ circumstances and are different in climate and technological and/or other conditions.
Participants identified the challenge of how countries should move from Tier 1 to Tier 2. The 2006 IPCC
Guidelines focus on providing guidance on lower level tiers, leaving nationally specific approaches to national
inventory compilers to design and document. After the 2006 IPCC Guidelines were developed, many countries
started obtaining GHG emission reports from entities within their jurisdiction (e.g. PRTRs - Pollutant releaseand transfer registers) for much but not all of specific sectors. Based on the experiences gained by suchcountries, new guidance is needed to supplement the 2006 IPCC Guidelines on how the data reported fromfacilities can be used in national GHG inventories (for emission estimation and/or QA/QC).
Regarding Methodological Choice and Identification of Key Categories it was stressed that at Wollongong
Expert Meeting (2016) this item was identified as high priority and therefore for consideration at the scoping
meeting. The general guidance is that key categories are those worth investing in to develop accurate
estimation methods. Under the UNFCCC guidelines the status of a category being key has many consequences,
however, some inventories identify too many small key categories. There is a need to explore if and how thetechnical guidance for the identification of key categories can be improved. The feedback from the use by theParties of the methods can be a good input, in particular, the issue of aggregation/disaggregation of categories
is one that has not shown good results in the application of the analysis by many Parties, therefore there is aneed for improving the guidance on this subject.
Participants considered that time series consistency is vital. The guidance is fine but how to apply that guidance
has proved to be more difficult. Some countries have gained a lot of experience in ensuring time seriesconsistency in their national greenhouse gas inventories, and there has been considerable discussion on thisissue during the UNFCCC inventory review process. Additional practical guidance could be developed basedon such experiences.

12

Draft TOC 1: Cross-Sectoral Issues
Chapter 1

Introduction to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines

Issue 1: Provide a better description on how to implement a national inventory management system thatmanages all parts of Volume 1, implements continuous improvement and leads to the development of mature
inventories.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New Section in Chapter 1
Type of refinement: New guidance
Guidance to Authors: New Guidance on national inventory management systems (be consistent withrequirements) that implements continuous improvement. Consider existing literature. Include: How to start inventories where resources are limited? Matching priorities and resources. How to
improve inventories over time?
o Where to start (e.g. fuel consumption? – IEA data) Provide some advice on how to start inventory process in absence of Tier 2 info. Make sure that the
Value of moving to higher tiers is clearly stated: e.g. T1 default EFs may not account for abatement
or newer more efficient technologies; therefore, T1 may overestimate and there is an incentive toinvest in tier 2.
 Consider including criteria (check list) to decide if country EFs are appropriate
 Management of inventory process: identify inventory requirements and uses, planning, identificationof tasks and responsibilities, planning of inventory cycle and timelines
 Inventory improvement plans and prioritisation
 Integrating Key Category Analysis (KCA), Time series consistency, data collection, QA/QC and
Uncertainty analysis into single management of inventories
 Stakeholder engagement, institutional arrangements (e.g. legal arrangements, agreements,
appointments…). Linking to existing in-country expertise including statistical systems etc., identifying
roles and responsibilities
 Data management (data flow, archiving, documentation, long-term storage)
 Use of appropriate inventory software and data structures
 Review processes (internal, external, as part of QA/QC…)
Issue 2: Clarify the concept of “anthropogenic emissions and removals”.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 1.1 Concepts, with Guidance contained in the Revised
Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance arising from the Kyoto Protocol (2013 KP Supplement)
Chapter 2.3.4 and 2.3.5 and the 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse:
Wetlands (2013 Wetlands Supplement)
Type of refinement: Update
Guidance to Authors: (Update of Section 1.1 Concepts, Chapter 1, and Volume 1 with Guidance contained in
the IPCC 2013 KP Supplement chapter 2.3.4 and 2.3.5 and the 2013 Wetlands Supplement) need to agree
what goes here and the more detailed info in AFOLU chapter. Only a sentence or two here summarising
additional material in wetlands supplement. Check other definitions are still valid/complete – inputs needed fromall sectors authors.

Chapter 2

Approaches to Data Collection

Issue 1: Add guidance for the development of country-specific emission factors, focusing on developing
countries.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New guidance in Chapter 2
Type of refinement: New guidance
Guidance to Authors: Provide more guidance on developing country-specific emission factors:
 Explore ways to use available data to produce more appropriate EFs. Re-examine datasets used for
global defaults to derive regional EFs.
 Advice on what to do if there are no appropriate EFs or if global default EF is not appropriate, how to
get from Tier1 to higher Tiers (maybe more a clarification of existing guidelines).
13 Indication of source categories that are more sensitive (significant) to country-specific EF (e.g. by using
UNFCCC database and EFDB) Examples of sector specific approaches Addition of more rationale,references and background information on the default parameters used for the country specific EF
 Consider use of atmospheric concentration data to refine EFs (e.g. F-gases) link to validation chapter.
 “Australia example”:
 Consider “Decision tree approach” that can be applied on different source specific categories a“Systematic way to make consistent choices in the use of facility-specific data”
 Use of CDM “database” and/or scientific papers for description of cases where country specific EF
where developed (taking into consideration the need of consistency with IPCC methodologies)
 General: Links to capacity building opportunities and training materials (FAQ)
Issue 2: Add guidance for activity data collection; technical survey indicated there is a capacity problem togather and manage national data which can be addressed by an additional guidance.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New guidance in Chapter 2
Type of refinement: New guidance
Guidance to Authors: New guidance to develop country-specific emission factors and additional guidance on
activity data collection:
 New Guidance/suggestions on what to do in the absence of required national statistical data. How
to get representative data.
 Additional guidance to activity data collection: Provide clarity on representative sample Confidential
data:o Example of agreement for disclosure confidential informationo Provisions of examples for incorporating confidential data
 Refinement of the “multi-year averaging” provision with additional exception listed for guidance for
AFOLU tier 3 approaches drawing on IPCC KP Supplement chapter 2.3 (link to time seriesconsistency).
 Update links to international database and more detailed description on data available and its
potential use
 New tools/technologies for data collection (e.g. companies’ surveys) for completeness purposes General: Links to capacity building opportunities and training materials (FAQ)
Issue 3: Add guidance on the integration of GHG emissions reported from facilities into national GHG
inventories
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New guidance in Chapter 2
Type of refinement: New guidance
Guidance to Authors: New Guidance on the integration of GHG emissions and activity data reported fromindustrial facilities and other entities into national GHG inventories covering time series consistency,
comparability, consistency and completeness. Use as a basis “TFI Technical Bulletin 1: “Use of Facility– specificData in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories” and the “Report of the IPCC Expert Meeting on Use of Models
and Measurements in GHG Inventories”.

Chapter 3

Uncertainties

Issue: Refine guidance on uncertainty based on the latest scientific knowledge and simplification of guidanceby providing more default values, calculation examples and best practices.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Chapter 3
Type of refinement: Update
Guidance to Authors: Chapter to be made more user-friendly – substance of guidance does not change but
guidance needs to be more user-friendly with more up-front about why and how this is used.
i)
Update language to be consistent with international standard definitions (BIPM) of uncertainty,
accuracy etc;
ii)
Emphasis why this is needed – identify improvements and guide methodological choice;a. Discussion on how to use uncertainty as a way to improve the inventory development(focusing effort on large sources of uncertainty or reducing model complexity (e.g.,
simple decision tree);
14

iii)

Strong links to data collection chapter – collecting uncertainty data is an integral part of datacollection;
iv)
Incorporation of methodological development and/or case studies on issues, such as spatial
variability, regional upscaling, correlation/autocorrelation, resampling techniques, addressing
representativeness of data, trend analysis, population vs. mean variance;v)
Propagation of uncertainty applying Approach 1 for some sources and Approach 2 for others.
Address large percentage uncertainties when using Equation 3.1 in Chapter 3, Volume 1 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines. Expand good practice for Monte Carlo simulations (more direction but not
be overly prescriptive);vi)
Inclusion of guiding principles for conducting an uncertainty analysis. Provide additional simplified
explanation of procedures with case studies and decision trees;vii)
Potential for a useful tool that may need to be updated covering at least Approach 1. Consider if
Approach 2 (Monte Carlo) should be usefully included.
Literature: over 50 relevant articles based on a brief search of the literature published since 2006, and over 10
years of reporting by parties to the UNFCCC. Literature may be useful for general guidance that can supplement
the existing methods (however it should not be a scientific review of the methods).
It was noted that it might be a need to address specific issues on uncertainty analysis in the sectoral sectionsof a report, technical bulletin, etc.

Chapter 4

Methodological Choice and Identification of Key Categories

Chapter 5Time Series Consistency

Issue: Add guidance on key category analysis to address treatment of disaggregation of categories, trend
analysis, equations for trend analysis and the need for consistent definition of significant subcategories acrossthe different volumes of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Chapter 4 (and relevant guidance in the other volumes)
Type of refinement: Elaboration
Guidance to Authors: Review this in light of general management chapter/section to separate management
decisions from methodological choice. Elaboration of Chapter 4, Volume 1 to improve guidance on key
category analysis to address treatment of disaggregation of categories, trend analysis, equations for trend
analysis and the need for consistent definition of significant subcategories across the different volumes of the2006 IPCC Guidelines.
Additional guidance on key categories analysis in particular on: Aggregation/Disaggregation of categories to ensure a limited number of Key Categories is identified
that are suitable for the use of improved methodologies; Trend analysis in situations of large fluctuations in emissions; Reconsider equation for trend analysis (in the cases of small sources and net sources and net sinks);
 Tools – update and improve; Definition of “significant subcategories" across different parts of the guidelines (e.g. subcategories
which make up 60% of the key category emissions according to their contribution in Volume 1 and 2530% of the emissions of a key category in the AFOLU Volume).
Issue: Provide practical guidance on how to apply existing guidance on time series consistency because thisproved to be a problem for many countries.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Chapter 5
Type of refinement: Elaboration
Guidance to Authors: Elaboration of Chapter 5, Volume 1 to add examples on time series consistency: Incorporate examples
of country approaches (for example: Canada “merging of data sets from different time periods”, Finland“methods for F gases”, and others) Explore if there are new methods available. Time seriesconsistency should not preclude improvements or addition of new categories in current year and future.
 Dealing with large inter-annual variability (link to data collection).
 Guidance on ensuring transparency.
 Guidance on transparency where underlying EFs or other parameters are changing over time.
15

Chapter 6

Quality Assurance / Quality Control and Verification

Issue 1: Add guidance on the use and reporting of models
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New Section in Chapter 6
Type of refinement: New guidance
Guidance to Authors New guidance on reporting of the use of models. Use as a basis the “Report of the IPCC
Expert Meeting on Use of Models and Measurements in GHG Inventories”, accessible via the link:
http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/mtdocs/pdfiles/1008_Model_and_Facility_Level_Data_Report.pdf
Issue 2: Elaborate user-friendly description of verification, validation, audit and QA/QC because users areunclear on their IPCC meanings compared to outer definitions, such as ISO as used by CDM.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.1, Box 6.1
Type of refinement: Elaboration
Guidance to Authors: In Box 6.1, provide user-friendly descriptions of verification, validation, audit and QA/QC
as used in IPCC guidelines and differentiate them with other uses of the terms.
Issue 3: Update/elaborate verification guidance because the existing guidance is outdated (especially theguidance on comparisons with atmospheric measurements and new datasets).
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.10
Type of refinement: Update/Elaboration
Guidance to Authors:
1) There is a need to discuss various ways to verify emission estimates in the context of the latest
science with case examples:i)
atmospheric concentration data;ii)
independent monitoring of carbon stocks and fluxes;iii)
other approaches.
The refinement work should not be focused on developing detailed methods, but reference moredetailed examples that have been published elsewhere. Also, other uses of these data should be
discussed, for example, direct emission measurements to prepare better emission factors whereother information is limited, describe circumstances where this is possible and the limitations (link todata collection chapter 2). Guidance on the reporting of the use of such data. It was noted that it
might be a need for some follow-up in the sectoral guidance about the use of atmospheric data andother data. Outline how this can be used to improve inventories. Examples. This will be advisory notmandatory. (Use IPCC workshop report on use of concentration data).
2) Development or improvement of guidance on the verification using other estimation results like
FAOSTAT emissions database for AFOLU (along the lines of the IEA data). Authors should consider
other dataset as well. (Use IPCC workshop report on use of AFOLU data).

Chapter 7

Precursors and Indirect Emissions

Chapter 8

Reporting Guidance and Tables – No refinement

Issue: Elaborate clearer guidance for the calculation of indirect CO2 emissions.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 7.2.1.5
Type of refinement: Elaboration
Guidance to Authors: Make clear that a sufficient inventory contains only emissions estimated in Volumes 25. This section is additional information. Authors should emphasise transparency and the need to avoid double
counting. There is no intention to include additional gases or emission factors in the guidelines. Avoid mentionof specific metrics but could warn on implications of different types of metrics should people want to use them.

162.2 BOG 2: TOC for issues on Energy Sector (Volume 2 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines)
Co-facilitators: John David Watterson (UK) and Dario Gomez (Argentina).
Rapporteur: Ole-Kenneth Nielsen (Denmark)Discussions in the Energy BOG were focused on Fugitive emissions, no major changes needed for stationary
and mobile combustion. The refinement should be made for underground and surface coal mines, abandoned
surface coal mines, as well as update for oil and gas industry including abandoned oil and gas wells including
a new guidance on unconventional oil and gas industries.
The group was asked to consider 6 issues (see Annex 3). Each issue had a proposed method of refinement
associated with it, and a description of the work for the refinement. The group reviewed the proposed
refinements and made suggestions about the treatment of the refinements which the future section and chapter
authors could consider. The group then created a complete TOC for the energy chapter. The group also
identified other new issues which were not in the primary list of 6 issues (underground and surface coal mines,
abandoned surface mines, treatment of biomass). The full list of issues considered by the group are set out inTable 1.
Table 1. Full list of issues considered by the energy sector group
Issue

Description#1

Category 1.A.1.c. Manufacture of solid fuels. Development of guidance for estimating
GHG emissions from charcoal production
Category 1.B.1. Fugitive emissions: Solid Fuels. Development of guidance for estimating
GHG fugitive emissions from abandoned or decommissioned surface mines
Category 1.B.2. Fugitive emissions: Oil and Natural Gas. Development of guidance for
estimating GHG fugitive emissions from abandoned or decommissioned oil and gas
wells
Category 1.B.2. Fugitive emissions: Oil and Natural Gas. Development of guidance for
estimating GHG emissions from unconventional oil and gas production such as shalegas, shale oil, tight gas, tight oil and CBM
Category 1.B.2. Fugitive emissions: Oil and Natural Gas. Update or addition of default
emission factors of fugitive emissions from oil and gas by reflecting current practices
and the latest measurement data
Category 1.B.3. Fugitive emissions: Other emissions from Energy production. Provisionof clearer guidance on fuel transformation considering linkages with the methodology
on fugitive emissions under IPPU
Treatment of biomass. Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 2.3.3.4. Link to issue
related to biomass combustion and methodologies for HWP (Location in 2006 IPCC
Guidelines: Section 2.2.3.4 of Volume 2)
Underground coal mines. Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines Section 4.1.3 of Volume
2. Elaborate chapter to include guidance on emissions from exploration and CO2
emissionsSurface coal mining. Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 4.1.4 of Volume 2.
Elaborate chapter to include guidance on emissions from exploration and CO2
emissions
New section on abandoned surface coal mines. Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: nocurrent guidance

#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
New E1
New E2
New E3
New E4

Suggested
approach torefinement
New Guidance
New Guidance
New Guidance
New Guidance
Update and/or
Elaboration
New Guidance
Elaboration
Elaboration
Elaboration
New Guidance

The group suggested some of the issues identified could be handled within the structure of the existing 2006
IPCC Guidelines structure, but proposed a new section “fuel transformation” (to be section 4.3) to handle
issues #1 (charcoal production) and #6 (fugitives and IPPU).
17

Table 2 shows the proposed treatment of the issues by the energy sector group, and provides guidance on

issues that should be covered in the drafting to future authors. The suggested approaches to refinement are
not reproduced in this table, but are given in the last column of Table 1. Other sections of the energy chapter
will need to be updated to reflect any changes and to ensure internal consistency within the chapter.
Table 2. Proposed treatment of the issues by the energy sector group
Issue

New E1

Section ofcurrent
2006 IPCC
Guidelines
2.3.3.4

New E2

4.1.3

New E3#2

4.1.4

New E4

No current
guidance.

#3, #4,#5

4.2#1, #6

4.3

Description

Guidance to authors

Treatment of biomass. Locationin 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section
2.3.3.4. Link to issue related tobiomass combustion andmethodologies for HWP (Locationin 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section
2.2.3.4 of Volume 2)
Elaborate chapter to include
guidance on emissions from
exploration and CO2 emissions
Elaborate chapter to include
guidance on emissions from
exploration and CO2 emissions
New section on abandoned
surface coal mines

Add bullet linking to HWP section (Chapter 12 of Volume 4)
clarifying that depending on the choice of HWP methodology
there could be under or overestimations.

Update of chapter including
update/inclusion of EFs
representative for current
practice. Additional guidance forunconventional oil and gas
production and abandoned wells.
New section on fueltransformation

No specific guidance developed in the meeting
Add new section to follow on from Section 4.1.5 “Abandoned
underground coal mines”
4.1.X Issue #2 Abandoned surface coal mines
Suggested TOC below.
4.1.X.1 Choice of method (including decision tree)
4.1.X.2 Choice of emission factors
4.1.X.3 Choice of activity data
4.1.X.4 Completeness
4.1.X.5 Developing a consistent time series
4.1.X.6 Uncertainty assessment
Consider applicability of tier 1 EFs. Time specific tier 1 EFs.
Consider separate exploration EFs for oil and natural gas.
Consider possible guidance for emissions from biogas
transmission and distribution. Maintain current TOC.
Graphical presentation of oil and natural gas segment
boundaries.
Include guidance on charcoal production, coke production(check for consistent representation with the IPPU sector),other fuel transformation (solid to liquid, liquid to gaseous,biomass to gaseous, biomass to liquid, etc.) not included
elsewhere. Ensure transparency regarding allocation
between energy and IPPU, suggest an overview table on thetypes of fuel transformation and where guidance is provided
Suggested TOC:
4.3.1 Overview, description of sources
4.3.2 Methodological issues
4.3.2.1 Choice of method (including decision tree)
4.3.2.2 Choice of emission factor
4.3.2.3 Choice of activity data
4.3.2.4 Completeness4.3.2.5 Developing consistent time series
4.3.2.6 Uncertainty assessment
4.3.3 Inventory Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
4.3.4 Reporting and documentation

The sections that need updating are not given in Table 2, but are outlined in the proposed revised TOC forthe energy chapter. The proposed TOC on energy chapter provided below was harmonized by TSU to beconsistent across chapters.
18

Draft TOC 2: Energy
Chapter 1 Introduction – No refinement
Chapter 2 Stationary Combustion

2.1 Overview - No refinement
2.2 Description of sources - No refinement
2.3 Methodological issues
Issue: Link to issue related to biomass combustion and methodologies for HWP
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 2.3.3.4
Type of refinement: Elaboration
Guidance to Authors: Add bullet linking to HWP section (Chapter 12 of Volume 4) clarifying that dependingon the choice of HWP methodology there could be under- or overestimations.
2.4 Uncertainty assessment - No refinement
2.5 Inventory Quality Assurance/Quality Control QA/QC - No refinement
2.6 Worksheets - No refinement

Chapter 3 Mobile Combustion - No refinement
Chapter 4 Fugitive Emissions
4.1 Fugitive emissions from mining, processing, storage and transportation of coalIssue1: Elaborate chapter to include guidance on emissions from exploration and CO2 emissions (Undergroundcoal mines, Surface coal mining)
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Sections 4.1.3 and 4.1.4 (Sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2 and 4.1.6 are relevant)Type of refinement: Elaboration
Guidance to Authors: (none)
Issue2: Include new section on abandoned surface coal mines
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Not applicable. (Next to Section 4.1.5. Sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2 and 4.1.6 are
relevant)
Type of refinement: New guidance
Guidance to Authors: There would need to editorial changes to other parts of the chapter to reflect this new
chapter. If insufficient information, the collected information could be included as an appendix. Suggested TOC
below.
4.1. X.1 Choice of method (including decision tree)
4.1. X.2 Choice of emission factors
4.1. X.3 Choice of activity data
4.1. X.4 Completeness4.1. X.5 Developing a consistent time series
4.1. X.6 Uncertainty assessment
4.1.6 Completeness for coal mining
Will need updating based on the changes to other sections?
4.2 Fugitive emissions from oil and natural gas systems
Issue: Update chapter including update/inclusion of EFs representative for current practice. Additional
guidance for unconventional oil and gas production and abandoned wells.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Sections 4.2
Type of refinement: Update
Guidance to Authors: Consider applicability of tier 1 EFs. Time specific tier 1 EFs. Consider separate
exploration EFs for oil and natural gas. Consider possible guidance for emissions from biogas transmission anddistribution. Maintain current TOC. Graphical presentation of oil and natural gas segment boundaries

194.3 Fuel transformation [New]
Issue: Include new section on fuel transformation
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New Section in Chapter 4 (Next to Section 4.2)
Type of refinement: New guidance
Guidance to Authors: Include guidance on charcoal production, coke production (check for consistent
representation with the IPPU sector), other fuel transformation (solid to liquid, liquid to gaseous, biomass togaseous, biomass to liquid, etc.) not included elsewhere. Important with transparency regarding allocation
between energy and IPPU, suggest an overview table on the types of fuel transformation and where guidanceis provided. Suggested TOC below.
4.3.1 Overview, description of sources
4.3.2 Methodological issues
4.3.2.1 Choice of method (including decision tree)
4.3.2.2 Choice of emission factor
4.3.2.3 Choice of activity data
4.3.2.4 Completeness4.3.2.5 Developing consistent time series
4.3.2.6 Uncertainty assessment
4.3.3 Inventory Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
4.3.4 Reporting and documentation

Chapter 5 Carbon Dioxide Transport, Injection and Geological Storage - No refinement
Chapter 6 Reference Approach - No refinement

20

2.3

BOG 3: TOC for issues on IPPU Sector (Volume 3 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines)

Co-facilitator: Elsa Hatanaka (Japan)
Rapporteur: Deborah Ottinger (USA)The BOG considered 9 issues related to the Chemical industry, Metal industry, Electronics industry andRefrigeration and air conditioning (RAC) (see Annex 3). 3 issues were added by meeting participants (CO2from Aluminium production, PFCs from Textile Industry and PFCs from water-proofing electronic circuit boards).
There are some issues that are not well covered in the current guidance and can be introduced as new. For
example, the 2006 Guidelines do not provide specific guidance for hydrogen production, although Chapter 3.2
Ammonia production (Volume 3, p.3.11) and section on Methanol production (Volume 3, p. 3.58) refer to thesteam reforming process (syngas technology). Also, the production of rare earth elements is not in the 2006
IPCC Guidelines.
The update of emissions factors is relevant to nitric acid production, fluorochemical production, semiconductor
industry. For Iron and Steel there is a need in clarification of the scope of each emission factor (whether if
combustion and fugitive emissions are included), particularly the emission factor for coke.
Aluminium chapter needs a refinement of existing guidance but also elaborating a guidance on “low-voltage
anode effect” PFC emissions and CO2 emissions from carbon-contained materials (see Guidance to authors).
As for RAC, the experts suggested that the user-friendliness of the chapter needs to be increased. It can bedone by adding examples of activity data collection and the distribution of ODS substitutes by application withincountries, adding a box with “recipe”-style guidance on how to launch the ODS substitutes inventory, and further
emphasizing the availability of data from bodies and literature associated with the implementation of theMontreal Protocol.
The issue concerning Magnesium Production was declined because of the absence of sufficient literature.
The proposed TOC on IPPU chapter provided below which was harmonized by TSU to be consistent acrosschapters.

21

Draft TOC 3: Industrial Processes and Product Use
Chapter 1 Introduction - No refinement
Chapter 2 Mineral Industry Emission - No refinement
Chapter 3 Chemical Industry Emissions

3.1 Introduction - No refinement
3.2 Ammonia production - No refinement
3.3 Nitric acid production
Issue: Update guidance on appropriate emission factors to use for dual pressure technologies for Nitric Acid
Production
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 3.3.2.2 and Table 3.3
Type of refinement: Update
Guidance to Authors: Add a new default EF into the Table 3.3 Chapter 3 Volume 3 (p.3.23) to include dualpressure technologies and, if literature is available, potentially other technologies. For examples of dualpressure technology emission factors, refer to 2007 EU IPPC/BAT study on Large Volume Inorganic
Chemicals.
3.4 Adipic acid production - No refinement
3.5 Caprolactam, glyoxal and glyoxylic acid production - No refinement
3.6 Carbide production - No refinement
3.7 Titanium dioxide production - No refinement
3.8 Soda ash production - No refinement
3.9 Petrochemical and carbon black production - No refinement
3.10 Fluorochemical production
Issue: Update guidance and default Tier 1 emission factors for production of fluorinated compounds other than
HCFC-22
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 3.10.2.2Type of refinement: Update/Elaboration
Guidance to Authors:
1. In the Tier 1 method, update the default EF of 0.5 percent, which appears to be a factor of five to ten
smaller than the uncontrolled EFs implied by information gathered from GHG Inventory reports and fromthe US GHG Reporting Program and possibly other countries.
2. In the Tier 3 method, update and elaborate the guidance to reflect two significant emission sources:
a. provide guidance for estimating emissions from equipment leaks in addition to emissions fromprocess vents, andb. update the guidance to reflect the fact that products are emitted in addition to by-products.
3.11 Hydrogen production [New]
Issue: Develop guidance for estimating GHG emissions from hydrogen production
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New Section in Chapter 3 (Next to Section 3.10)
Type of refinement: New guidance
Guidance to Authors: Provide a separate method for hydrogen production, cross-referencing it with the
production of other chemicals (e.g., ammonia) and Energy (refineries). A method is provided in the USEPAGreenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP).

Chapter 4 Metal Industry Emissions

4.1 Introduction - No refinement
4.2 Iron & steel and metallurgical coke production
Issue: Update emission factors for Iron and Steel Production and elaborate methodological guidance.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 4.2.2.3 and Table 4.1
Type of refinement: Update/Elaboration
Guidance to Authors: Update of emission factors for Iron and Steel Production. Provide clarification of thescope of each EF (whether if combustion and fugitive emissions are included), particularly the emission factor
22

for coke. Ensure that emissions categorized consistently between Iron and Steel and Fugitive Emissions
chapter in Energy Sector (especially fuel transformation).
4.3 Ferroalloy production - No refinement
4.4 Primary aluminium production
Issue: Elaborate guidance and emissions factors to incorporate “low-voltage anode effect” PFC emissions andintegrate this guidance into the existing methodology on “high-voltage anode effect” PFC emissions. Update of
the Tier 1 and Tier 2 defaults.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 4.4
Type of refinement: Update/Elaboration
Guidance to Authors:
1. Elaborate the guidance (all Tiers) to include methods and emission factors to estimate emissions fromlow-voltage anode effect (both propagating and non-propagating) PFC emissions.
2. Update the Tier 1 emission factors and Tier 2 default slope factors to reflect recent measurements ofemissions during high-voltage anode effects (may be combined with update number 1 asappropriate)
3. Update uncertainties of default EFs
Issue: Develop a new methodology for the CO2 emissions from the alumina production. Ensuring completenessand avoiding double counting
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New guidance in Section 4.4
Type of refinement: New guidance
Guidance to Authors: World-wide production of alumina is more than 100 mln. tons. There are three types ofalumina production technology used: low-temperature Bayer, high-temperature Bayer, production for nepheline
ore. The process itself has several sources of GHG emissions: lime calcination, bauxites or nepheline sintering
processes for high-temperature Bayer and nepheline with using of carbon contained solutions from the next
processes, Alumina hydrate calcination. Also, some additional processes utilize CO2 emissions:- using a part of CO2 emissions from the sintering process for the carbonization processes to remove Sifrom the pulp
- using of red mud for SO2 and CO2 emissions removal from the high temperature processes removal.
4.5 Magnesium production - No refinement
4.6 Lead production - No refinement
4.7 Zinc production - No refinement
4.8 Rare Earth elements [New]
Issue: Develop a new guidance on GHG emissions (PFCs and CO2) from production of Rare Earth elements
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New Section in Chapter 4 (Next to Section 4.7)
Type of refinement: New guidance
Guidance to Authors: Add a method for estimating PFC and CO2 emissions from production (electrolysis) ofrare earth elements where fluorine-containing solvents are used in the metal bath with carbon anodes. Existingstudies indicate that the PFC emission factors for rare earth elements may be three orders of magnitude higher
than the PFC emission factors for primary aluminium production. It is expected that more literature will beavailable within the next two years. Authors should verify the availability of reliable emission factor
measurements and verify whether the magnitude of emissions justifies the development of new guidance forthis source category.

Chapter 5 Non-Energy Products from Fuels and Solvent use - No refinement
Chapter 6 Electronics Industry Emissions

Issue: Update guidance and default Tier 1 and Tier 2 emission factors for Semiconductor Industry,
improvement of the Tier 3 guidance and elaboration of guidance on generation of by-products from abatement
technologies (CF4 from NF3)
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.2.1 and 6.2.2, and 6.3.1 (uncertainty, to the extent necessary)
Type of refinement: Update/Elaboration/New guidance
Guidance to Authors:
23

1. Update guidance and Tier 1 and 2 default emission factors:
a. to reflect the large set of additional emission factor measurements that came to light during thedevelopment of the U.S. GHG Reporting Program
b. to distinguish between emission factors for 150/200 mm and 300 mm wafer sizes
c. to include additional process types and fluorinated GHGs (as both input gases and by-products)
as well as additional fluorinated heat transfer fluids.
2. Add new guidance and emission factors for emissions of nitrous oxide during vapour deposition andother processes
3. Add new guidance on the generation of by-products from abatement technologies (particularly CF4from NF3), updating default destruction and removal efficiencies in Table 6.6 (and guidance regarding
their use) as appropriate.
4. Elaborate the Tier 3 guidance to define “recipes” (processes used to etch patterns onto semiconductor
devices or to clean chemical vapour deposition chambers) and “similarity” among recipes.
5. Update uncertainty estimates of emission factors in Table 6.9.

Chapter 7 Emissions of Fluorinated Substitutes for Ozone Depleting Substances

7.1 Introduction - No refinement
7.2 Solvents (non-aerosol) - No refinement
7.3 Aerosols (propellants and solvents) - No refinement
7.4 Foam blowing agents - No refinement
7.5 Refrigeration and air conditioning
Issue: Add examples (collection of activity data, distribution of ODS substitutes by application within countries).
Elaborate by adding a box with “recipe-style” guidance on how to launch the ODS substitutes inventory.
Elaborate the reference to Montreal Protocol. Update emission factors by further segregating equipment types,
regions, and time periods where possible.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Sections 7.5.2.1 - for the recipe, 7.5.2.2 - for emission factors, 7.5.2.3 for activity data
Type of refinement: Update/Elaboration
Guidance to Authors: The user-friendliness of the chapter needs to be increased. Suggest adding examples
regarding the collection of activity data and the distribution of ODS substitutes by application within countries,e.g., broadening the set of countries to include developing as well as developed countries. Also suggest adding
a box with “recipe”-style guidance on how to launch the ODS substitutes inventory, and further emphasizing
the availability of data from bodies and literature associated with the implementation of the Montreal Protocol.
Literature is available to support tighter and more disaggregated ranges for emission rates. This literature
consists of NIRs, Montreal Protocol UNEP TEAP/TOC Reports, and Technical studies by particular applications,
European studies, engineering research literature.
7.6 Fire protection - No refinement
7.7 Other applications - No refinement

Chapter 8 Other Product Manufacture and Use

8.1 Introduction - No refinement
8.2 Emissions of SF6 and PFCs from electrical equipment - No refinement
8.3 Use of SF6 and PFCs in other products
Issue 1: Develop guidance for PFCs (GHG) emissions from Textile Industry.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New guidance in Section 8.3
Type of refinement: New guidance
Guidance to Authors: (none)
Issue 2: Develop guidance for PFCs (GHG) emissions from water-proofing electronic circuit boards
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New guidance in Section 8.3
Type of refinement: New guidance
Guidance to Authors: (none)
8.4 N2O from product uses - No refinement24

2.4 BOG 4: TOC for issues on AFOLU Sector (Volume 4 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines)
Co-facilitators: Marcelo Rocha (Brazil) and Stephen Ogle (USA)
Rapporteur: Dominique Blain (Canada)
The group noted that items for the AFOLU could be further disaggregated by topic and to facilitate discussions,the Co-Facilitators further subdivided the AFOLU BOG into 3 sub-BOGs: (i) Agriculture sub-BOG, (ii) Forestry
and Other Land Use – FOLU sub-BOG and (iii) Flooded Lands sub-BOG. The final TOC was made up of theoutputs from each of sub-BOG. The group consensus was that the guidance was largely complete, but did needsome updates based on the feedback from on-line questionnaire survey and previous expert meetings in 2015
and 2016. Therefore, sub-BOG discussions were based on the outcomes of the expert meetings in 2015 and2016 and annotated list of issues prepared by TSU (See Annex 3).

Agriculture Sub-BOG
The agriculture sub-BOG aimed at finalizing any outstanding issues identified during the two expert meetingsin 2015 and 2016, this included bringing into the Methodology report some items that were raised during scoping
meeting or that were initially suggested for the EFBD. The discussion was focused on the issues listed below
for 3A and 3C agriculture categories.

Livestock – 3A
The discussion was focused on the items listed below:











Improvement of parameters based on different feeding strategies for ruminants;
Harmonize manure management systems for CH4 and N2O so that emissions factors for both sources
are based on the same manure management systems (Note: Default factors for Manure CH4 emission
are not currently based on manure management system even though default factors for Manure N2O
are assigned for specific emission factors, which is an inconsistency between the approaches);
Development of the new default MCFs to support countries in producing higher Tier values consistent
with the defaults;
Current guidance on C and N from bedding needs to be consistent with the updated livestock
characterization and therefore additional guidance for higher tiers is necessary, this means that there
is a need to consider carbon from bedding in the VS estimate;
Development/update guidance on how to deal with avoided methane emissions due to biogas
production;
Reconsideration of the methodology of estimating nitrogen excretions;
Development of the MCF factors, N2O estimation of N2O from liquid manure storage based on surface
area of manure storage;
Updated factors for volatilization and leaching of N from manure management systems that does notinclude guidance for all manure management systems;
Improve quality control guidance on livestock emission calculation with discussion of an optional massbalance approach to evaluate the robustness of inventory results.

The discussion points can be summarized as covering the following items which were included in the final TOC:

Livestock and feed Characterization

The BOG considered additional guidance on how to derive a time series of methane conversion rates andcorresponding activity data for dairy cows and other cattle. This means careful analysis on representativenessof feeding strategies for regional and global conditions. The main concern is that different models produce
different methane conversion rates so that guidance on model applications is needed. The group agreed toinclude in the TOC the following:i.

Guidance on improved descriptions of feeding systems,
25

ii.

Development of consistent system for manure management between source categories(regional/climate/stratified) for basic and enhanced characterization for livestock populations.
 Methane emissions from enteric fermentation(i)
Improve parameters based on different feeding strategies for cattle and sheep.
 Methane Emissions from Manure Management(i)
Update methodology, temperature relationships, Tier 1 Emission Factors to be developed forspecific manure management systems and Tier 2 parameters to be updated for different manure
management systems(ii)
Update guidance on how to deal with non-CO2 emissions due to biogas production.


N2O emissions from manure management

The BOG considered the outcomes of the two expert meetings in 2015 and 2016 i.e., based on these outcomesit may useful to re-evaluate and update, if appropriate, the default N excretion rates for applicability in world
regions. Clarify the animal categories (e.g., rabbit values are for mother+children).
Emission factors for N2O: new data available. Current Table 10.21 contains a lot of expert judgement. EFs canbe re-evaluated and updated, if appropriate, with new measured data, in particular for treatment systems. In
addition, the current Table 10.22 and 10.23 does not provide default values for N losses from all manure
management systems, and no guidance about addressing losses of N from systems that are not listed in thetables.
N2O estimation from liquid manure storage based on surface area of manure storage: Surface area isinconsistent with the available activity data in most countries and does not suit for a lower tier method.
The BOG agreed to include the following items in the final TOC:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)

Update N excretion parameters for all livestock categories considering updated livestock
characterization in Section 10.2
Update emission factors for N2O for manure management system descriptions.
Update manure management volatilization and leaching factors with manure management
systems identified in Section 10.2.
Update N losses from manure management systems in Tables 10.22 and 10.23.
Provide text on quality control procedures that use a mass balance approach to evaluate C andN flows through animal management systems.

Agriculture – 3C
Soils
For direct N2O emissions from managed soils the BOG discussed the need to evaluate EF1 and considered
options for stratification/disaggregation (e.g. climate zone). The group took into account that there are a lot of
new high-quality measurements available and stratification by climate zone, such as wet and dry climates, isan option to produce default EF1 values. The BOG also acknowledged that new findings are available to beconsidered in higher Tiers, e.g. simulation model approaches and non-linear N2O response to fertilizers. The
group also considered the need to evaluate emissions factors for indirect N2O, both the amount ofleaching/runoff and volatilization, as well as the indirect emission factor. There was a general consensus that
there is adequate evidence to update defaults with new data, and the elaboration of existing guidance, basedon further disaggregation, specifically for climate factors. It is important to note that the current default nondisaggregated method would be retained because some compilers may not have sufficient data in the country
to disaggregate N management data. Further guidance and case examples could be included for movement tohigher Tiers. Data are also incomplete for estimating N inputs from crop residue in Table 11.2. The groupconcluded that compilers should be able to assign default factors for all crops, which is currently not possible.
At a minimum, values could be provided for assignment to crops that are not listed in the table.
Direct N2O Emissions from Managed Soils (3.C.4):
The BOG agreed to include the following items in the final TOC:
26

(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)

Update N2O EF1, stratification by climate
Update crop parameters for calculating residue quantity and N
Update the EF3 for N applied to soils, pasture, range and paddock by grazing animals
Update emission factor for rice production (N2O)

Indirect N2O emissions (3.C.5)
The BOG agreed to include the following items in the final TOC:(i)

Evaluate emissions factors for indirect N2O, both the amount of leaching/runoff and volatilization,
as well as the indirect emission factor.

Forestry and Other Land Use – FOLU sub-BOG (FOLU) – 3B
This BOG aimed to clarify any outstanding items and considered issues for forest land, cropland and grassland
management activities, wetlands - Flooded land, need to update technical parameters for HWP, genericmethodologies applicable to all land uses categories (Chapter 2) in relation to the biomass, DOM, soils andnon-CO2 emissions and additional guidance on tier 3 methods and use of remote sensing data for consistent
representation of lands (Chapter 3). These discussions were based on issues raised during the expert meetingin 2015 and 2016 and where relevant issues emerging from the scoping meeting. The BOG discussions
focused on the following issues:









•

Updating default values for litter and develop default values for deadwood (Table 2.2, page. 2.27, 2006
IPCC Guidelines);
Updating values for BEF/BCEF, harvest losses and root/shoot ratio, average biomass stocks andaverage biomass increments;
Updating guidance on activity data (including natural disturbances), for land representation to link land
classification system with digital maps (Remote Sensing or GIS data) and also stratified by climate,soil and land use, plus the relevant annexes in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines;
Updating/development of guidance on mineral soils under Cropland, particularly on carbon stockchange factors (Category 3.B.2, CO2);
Updating/development of guidance on mineral soils under Grassland, particularly on carbon stockchange factors (Category 3.B.3, CO2);
Revision of the emission factor for flooded land (Wetlands) and to fully develop a methodology for
estimating CH4 emissions from flooded lands and possible refinement of methodology for estimating
CO2;
Updating default biomass carbon parameters for settlements;
Development of new Tier 2 method for mineral soils that requires less activity data than the current
default method for all land use categories and ensure that soil C stock changes can be addressed for
all land use changes, including changes to and from wetlands for the Tier 1 and 2 methods. The current
method is data intensive and only about 20% of the parties reporting to the UNFCCC have been able
to successfully apply the Tier 1 or higher Tier method. Due the limited reporting, the group advisedthat an alternative Tier 2 method could be developed that would be more country-specific and requireless activity data. However, the current Tier 1 method is valid and should be retained for those parties
that have invested resources and successfully applied the approach;
Updating the relevant technical parameters for HWP, whilst maintaining the existing approaches in the2006 IPCC Guidelines

Flooded land sub-BOG (FOLU) – 3B
The BOG discussed amongst other things “natural” reservoirs (= regulated lakes) used for hydroelectricity
generation that do not have substantial changes in water area in comparison with the pre-flooded ecosystem.
These do not meet the definition of “Flooded Land” in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines although they can be significant
27sources of GHGs and the same methodology can be applied as reservoirs for hydroelectricity that meet thedefinition of “Flooded Land” in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. The group considered the need for clarification on
guidance for treatment of these reservoirs and whether we need to change the definition of “Flooded Land”?
The participants also discussed “net emissions” approach as identified by the 2016 expert meetings, i.e.,(Anthropogenic emissions to be included in the inventory = Post-flood emissions – Pre-flood emissions.).
However, it was considered that this is not consistent with the Managed Land Proxy in the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines (meaning all emissions from managed land should be included in the inventory).
•

In relation to the discussion about “Net emissions” approach, the following were noted.

•
IPCC Inventory Guidelines provide methods to estimate and report national GHG emissions/removals,
but do not deal with “accounting” (= relating to emission reduction commitment).
The BOG also agreed that guidance was needed on the Emissions Pathways/Processes for methane (CH4)
including:•Methane diffusive emissions•

Methane ebullition (bubbles)•

Turbine degassing•

Downstream degassing (after the dam)•

Rooted emergent vegetation/macrophytes•

Emissions from Draw-down landParticipants identified the need for refinement of methane emission factors for flooded land (dams, ditches/canal
networks, aquaculture ponds) and development of a methodology for estimating methane emissions.
The BOG also agreed that additional guidance on Emissions Pathways/Processes for CO2 was needed for thefollowing:•

Diffusive flux•

CO2 in bubbles•

OM burial (sediment)•

Downstream degassing•

Draw-down land emissions

Participants identified the need for a methodology for estimating CO2 emissions (dams, ditches/canal networks,
aquaculture ponds)
The BOG agreed to include the following items in the final TOC:
i.
ii.
iii.

Update CO2 emission factors for land converted to flooded land (Wetlands) and fully develop a
consistent methodology for estimating CO2 and CH4 emissions from flooded lands (both land
converted to flooded land and flooded land remaining flooded land);Clarify that section 7.5 on future methodological development of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines is no longer
relevant;
Develop guidance to implement new Tier 2 method for mineral soils that requires less activity data
than the current default method, taking into consideration Chapter 5 of the 2013 Supplement to the2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands. The current method isdata intensive and only about 20% of the parties reporting to the UNFCCC have been able tosuccessfully apply the Tier 1 or higher Tier method. Due the limited reporting, the group advised thatan alternative Tier 2 method could be developed that would be more country-specific and require lessactivity data. However, the current Tier 1 method is valid and should be retained for those parties thathave invested resources and successfully applied the approach.

28

The draft TOC prepared by the group is presented at the final plenary session on Day 3 and the meeting agreed
to the draft TOC proposed by the BOG. It was also agreed that further work is required to harmonize andintegrate the outputs from each BOG as well as to reflect discussion at the final plenary. The harmonized final
draft TOC for the AFOLU sector is given below.

29

Draft TOC 4: AFOLU Sector
Chapter 1

Introduction - No refinement

Chapter 2

Generic Methodologies Applicable to Multiple Land-use Categories

2.1
2.2
2.3
2.3.1

Introduction - No refinement
Inventory framework - No refinement
Generic methods for CO2 emissions and removals
Change in biomass carbon stocks (above-ground biomass and below-ground biomass)

Issue 1: Develop guidance on the use of allometric equations for biomass estimation
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New Subsection in Section 2.3.1
Type of refinement: New guidance
Guidance to Authors: Authors should refer to the Annotated List of Issues. In addition, authors should consider
approaches based on individual tree and stand level allometric equations, including considering validation.
Issue 2: Develop guidance on how to use biomass density (amount per unit area) maps generated from remotesensing data for biomass estimation
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New Subsection in Section 2.3.1
Type of refinement: New guidance
Guidance to Authors: This is a new issue that was not identified in previous expert meetings. Authors should
pay special attention to issues related to time series consistency
2.3.2 Change in carbon stocks in dead organic matter
Issue 1: Update default values for litter stocks and develop default values for deadwood stocks
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 2.3.2.1, IPCC default values for litter and dead wood (Table 2.2),
Type of refinement: Update/Elaboration
Guidance to Authors (optional): Authors should refer to the Annotated List of Issues
Issue 2: Develop equation 2.18 for estimating DOMout and associated default values
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 2.3.2.1, IPCC default values for litter and dead wood (Table 2.2)
Type of refinement: Elaboration
Guidance to Authors: Authors should refer to the Annotated List of Issues
2.3.3 Change in carbon stocks in soils
Issue 1: Update reference carbon stocks.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 2.3.3.1, Table 2.3
Type of refinement: Update
Guidance to Authors (optional): Revise soil reference C stocks working with ISRIC andtheir Guidelines global database on soil pedons. Issue raised during Scoping Meeting,discussed at Sao Paolo expert meeting.
Issue 2: Develop new Tier 2 method for mineral soils that requires less activity data than the current default
methodLocation in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New guidance in Section 2.3.3.1
Type of refinement: New guidance
Guidance to Authors (optional): An approach is proposed in the meeting material from the expert meeting
held in Wollongong which can be a starting point for the development of the method (See presentation by S.
Ogle Guidelines). The proposed method uses crop yield data as a basis for estimating carbon input incroplands, along with NPP data for grasslands, forestland, wetlands and settlements. The proposed method
then estimates a steady-state carbon stock based on the three-pool carbon model originally developed in theCentury Model (equations are provided in Ogle Guidelines, S.M., A. Swan and K. Paustian. 2012. No-till
management impacts on crop productivity, carbon input and soil carbon sequestration. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment 149:37-49). The method requires an estimate of carbon input from organic
30

amendments, tillage data and irrigation data. Consider Table with defaults for C:N ratios and lignin contents forcrops and other vegetation. Soil texture and mean climate data are also needed. Consider linkages with deadorganic matter methods. Methodology should be compared against Tier 1 methodology and results provided
in a box. Refer to annotated list of issues, FOLU, Issue #4.
Issue 3: Elaborate Tier 3 Methodologies with case study examples for soils.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Tier 3 methods, Section 2.3.3.1,
Type of refinement: Elaboration
Guidance to Authors (optional): Further elaboration on Tier 3 methods for soil C with case study examples
in a Box based on parties who have developed Tier 3 methods with model-based assessments.
2.4 Non-CO2 emissions
Issue: Replace defaults for cropland mass of fuel with crop residue estimation method in Chapter 11 for soil
N2O method to ensure consistency in the calculation of residues between the two categories, and provide abasis to estimate mass of fuel for all crops instead of just the 4 crops listed in Table 2.4.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 2.4, Table 2.4
Type of refinement: Update
Guidance to Authors (optional): The goal is to make the calculation of residue amounts, consistent between
the soil N2O and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions from biomass burning. Minor updates may also be needed
to Table 11.2. New issue raised by scoping meeting experts.
2.5 Additional generic guidance for Tier 3 methods
Issue 1: Provide guidance on how to address inter-annual variability
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Chapter 2.5
Type of refinement: Elaboration
Guidance to Authors: This is a new issue that was not identified in previous expert meetings. This relates tothe discussion on managed land as a proxy. Authors should consider any relevant information, including suchinformation contained in previous IPCC methodological reports published after the 2006 Guidelines.
Issue 2: Elaborate guidance on the use of Tier 3 methods
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2
Type of refinement: Elaboration
Guidance to Authors: Authors should consider, for example, category-specific issues, how to parameterize
and evaluate Tier 3 models, the integration of data to models, and means to increase transparency. Include
case studies demonstrating how parties have developed and worked with Tier 3 methods including models.
Authors should also note the information contained in previous IPCC Expert Meeting reports.

Chapter 3

Consistent Representation of Lands

3.1
Introduction - No refinement
3.2
Land-use categories - No refinement
3.3
Representing land-use areas
Issue: Develop guidance on how remotely sensed data, ground based data, and ancillary data can be
integrated and used to derive consistent time series estimates of land use and land-use change
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 3.3 and Annex 3A.1 and 3A.2
Type of refinement: Update/Elaboration/New guidance
Guidance to Authors: Authors should address the following issues:i) How to integrate and use national and global data, products and tools for land use representationii) How to derive IPCC land-use categories, including sub-stratification, using national and/or global
land classificationiii) Identification and tracking land-use change and disturbances, including how to deal with theseasonal nature of specific land-use categories, how to distinguish temporary forest losses fromland-use change conversion, and monitoring regrowthiv) Validating activity data and estimation of uncertainties, including the appropriate use of referencedatav) Consistency between projects or activities (e.g. REDD+) and IPCC inventory guidelines31

For further background information, authors should refer to the Annotated List of Issues from theWollongong Expert Meeting, such as the references related to the GFOI MGD.
3.4
Matching land areas with factors for estimating greenhouse gas emissions and removals
Issue: Provide guidance on how to use methodologies within different methodological tiers in combination withdifferent approaches for land representation
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New Subsection in Section 3.4
Type of refinement: New guidance
Guidance to Authors: Authors should address, inter alia, the application of the stock difference method for
estimating carbon stock changes using activity data from different land representation approaches (e.g. as has
been addressed in formulation A and B for SOC in mineral soils, in Boxes 2.1 and 2.2 in 2006 IPCC Guidelines).
3.5

Uncertainties associated with the Approaches - No refinement

Annex 3A.1 Examples of International land cover datasets(See the above issue under Section 3.3)

Annex 3A.2 Development of land-use databases(See the above issue under Section 3.3)

Chapter 4

Forest Land

4.1 Introduction - No refinement
4.2 Forest Land Remaining Forest Land4.2.1 Biomass - No refinement
4.2.2 Dead organic matter - No refinement
4.2.3 Soil carbon
Issue 1: Update carbon stock change factors.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 4.2.3.2
Type of refinement: Update
Guidance to Authors (optional): Recommend re-evaluation of the time periods over which the stock changes
occur with the land use change factors. In particular, there needs to be updates to factors for tropical regions
for land use change. Changes occur more rapidly when soils are more intensively managed with land usechange and there is net carbon loss, such as conversion of from forest into crop production. In contrast,
changes occur more slowly when more intensively managed soils are converted back to less intensively land
uses. See Table 5.3 in the 2013 Wetlands Supplement (Chapter 5, Page 5.13) for an example of different time
dynamics for the land use factor between losses of carbon with drainage and more intensive managementcompared to restoration of wetland soils that gain carbon. Refer to meeting scoping annotated list of issues(categories 3B).
Issue 2: Provide guidance and develop new Tier 2 method for mineral soils that requires less activity data thanthe current default method
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New guidance in Section 4.2.3
Type of refinement: New guidance
Guidance to Authors (optional): Include parameters and activity data needs specific to forest lands in thissection. Consider linkages with dead organic matter methods. Refer to annotated list of issues, FOLU Issue #4.
4.2.4

Non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions from biomass burning - No refinement

4.3

Land Converted to Forest Land
(All issues for Section 4.2 above apply to this Section similarly.)

4.4
Completeness, time series, QA/QC, and reporting and documentation
Issue: Develop guidance on how to ensure methodological consistency of time series, such as through the useof age class structure data
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 4.4.2 on time series consistency
32

Type of refinement: Elaboration
Guidance to Authors: This is a new issue that was not identified in previous expert meetings. Authors should
consider any relevant information, including such information contained in previous IPCC methodologicalreports published after the 2006 IPCC Guidelines
4.5 Tables
Issue: Update values for BEF/BCEF and root/shoot ratio, average biomass stocks, and average biomass
increments
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Tables 4.4, 4.5, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11A and 4.11B, 4.12
Type of refinement: Update/Elaboration
Guidance to Authors: Authors should refer to the Annotated List of Issues, noting that for Harvest losses,
biomass expansion factors need to be mindful of the units in which harvest is reported (e.g. volume over- or
under-bark). (Update/Elaboration text in Box 4.2, page 4.13-4.14). For BEF/BCEF authors to refer to Section
2.3.1, on generic methodologies applicable to all land uses

Chapter 5

Cropland5.1 Introduction - No refinement
5.2 Cropland Remaining Cropland5.2.1 Biomass
Issue: Update default biomass carbon parameters.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 5.2.1.2, Tables 5.1, 5.2, 5.3
Type of refinement: Update
Guidance to Authors (optional): Issue initially identified as an EFDB improvement, elevated to methodology
report during scoping meeting. Refer to co-chair summary of Sao Paulo meeting.
5.2.2 Dead organic matter - No refinement
5.2.3 Soil carbon
Issue 1: Update carbon stock change factors.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 5.2.3.2, Table 5.5Type of refinement: Update
Guidance to Authors (optional): Management factors for tillage are a priority for the update, but othermanagement, input and land use factors should be evaluated. In addition, there needs to be updates to factors
for tropical regions for land use change and management. Recommend re-evaluation of the time periods overwhich the stock changes occur with the land use change factors. Changes occur more rapidly when soils are
more intensively managed with land use change and there is net carbon loss, such as conversion of from forest
or grassland into crop production. In contrast, changes occur more slowly when more intensively managed
soils are converted back to less intensively land uses. See Table 5.3 in the 2013 Wetlands Supplement(Chapter 5, Page 5.13) for an example of different time dynamics for the land use factor between losses ofcarbon with drainage and more intensive management compared to restoration of wetland soils that gain carbon.
(Refer to annotated list of issues.
Issue 2: Develop new Tier 2 method for mineral soils that requires less activity data than the current default
methodLocation in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New guidance in Section 5.2.3
Type of refinement: New guidance
Guidance to Authors (optional): Include parameters and activity data needs specific to croplands in thissection. Consider linkages with dead organic matter methods. Refer to annotated list of issues, FOLU Issue #4.
5.2.4 Non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions from biomass burning - No refinement
5.3 Land Converted to Cropland(All issues for Section 5.2 above apply to this Section similarly.)
5.4 Completeness, time series, QA/QC, and reporting - No refinement
5.5 Methane emissions from rice cultivation
Issue: Develop regionally specific default EFs
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 5.5.2, Tables 5.11 to 5.14,
33

Type of refinement: Update
Guidance to Authors (optional): Provide emission and scaling factors for other practices and regions of theworld, beyond the current values for Asia, based on literature review and analysis of available data, including
studies from North, South America, and Africa to the extent that data are available. Update values for Asia if
there is enough new literature and uncertainties are reduced. Issue raised during Scoping Meeting based on
information from Sao Paolo expert meeting – elevated from EFDB to Methodology Report.

Annex 5A.1 Estimation of default stock change factors for mineral soil C emissions/removals
for cropland(See the above issues under Section 5.2.3.)

Chapter 6

Grassland

6.1 Introduction - No refinement
6.2 Grassland Remaining Grassland
6.2.1 Biomass
Issue: Update default biomass carbon parameters.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.2.1.2, Table 6.1
Type of refinement: Update
Guidance to Authors (optional): Issue initially identified as an EFDB improvement, elevated to methodology
report during scoping meeting. Refer to co-chair summary of Sao Paulo meeting.
6.2.2 Dead organic matter - No refinement
6.2.3 Soil carbon
Issue 1: Update carbon stock change factors.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.2.3.2, Table 6.2
Type of refinement: Update
Guidance to Authors (optional): Update management, input and land use factors. Recommend re-evaluationof the time periods over which the stock changes occur with the land use change factors. There needs to be
updates to factors for tropical regions for land use change and management. Changes occur more rapidly
when soils are more intensively managed with land use change and there is net carbon loss, such as conversionof from forest or grassland into crop production. In contrast, changes occur more slowly when more intensively
managed soils are converted back to less intensively land uses. See Table 5.3 in the 2013 Wetlands
Supplement (Chapter 5, Page 5.13) for an example of different time dynamics for the land use factor between
losses of carbon with drainage and more intensive management compared to restoration of wetland soils thatgain carbon. Refer to scoping meeting annotated list of issues. ISSUE #5 (Category 3B).
Issue 2: Develop new Tier 2 method for mineral soils that requires less activity data than the current default
methodLocation in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New guidance in Section 6.2.3
Type of refinement: New guidance
Guidance to Authors (optional): Include parameters and activity data needs specific to grasslands in thissection. Consider linkages with dead organic matter methods. Refer to annotated list of issues. Refer to scoping
meeting annotated list of issues. (Category 3B).
6.2.4

Non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions from biomass burning - No refinement

6.3

Land Converted to Grassland(All Issues for section 6.2 above apply to this Section similarly.)

6.4

Completeness, time series, QA/QC, and reporting - No refinement

Annex 6A.1
Estimation of default stock change factors for mineral soil C emissions/removals forgrassland(See the above issues under Section 6.2.3.)
34

Chapter 7

Wetlands

7.1
Introduction - No refinement
7.2
Managed peatlands - No refinement
7.3
Flooded Land
Issue: Update CO2 emission factors for land converted to flooded land (Wetlands) and fully develop a consistentmethodology for estimating CO2 and CH4 emissions from flooded lands (both land converted to flooded land
and flooded land remaining flooded land).
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 7.3 and associated good practice guidance in Section 7.4, andAppendices 2 and 3; also relevant to Chapter 2, Section 2.3 (Generic Methodologies for CO2 emissions andremovals).
Type of refinement: New guidance/Update
Guidance to Authors: Additional information to be considered by authors:
 Flooded lands are water bodies where human activities have caused substantial changes in surface
area; including water bodies used for energy production, flood control, water storage, irrigation,navigation, recreation; they also include:o other impounded water bodies and farm pondso run-of-the-river systems with substantial changes in water retention time, stratification,
occurrence of hypoxia or other factors affecting methane and CO2 emissions.
 Rice paddies are addressed in the Agriculture Chapter of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
 N2O is considered elsewhere Excludes re-wetting of previously drained wetlands covered in 2013 Wetlands Supplement
Pathways for Methane and CO2 emissions to be considered: Diffusive emissions
 Ebullition (bubbles) And, if sufficient scientific knowledge exists,o Downstream degassing (after the dam)o Rooted emergent vegetation/macrophyteso Emissions from draw‐down zones
Possible Modifiers for different-tier methodologies:
 Latitude/temperature
 Age of reservoir
 Eutrophication (characterization of runoff) Catchment characteristics
 Soil type (carbon characteristics)
 Reservoir morphology
 Phytoplankton growth Sedimentation
 C delivery from the catchment
 Photomineralization
 Vegetation/macrophytes Water level management
7.4

Completeness, time series consistency, and QA/QC - No refinement

7.5
Future methodological development
Issue: Clarify that this section of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines is no longer relevant
Location in the 2006 Guidelines: Section 7.5
Type of refinement: Elaboration
Guidance to Authors: Clarify that this section of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines is no longer relevant
7. X.

Additional guidance on Tier 2 method for mineral soils [New]35

Issue: Develop guidance to implement new Tier 2 method for mineral soils that requires less activity data thanthe current default method, taking into consideration Chapter 5 of the 2013 Wetland Supplement to the 2006
IPCC Guidelines: Wetlands.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New Section in Chapter 7 (Between Sections 7.3 and 7.4)
Type of refinement: New guidance
Guidance to authors: The current method is data intensive and only about 20% of the parties reporting to the
UNFCCC have been able to successfully apply the Tier 1 or higher Tier method. Due the limited reporting, thegroup advised that an alternative Tier 2 method could be developed that would be more country-specific andrequire less activity data. However, the current Tier 1 method is valid and should be retained for those parties
that have invested resources and successfully applied the approach.

Chapter 8

Settlements

8.1 Introduction - No refinement
8.2 Settlements Remaining Settlements
8.2.1 Biomass
Issue: Update default biomass carbon parameters.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 8.2.1.2,
Type of refinement: Update
Guidance to Authors (optional): New issue identified during scoping meeting.
8.2.2 Dead organic matter - No refinement
8.2.3 Soil carbon
Issue: Develop new Tier 2 method for mineral soils that requires less activity data than the current default
methodLocation in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New guidance in Section 8.2.3
Type of refinement: New guidance
Guidance to Authors (optional): Include parameters and activity data needs specific to settlements in thissection. Consider linkages with dead organic matter methods. Refer to scoping meeting annotated list of issues.
(Category 3B).
8.3 Land Converted to Settlements(All Issues for section 8.2 above apply to this Section similarly)
8.4 Completeness, time series consistency, QA/QC and reporting - No refinement
8.5
Basis for future methodological development
Issue: Clarify the elements in this section of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines that are no longer relevant
Location in the 2006 Guidelines: Section 8.5
Type of refinement: Elaboration
Guidance to Authors: Clarify the elements in this section of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines that are no longer
relevant

Chapter 9

Other Land

9.1 Introduction - No refinement
9.2 Other Land Remaining Other Land - No refinement
9.3 Land Converted to Other Land9.3.1 Biomass - No refinement
9.3.2 Dead organic matter - No refinement
9.3.3 Soil carbon
Issue: Develop new Tier 2 method for mineral soils that requires less activity data than the current default
methodLocation in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New guidance in Section 9.3.3
Type of refinement: New guidance36

Guidance to Authors (optional): Include parameters and activity data needs specific to Other Lands in thissection. Consider linkages with dead organic matter methods. Refer to scoping meeting annotated list of issues.
(Category 3B).
9.4

Completeness, time series, QA/QC and reporting - No refinement

Chapter 10

Emissions from Livestock and Manure Management

10.1 Introduction - No refinement
10.2 Livestock population and feed characterisation
Issue 1: Update Section 10.2.2 to include guidance on improved description of feeding systems
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 10.2.2Type of refinement: Update
Guidance to Authors (optional): Authors to consider feed quantity and quality related to gradient from
intensive high productivity systems to lower productivity systems stratified by region and/or climate. Thisdisaggregation in feed quantity and quality descriptions will improve the specification of the Tier 1 emission
factors and Tier 2 models. Refer to annotated list of issues, related to Issue 1, AFOLU.
Issue 2: Develop consistent system descriptions for manure management between source categories(regionally/climatically stratified) for basic and enhanced characterisation for livestock populations
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 10.2.2Type of refinement: Update
Guidance to Authors (optional): Authors to establish consistent relationship between livestock category,
production system and manure management system, consideration of regional variation in management
systems, Tables 10.14, 10.17, 10.21, 10.22, 10A.2. Refer to annotated list of issues, AFOLU, Issue #2 and #4
and considering issue raised in scoping meeting related to inconsistencies in manure management systems
predicting N2O emissions and other N loss, relative to methane.
10.3
Methane emissions from enteric fermentation
Issue: Improve parameters based on different feeding strategies for cattle and sheep.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 10.3.2, Table 10.11 and Table 10.12
Type of refinement: Update
Guidance to Authors (optional): Authors to consider variation in parameters (particularly the methane
conversion rate (Ym) with variation in feed by productivity and region/climate. For non-ruminants, it is important
to improve relationship between productivity and enteric/manure parameters, ensuring consistency between
enteric emissions, volatile solid excretion and N excretion. Refer to annotated list of issues, AFOLU, Issue #1.
Refer to scoping meeting annotated list of issues. (Category 3A and 3C).
10.4
Methane emissions from manure management
Issue 1: Update methodology, temperature relationships, Tier 1 Emission Factors and Tier 2 parameters fordifferent manure management systems
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 10.4.2
Type of refinement: Update
Guidance to Authors (optional): Revise emission factors for specific manure management systems insteadof region specific and temperature ranges as presented in current table. Authors to consider the validity of all
aspects of the Tier 1 and 2 methodologies relative to new literature including volatile solids calculations and B0.
An entirely new approach could be developed based on estimating volatile solids for the number of livestockand then applying the emission factor by management systems, similar to manure management N2O. Assurealignment between Enteric Fermentation parameters and the emission approach. Refer to annotated list ofissues, Issue #2, AFOLU.
Issue 2: Update guidance on how to deal with non-CO2 emissions due to biogas production.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 10.4.2, Table 10.17
Type of refinement: Update
Guidance to Authors (optional): Authors to consider the robustness of all aspects of the Tier 1 and 2
methodologies relative to new studies. A new approach should consider fugitive emissions, digestate storage
37

and housing emissions. Authors should consider cross-cutting issues with Waste and Energy (e.g. fugitive
emissions from the distribution and transmission of biogas and non-CO2 emissions from combustion). Authors
to consider whether available scientific evidence can support the development of a method to estimate N2O
emissions from biogas production in particular storage and spreading of digestate. Refer to scoping meeting
annotated list of issues (3A&3C)
10.5
N2O emissions from manure management
Issue 1: Update N excretion parameters for all livestock categories considering updated livestock
characterization in Section 10.2.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 10.5.2
Type of refinement: Update
Guidance to Authors (optional): Authors should consider consistency between livestock characterization andwith enteric fermentation, volatile solid production and nitrogen excretion and productivity levels. Refer toannotated list of issues, AFOLU, Issue #4. New issue, not in annotated list of issues: Authors should consider
a Tier 2 methodology for N excretion for swine and poultry.
Issue 2: Update emission factors for N2O for manure management system descriptions.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 10.5.2, Table 10.21
Type of refinement: Update
Guidance to Authors (optional): Authors should establish consistency between livestock characterization andwith enteric fermentation, volatile solid production and nitrogen excretion. Authors to consider the robustnessof all aspects of the methodology relative to new studies. Refer to annotated list of issues, AFOLU, Issue #4.
Issue 3: Update manure management volatilization and leaching factors with manure management systems
identified in Section 10.2.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 10.5.4, Tables 10.22 and 10.23,
Type of refinement: Update
Guidance to Authors (optional): Authors to consider the consistency with other elements of livestock
production, values should be reviewed in consideration of the EMEP methodologies and parameters as well.
New issue identified during scoping meeting: not in Annotated List of issues
Issue 4: Provide text on quality control procedures that use a mass balance approach to evaluate C and N
flows through animal management systems.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 10.5.6
Type of refinement: Elaboration
Guidance to Authors (optional): Authors to provide additional guidance on quality control on livestock andmanure systems based on N and C flows. New issue raised at scoping meeting.

Chapter 11 N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea
Application
11.1 Introduction - No refinement
11.2 N2O emissions from managed soils
11.2.1 Direct N2O emissions
Issue 1: Update N2O EF1, stratification by climate
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 11.2.1.2, Table 11.1
Type of refinement: Update
Guidance to Authors (optional): Authors consider retaining aggregated emission factor but adding
disaggregated EFs by climate, analogous to water management scaling factors for rice cultivation (refer toannotated list of issues, AFOLU, Issue #5, presentation from Wollongong meeting, S. Ogle).
Issue 2: Update crop parameters for calculating residue quantity and N.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 11.2.1.4, Table 11.2
Type of refinement: Update
38

Guidance to Authors (optional): Consider expanding crops and a general default for crops not listed in tables
currently, to be used for soil N2O and crop residue burning. New issue identified during scoping meeting: not in
Annotated List of issues
Issue 3: Update the EF3 for N applied to soils, pasture, range and paddock by grazing animals.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 11.2.1, Table 11.1
Type of refinement: Update
Guidance to Authors (optional): Recent literature suggests that current value is too high, see Annotated list,
AFOLU Issue #6.
Issue 4: Update emission factor for rice production (N2O)
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 11.2, Table 11.1
Type of refinement: Update
Guidance to Authors (optional): Literature review and refinement of existing factors based on recent
publications, need factors for alternate wet/dry cycles. See Annotated list, Issue 8, AFOLU.
11.2.2 Indirect N2O emissions
Issue: Evaluate emissions factors for indirect N2O, both the amount of leaching/runoff and volatilization, as wellas the indirect emission factor.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 11.2.2, Table 11.3
Type of refinement: Update
Guidance to Authors (optional): See Annotated list, Issue #7 AFOLU. Note to authors, if there is not adequate
evidence to reduce the uncertainty in the emission factor, the emission factors should not change.
11.2.3 Completeness, Time series, QA/QC - No refinement
11.3
CO2 emissions from liming - No refinement
11.4
CO2 emissions from urea fertilization - No refinement
Annex 11A.1

Chapter 12

References for crop residue data in Table 11.2 - No refinement

Harvested Wood Products (HWP)

Issue 1: Update the relevant technical parameters, maintaining the existing approaches in the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Chapter 12
Type of refinement: Update
Guidance to Authors: This is an issue that was not proposed for refinement in previous expert meetings.
Authors shall retain all approaches in 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Authors should reflect the implications of the
choice of the HWP approach, in particular when HWP are used in the Energy sector and imports and exports
are involved, noting that the authors of the Energy sector should make a reference in section 2.3.3.4 of the
Chapter X of Volume 2. Authors should consider any relevant information, including such information containedin IPCC methodological reports published after the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Further refinements may benecessary pending the results of SBSTA46.

39

2.5 BOG 5: TOC for issues on Waste Sector (Volume 5 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines)
Co-facilitators: Deborah Bartram (USA) and Retno Gumilang Dewi (Indonesia)
Rapporteur: Anke Herold (Germany)
The BOG discussion focused on the issues to be included in the draft TOC based on the annotated list of issues(see Annex 3) prepared by TFI TSU. The annotated list includes the issues identified for a Methodology
Report(s) at technical assessment meeting held in Geneva in 2015 and summarizes outcomes of the technicalassessment meeting.
In addition to the issues included in the annotated list, the group also identified some new issues which need
to be addressed in the Methodology Report(s) such as update of default data on waste composition and waste
generation, elaboration of first order decay (FOD) method taken into account active aeration of landfills,
elaboration of EFs from waste incineration related to new technologies and update of oxidation factors for open
burning of MSW.
The draft TOC prepared by the group is presented at the final plenary session on Day 3 and the participants
agreed to the draft TOC proposed by the BOG5. It was also agreed that further work is required to harmonize
and integrate the outputs from each BOG as well as to reflect discussion at the final plenary. The harmonized
final draft TOC for Waste sector is given below.

40

Draft TOC 5: Waste Sector
Chapter 1

Introduction - No refinement

Chapter 2

Waste Generation, Composition and Management Data

2.1 Introduction - No refinement
2.2 Waste generation and management data
Issue: Update default data on Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) generation and management
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 2.2.1, Table 2.1
Type of refinement: Update
Guidance to Authors: Waste generation rates are subject to change with waste policies implemented. Authors
should compare the waste generation rates reported in countries' GHG inventories with default data and update
Table 2.1, if this comparison indicates significant differences to the default data. In this exercise, authors shouldtake care of whether the reported figures refer to MSW generation or MSW collection.
2.3 Waste composition
Issue 1: Update default data on MSW composition data
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 2.3.1, Table 2.3
Type of refinement: Update
Guidance to Authors: Waste composition is subject to change with waste policies implemented. Authors
should compare the information reported in countries' GHG inventories with default composition data andupdate Table 2.1 if this comparison indicates significant differences to the default data.
Issue 2: Add information on nitrogen (N) content, Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) or Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD) of sludge
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New guidance in Section 2.3.2
Type of refinement: New guidance
Guidance to Authors: Add information on N content, BOD or COD of sludge for sludge from domestic andindustrial wastewater. If such information can be provided for sludge from industrial wastewater, the categories
of industries with relevant N loads should be consistent with the wastewater chapter and this information could
be referenced in the wastewater chapter. Highlight to agriculture experts.

Annex 2A.1

Waste Generation and Management Data - by country and regional averages

Chapter 3

Solid Waste Disposal

Issue: Update default data on MSW generation and management
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Table 2A.1
Type of refinement: Update
Guidance to Authors: Waste generation rates are subject to change with waste policies implemented. Authors
should compare the waste generation rates reported in countries' GHG inventories with default data and update
Table 2.1 if this comparison indicates significant differences to the default data. In this exercise, authors shouldtake care of whether the reported figures refer to MSW generation or MSW collection. References: update withall new references used

3.1 Introduction - No refinement
3.2 Methodological issues
Issue 1: Elaborate on the First Order Decay (FOD) method taking into account active aeration of landfills
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New guidance in Section 3.2.1.1
Type of refinement: New guidance
Guidance to Authors: A number of countries use active aeration or aerobic stabilization of managed landfills
at large scale as abatement measure (e.g. Germany and other European countries). Through aeration oflandfills anaerobic decomposition of organic matter is replaced by fast aerobic decomposition which reduces
Degradable Organic Carbon (DOC) available for anaerobic decomposition and intensive monitoring
programmes have been conducted (e.g. Rettenberger et al. 2015). Active aeration has also been approved as
method for Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects. A section should be added to the methodological41

description of the FOD method for this specific technology that elaborates how the equations presented in
Section 3.2.1.1 could be modified to take into account active aeration of landfills.
Issue 2: Elaborate on default DOC which decomposes (DOCf) values for different waste components
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 3.2.3 (Fraction of degradable organic carbon which decomposes(DOCf))
Type of refinement: Elaboration
Guidance to Authors: 2006 IPCC Guidelines state that higher tier methodologies (Tier 2 or 3) can also use
separate DOCf values defined for specific waste components. A number of countries use DOCf values
separated to waste components (e.g. Australia, Finland) and report on underlying research and more scientificresearch is available. Authors should develop a table with default values for DOCf based on waste components
as a further elaboration of Tier 1 FOD method for those countries that have waste composition data which are
based on representative sampling and analyses. It is not the intention to replace the default DOCf value of 0.5
3.3 Use of measurement in the estimation of CH4 emissions from solid waste disposal site (SWDS) No refinement
3.4 Carbon stored in SWDS - No refeinement
3.5 Completeness - No refeinement
3.6 Developing a consistent time series - No refeinement
3.7 Uncertainty assessment
Issue: Update uncertainty for DOCf values
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 3.7.2
Type of refinement: Update
Guidance to Authors: In line with changes suggested related to DOCf, authors should check and potentially
update the information related to the uncertainty of the default DOCf value of 0.5.
3.8 QA/QC, reporting and documentation - No refinement

Annex 3A.1 First Order Decay Model - No refinement
Chapter 4

Biological Treatment of Solid Waste - No refinement

Chapter 5

Incineration and Open Burning of Waste

5.1 Introduction - No refinement
5.2 Methodological issues - No refinement
5.3 Choice of activity data - No refinement
5.4 Choice of emission factors
Issue 1: Update oxidation factors for open burning of MSW
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 5.4.1, Table 5.2 (Oxidation factor for open burning of MSW)
Type of refinement: Update/Elaboration
Guidance to Authors: Recent inventory submissions in particular from development countries could be asource of data to update the oxidation factor for open burning of MSW. The current factor is based on expert
judgement; thus it would be preferable if either scientific sources or sources from countries could be identified
to check the expert judgement provided in 2006 IPCC Guidelines
Issue 2: Elaborate on EF for CH4 from incineration related to new technologies gasification, pyrolysis, andplasma technology)
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 5.4.2, Table 5.3
Type of refinement: Elaboration
Guidance to Authors: New technologies (gasification, pyrolysis, and plasma technology) are available which
are not represented in the current list of technologies in Table 5.3
Issue 3: Elaborate on EF for N2O from incineration related to new technologies (e.g. gasification, pyrolysis, andplasma technology)
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section, 5.4.3, Table 5.4
42Type of refinement: Elaboration
Guidance to Authors: New technologies (gasification, pyrolysis, and plasma technology) are available which
are not represented in the current list of technologies in Table 5.4
5.5 Completeness - No refinement
5.6
Developing a consistent time series - No refinement
5.7
Uncertainty assessment - No refinement
5.8
QA/QC, reporting and documentation - No refinement

Chapter 6

Wastewater Treatment and Discharge

6.1 Introduction
Issue 1: Update introduction language to reflect current understanding of CH4 and N2O emissions fromwastewater treatment.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.1
Type of refinement: Elaboration
Guidance to Authors: Discuss increased use of centralized systems with both aerobic and anaerobic zones,
acknowledgement of methane generation in sewer systems, use of different types of septic systems, andevaluation of other updates (e.g., constructed wetlands supplement). Add sentence to discuss ability of systems
to generate methane even if the average national temperature is below 15oC. Provide additional discussion of
the variability of temperatures throughout the year, and the difference between ambient and systemtemperature (e.g., underground, heated).
Issue 2: Update Figure 6.1 and Table 6.1 to reflect additional types of treatment and disposal systems, suchas aerobic/anaerobic treatment systems (e.g., anaerobic/anoxic/oxic (A2O), nitrification/denitrification, etc.) andconstructed wetlands, as well as various types of septic systems (e.g., bottomless systems).
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.1
Type of refinement: Elaboration
Guidance to Authors: Update Figure 6.1 and Table 6.1 to reflect updates made in this methodology report (tobe shaded) and also to note the relationship to Chapter 6 of the 2013 Wetlands Supplement.
Issue 3: Discuss updates/changes from 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.1.1
Guidance to Authors: Describe changes compared to 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Discuss use of this methodology
report, in conjunction with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and 2013 Wetlands Supplement. Discuss relation of thisreport to other sectors, as needed.
6.2 Methane emissions from wastewater
6.2.1 Methodological issues
6.2.2 Domestic wastewater
Issue 1: Update Section 6.2.2.1. Some inventory compilers are misinterpreting Equation 6.1 and combining
zero emissions from aerobic systems with recovered methane from sludge digestion, but missing the step ofcalculating emissions from sludge digestion.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.2.2.1
Type of refinement: Update
Guidance to Authors: Need to lay out the equation into multiple parts to better account for methane emissions
from each type of wastewater treatment system and/or sludge management, including proper accounting of
methane recovered. Suggest breakout of Equation 6.1 to be by type of treatment system, or at a minimum
break out the equation for sludge treatment separately.
Issue 2: Develop new Methane Correction Factors (MCFs) to reflect treatment processes that may be a
combination of aerobic and anaerobic or anoxic zones (e.g., anaerobic/anoxic/oxic (A2O), modified LudzackEttinger (MLE), etc.).
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.2.2.2Type of refinement: Update
43

Guidance to Authors: This is intended to apply to countries applying a Tier 2 or 3 methodology. Add discussion
to 2nd paragraph of Section 6.2.2.2 to discuss that it is good practice to use process-specific MCFs for thesetypes of systems.
Issue 3: Consider the development of new MCFs to reflect different types of septic system (e.g., bottomless)and also to consider the effect of temperature on the MCF.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.2.2.2Type of refinement: Potential update
Guidance to Authors: At a minimum, re-evaluate the use of MCF=0.5 in Table 6.3 for “septic systems”
because it already is accounting for sludge recovery. Should this MCF be higher and account for sludge
separately as shown in Equation 6.1.
Issue 4: Elaborate guidance on what systems are classified as “not well managed”/overloaded for centralized
aerobic treatment plants.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.2.2.2Type of refinement: Elaboration
Guidance to Authors: Provide further discussion and guidance on how to evaluate whether a system should
be classified as “not well managed” or “overloaded.” Are there specific characteristics that can be defined for“not well managed” and for “overloaded” systems, and to provide discussion on this topic?
Issue 5: Provide guidance on estimating emissions from septic systems that are connected to larger centralized
treatment plants.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.2.2.2Type of refinement: Elaboration
Guidance to Authors: Add some discussion to specify that emissions from septic system that are connectedto large centralized treatment plants should be estimated separately and included in the emissions estimate.
Issue 6: Determine whether methane emissions from treated effluent should be included, particularly thatdischarged to stagnant water or overloaded receiving waters.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.2.2.2Type of refinement: Update
Guidance to Authors: It is believed that main driver for methane emissions from treated effluent discharged
would be the conditions of the receiving waters and whether there is likelihood of anaerobic conditions being
present, or high organic loadings in the receiving waters. Table 6.3 could be amended to include a column
reflecting the BOD removal by type of treatment system to assist inventory compilers in estimating BOD in theeffluent.
Issue 7: Provide guidance on the origin of the (maximum CH4 producing capacity) Bo values presented in thechapter.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.2.2.2Type of refinement: Update
Guidance to Authors: Check original reference and describe how values were derived. Further information
why Bo values should be checked are included in Geugen et al. 2016.
6.2.3 Industrial wastewater
Issue 1: Develop new MCFs to reflect treatment processes that may be a combination of aerobic and anaerobic
or anoxic zones (e.g., anaerobic/anoxic/oxic (A2O), modified Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE), etc.).
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.2.3.2
Type of refinement: Update
Guidance to Authors: This is intended to apply to countries applying a Tier 2 or 3 methodology. Add discussion
to 2nd paragraph of Section 6.2.3.2 to discuss that it is good practice to use process-specific MCFs for thesetypes of systems
Issue 2: Elaborate guidance on what systems are classified as “not well managed”/overloaded for centralized
aerobic treatment plants
44

Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.2.3.2
Type of refinement: Elaboration
Guidance to Authors: Provide further discussion and guidance on how to evaluate whether a system should
be classified as “not well managed” or “overloaded.” Are there specific characteristics that can be defined for“not well managed” and for “overloaded” systems, and to provide discussion on this topic?
Issue 3: Determine whether methane emissions from treated effluent should be included, particularly thatdischarged to stagnant water or overloaded receiving waters.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.2.3.2
Type of refinement: Update
Guidance to Authors: It is believed that main driver for methane emissions from treated effluent discharged
would be the conditions of the receiving waters and whether there is likelihood of anaerobic conditions being
present, or high organic loadings in the receiving waters. Table 6.8 could be amended to include a column
reflecting the BOD removal by type of treatment system to assist inventory compilers in estimating BOD in theeffluent.
Issue 4: Update uncertainty tables to include new EFs and AD
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.2.3.5
Type of refinement: Update/Elaboration
Guidance to Authors: The uncertainty section should reflect any updates of emission factors and activity datasuggested in the chapter.
6.3 Nitrous oxide emissions from wastewater
6.3.1 Methodological issues
Issue 1: Address “indirect” emissions and how this terminology interacts with Chapter 7.3, Volume 1 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.3.1.1
Type of refinement: Elaboration
Guidance to Authors: Check and assess the consistency of the use of the term ‘indirect’ with the guidance
provided on indirect emissions in the cross-cutting volume in Chapter 7.3, Volume 1 and discuss alternative
terminology if not consistent.
Issue 2: Add discussion on the latest research related to how N2O is formed and emitted in treatment system
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.3.1.1
Type of refinement: Elaboration
Guidance to Authors: Add discussion on the latest research related to how N2O is formed and emitted intreatment system (see background document from Geneva meeting and related presentations), not just related
to direct emissions from nitrification and denitrification systems and ensure consistency with Tables 6.1 and 6.3.
Issue 3: Consider introducing Tier 1 and Tier 2 methods, similar to the CH4 section.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.3.1.1
Type of refinement: Update
Guidance to Authors: Consider introducing Tier 1 and Tier 2 methods, similar to the CH4 section, where Tier
1 uses the default values/calculations in the document (including addition of emissions from plants) and Tier 2
represents country-specific emissions estimates. Consider adding a decision tree.
Issue 4: Correct EF for nitrification/denitrification and develop N2O emission factors for additional treatment
system configurations (aerobic/anaerobic/anoxic systems) as well as activated sludge systems.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.3.1.2
Type of refinement: Update/Elaboration
Guidance to Authors: The existing EF for nitrification/denitrification systems provided in Box 6.1 is based on
measurements from a traditional activated sludge plant and does not represent nitrification/denitrification
systems. Therefore, this EF should be removed from the guidance. Geneva assessment meeting discussed
references that measure N2O from various types of treatment systems, and therefore provides material that45

forms a starting point for the development of EFs for additional treatment systems and activated sludge systems.
Box 6.1 may be replaced by a table with EFs within Section 6.3.1.2
Issue 5: Add EF for septic systems.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New guidance in Section 6.3.1.2
Type of refinement: New guidance
Guidance to Authors: Geneva assessment meeting provided material that allows the development of an EF
for septic tanks
Issue 6: Update text regarding N (influent) to make consistent with Table 6.11.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.3.1.3
Type of refinement: Elaboration
Guidance to Authors: Text should differentiate consistent with Table 6.11 between countries with and without
garbage disposal and not between developed and developing countries
Issue 7: Clarify Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) data in relation to protein supplied vs protein
consumed
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.3.1.3
Type of refinement: Elaboration/Update
Guidance to Authors: Note that FAO data provides protein supplied and not protein consumed as required in
the method. Develop additional guidance how FAO data on protein supplied could be adjusted to reflect protein
consumption.
Issue 8: Addition of N2O emission calculation for centralized plants and septic systems
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Sections 6.3.1.3/6.3.1.1
Type of refinement: Update
Guidance to Authors: Box 6.1 discussing N2O from plants is located in this section, but consider whether it
would be better placed in Section 6.3.1.1. In either case, suggest developing a new section to estimate N2O
from centralized plants and septic systems, with different N2O EFs for different types of systems (see Section
6.3.1.2 for EFs).
Issue 9: Improve the calculation of Neffluent
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.3.1.3
Type of refinement: Update/Elaboration
Guidance to Authors: For calculation of Neffluent, need to fully address losses of N through the system prior
to discharge (including air emissions and sludge). Suggest that a table of default N removal factors could be
prepared for each type of wastewater treatment system to assist developers in estimating N effluent (whereNeffluent = Ninfluent * % removal N). Equation 6.8 should be refined to reflect these new factors. One potential
way of improvement could be refining Equation 6.8 to calculate Ninfluent and Neffluent by type of system.
Issue 10: Addition of N2O from industrial wastewater
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New guidance in Sections 6.3.1.1 and 6.3.1.3
Type of refinement: New guidance
Guidance to Authors: Consider adding estimation of N2O emissions from industrial wastewater for thoseindustrial wastewater sources that have high N loads. Suggest that a table of default values of N in different
industrial wastewater could be developed to estimate N entering the treatment systems, and the N2O emission
factors developed for domestic water could be applied here. Information from Table 6.6 in 2013 Wetlands
Supplement should be considered in this regard.
6.3.2 Time series consistency - No refinement
6.3.3 Uncertainties
Issue: Update uncertainty tables to include new EFs and AD
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.3.3
Type of refinement: Update/Elaboration46

Guidance to Authors: The uncertainty section should reflect any updates of emission factors and activity datasuggested in the chapter.
6.3.4 QA/QC, completeness, reporting and documentation - No refinement473. Conclusions
The scoping meeting, was focused on production of the outline of a new methodology report(s) in accordancewith the Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work which contains the procedures for the preparation,
review, acceptance, adoption, approval and publication of IPCC reports. The background of this work is thetechnical assessment of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines which was carried out by the IPCC TFI during 2014-2016(based on around 1000 comments from more than 240 experts and 4 expert meetings with more than 230
participants). During the process of technical assessment, a list of issues which need refinement by means of
production of a new methodology report(s) was identified.
As the 26th meeting of the IPCC TFB concluded, the 2006 IPCC Guidelines provide a technically soundmethodological basis of national greenhouse gas inventories and its fundamental revision is unnecessary. The
refinement work will not revise the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, but will update, supplement and/or elaborate the2006 Guidelines. A new Methodology Report(s) will not replace the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, but will be used inconjunction with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
The scoping meeting concluded to recommend the following to the TFB which is also the recommendation to
the IPCC Panel:

The title of the Methodology Report should be “2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories” (2019 Refinement).



The format should be one single Methodology Report comprising an Overview Chapter and five
volumes following the format of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines:
Overview Chapter
Volume 1: General Guidance and Reporting
Volume 2: Energy
Volume 3: Industrial Processes and Product Use
Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use
Volume 5: Waste

Draft outline or the draft TOC of 2019 Refinement should be as presented in Annex 4 and the draft
TOR including the Work plan and Instructions to Experts and Authors – as presented in Annex 2.

The draft TOC is focused on particular issues and covers only certain areas of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. For
each issue a type of refinement is specified as well as a location in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (section,subsection, table, etc., where it is possible). However, the following two principles need to be noted:-

Authors should develop modifications even for those Chapters/Sections/Subsections where No
refinement is indicated in the draft table of contents, if deemed necessary to ensure consistency withthe refinements made in the other Chapters/Sections/Subsections.
Authors may conclude No refinement should be made even for the Chapters/Sections/Subsections
where refinement is expected in the draft table of contents, after comprehensive review of available
literature.

The TOR is based on decisions of the IPCC-43 in Nairobi, Kenya, and TORs of the previous IPCC TFI
Methodology Reports (2006 IPCC Guidelines, 2013 Wetlands Supplement and 2013 KP Supplement. The Work
Plan also follows the decisions of the IPCC-43 and the Strategic Planning Schedule of IPCC AR6 cycle withthe aim to produce a new Methodology Report in 2019.
These recommendations and documents will constitute the basis of the TFI proposal to the IPCC-44.
48

Annex 1: Agenda of the scoping meeting (agreed at the beginning of the meeting)

9:00 - 9:30

Registration

9:30 - 10:00

Welcome Address

10:00 – 10:30

1. Dr. Andrei Kovkhuto, the Minister of the Natural Resources andEnvironmental Protection of the Republic of Belarus
2. TFI Co-Chairs
Photo session
Coffee break for Press interview / informal dialogue among Co-chairs, the Government
guests, Participants, Journalists

10:30 - 13:00

MondayPlenary session (Presentations followed by Q&A and discussion)
1.

Introduction (background and objectives of the meeting)2.

Decisions taken at IPCC-43 and proposal for IPCC-44

3.

Procedures for the preparation, review, acceptance, approval, adoption
and publication of IPCC reports

4.

Technical Assessment of IPCC Inventory Guidelines (survey, experts
meetings and outcomes):
Cross-sectoral issues
Sectoral issues

29 August

5. Expected outcome of the Scoping Meeting:
−
−
−
−
−
−

Recommendation on the format of the Methodology Report(s)Draft terms of reference (TOR)
Draft table of contents (TOC)
Draft work plan
Draft instructions to authors
Any other recommendations

Discussions:Format of the Methodology Report(s)Key questions to be considered at this meeting (consistency acrosschapters, significant difference of EFs, etc.)

13:00 - 14:30

Lunch break

14:30 – 16:00

Plenary session (continuation)
Formation of break-out groups (BOGs). The BOG formation provisionallysuggested by TSU:

49

BOG1: TOC for cross-sectoral issues (Volume . 1 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines)
BOG2: TOC for issues on Energy Sector (Volume . 2 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines)
BOG3: TOC for issues on IPPU Sector (Volume. 3 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines)
BOG4: TOC for issues on AFOLU Sector (Volume . 4 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines)
BOG5: TOC for issues on Waste Sector (Volume . 5 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines)(BOG formation depends on the result of discussion on the format of MR(s).
Some BOGs may wish to split into sub-BOGs. Other BOG(s) may be considerednecessary in addition to these 5 BOGs)
16:20 – 18:00

Break-out Group (BOG) session
Each BOG will consider draft TOC as well as the following:

09:00 - 10:00

 Issues that need to be addressed in the draft TOR
 Issues that need to be addressed in the draft instructions to authors Any other issues for discussion at the plenary
Plenary session
Discussion on cross-BOG issues that have arisen during the BOG session:

10:00 – 13:00

 Issues that need to be addressed in the draft TOR
 Issues that need to be addressed in the draft instructions to authors Any other issues for discussion at the plenary
BOG session (continuation from Day 1)
Each BOG will consider draft TOC as well as the following:

Tuesday
30 August

13:00 - 14:30

 Issues that need to be addressed in the draft TOR
 Issues that need to be addressed in the draft instructions to authors Any other issues for discussion at the plenary
Lunch break

14:30 - 17:00

BOG session (continuation)
Each BOG will consider draft TOC as well as the following:Issues that need to be addressed in the draft TOR
Issues that need to be addressed in the draft instructions to authors
Any other issues for discussion at the plenary

A small group will revise the draft TOR and draft instructions to authors inparallel to this BOG session.
17:00 – 18:00

Plenary session
Discussion on cross-BOG issues that have arisen during the BOG session:Issues that need to be addressed in the draft TOR
Issues that need to be addressed in the draft instructions to authors
Any other issues for discussion at the plenary50

If this plenary discussion is not considered necessary, BOG session willcontinue.
09:00 - 13:00

BOG session (continuation from Day 2)
Each BOG will consider draft TOC as well as the following:

A small group will revise the draft TOR and draft instructions to authors inparallel to this BOG session.

Wednesday
31 AugustIssues that need to be addressed in the draft TOR
Issues that need to be addressed in the draft instructions to authors
Any other issues for discussion at the plenary

13:00 - 14:30

Lunch break

14:30 – 17:30

Plenary session (Discussion based on reports from BOGs & wrap-up)






Presentation of draft TOC from each BOG
Presentation of draft TOR, draft instructions to authors, and draft work plan
Discussion
Wrap-up discussion to agree on recommendations to Task Force Bureau
Closing remarks

Coffee break: 11:00 – 11:20 and 16:00 – 16:20 every day

51

Annex 2: Draft Terms of Reference (TOR), including Work Plan and Instructions to Experts andAuthors
Draft Terms of Reference
for the production of a Methodology Report to Refine the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories

Background

1. The 26th Meeting of Task Force Bureau (TFB) (28 - 29 August 2014, Ottawa) concluded that:- The 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2006 IPCC Guidelines)
provide a technically sound methodological basis of national greenhouse gas inventories, andtherefore fundamental revision is unnecessary.
-

To maintain the scientific validity of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, certain refinements may berequired, taking into account scientific and other technical advances that have matured sufficiently
since 2006.

2. Following these conclusions by the TFB and approval by the IPCC at its 40th Session, the Task Forceon National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (TFI) started a technical assessment of IPCC Inventory
Guidelines through an on-line questionnaire survey and four expert meetings in 2015 and 2016. The
technical assessment revealed that there has been abundant new scientific and empirical knowledge
published since 2006 which the IPCC should take into account, particularly with respect to data foremission factor development for some categories and gases. Consequently, the necessity andusefulness of refining the current methodological guidance (e.g. updating default emission factors) has
been recognized by TFB.
3. A refinement of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines is required as early as possible in order to address theissues that were identified through the technical assessment referred to in paragraph 2 above. The
refinement will help all UNFCCC Parties use good practice inventory methodologies based on up-todate scientific knowledge.

Scope

4. The IPCC at its 43rd Session (11-13 April 2016, Nairobi) approved the proposal on “Refinement of2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, including production of a
Methodology Report(s)” as contained in the Decision IPCC/XLIII-8 “Update of methodologies on
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories”, and decided to consider the draft Methodology Report(s) at a
Plenary session of the IPCC in May 2019 as contained in the Decision IPCC/XLIII-7 “Sixth Assessment
Report (AR6) Products. Strategic Planning”.
5. The overall aim of the refinement of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines is to provide an updated and soundscientific basis for supporting the preparation and continuous improvement of national greenhousegas inventories.
6. In order to achieve the overall aim, the Methodology Report will:-

Provide supplementary methodologies for sources or sinks of greenhouse gases only where
currently there are gaps or where new technologies and production processes have emerged
requiring elaborated methodologies or for sources or sinks that are not well covered by the 2006
IPCC Guidelines;
52

-Provide updated default values of emission factors and other parameters based on the latest
available science only where significant differences from currently adopted factors are identified;
Provide additional or alternative up-to-date information and guidance, where possible, as
clarification or elaboration of existing guidance in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

7. In line with paragraph 6 above, the Methodology Report will clearly indicate what type of refinement isprovided in each section. The types of refinement are defined in Annex 1. These terms should be
used consistently throughout the Methodology Report.
8. For the purpose of elaborating on and clarifying the existing IPCC guidance, the Methodology Report
should aim to address any important needs for clarification arising from GHG inventory reviews or thetechnical analysis of inventories as part of biennial update reports under the UNFCCC if such needs
are identified in time during the elaboration of the report.
9. The refinement work will not revise the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, but will update, supplement and/or
elaborate the 2006 IPCC Guidelines where gaps or out-of-date science have been identified. The
Methodology Report will not replace the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, but will be used in conjunction withthe 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

Approach

10. The result of this work will be an IPCC Methodology Report “2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories”.
11. The authors will follow Annex 2 “Instructions to Experts and Authors” to ensure a consistent andcoherent approach across all the volumes or chapters, including the use of common terminology.
12. Literature will be considered up to a cut-off date at the start of the Government/Expert Review.
13. Table 1 provides the time table for this task.

53

Annex 2 Continued: Table 1: Work Plan
Date
October 2016

ActionComments
IPCC Plenary approves TOR, chapter outline, work plan and guidance to authors

February 2017

IPCC-44
Call for Nomination of Authors and Review
Editors
TFB select Authors and Review Editors

June 2017

1st Lead Author Meetings

September 2017

2nd Lead Author Meeting

December 2017– January 2018

Expert Review

March 2018

Science Meeting

April 2018

3rd Lead Author Meeting

8 weeks review by experts
A small meeting of CLAs and some LAs to discuss specific issues that require
intensive discussion to reinforce the writing process.
To consider comments and produce second order draft for review

xxx 2018

Literature cut-off date

Only papers published before this date will be considered

July-August 2018

Government & Expert Review

8 weeks review by governments and experts

October 2018

4th Lead Author Meeting

January 2019

Government Review

May 2019

Adoption/acceptance by IPCC-49

To consider comments and produce final draft
Distribute to governments for their consideration prior to approval (at least 4 weeks
prior to the Panel)
Final draft submitted to IPCC Panel for adoption/acceptancexxx 2019

Distribute Report

Distribute to governments and international organizations

November 2016

IPCC invites nominations from governments and international organizations
Selection by TFB considering expertise and geographical coverage
LAM1a (non-AFOLU) and LAM1b (AFOLU) and LAM1c (General Guidance andReporting). To develop zero order draft
To develop first order draft for review

54Annex 2 Continued: Types of refinement
The following three refinement types should be indicated in the refined sections of the Methodology Report.
1. UpdateThis is to update existing guidance (table, section, or an entire chapter) toaddress the needs explained in the first or second bullet under paragraph 6
in this TOR. New elements that do not change default approaches in theexisting guidance is considered “update”. A typical example is to provide newdefault values for EFs contained in a table in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, andin this case it is considered “Update of Table X.X (on default EFs)”.
Update of section or entire chapter is to rewrite an existing section or chapter
including existing information and new information in the case it is difficult toprovide only the new information without overlap with existing guidance.
From the inventory compiler’s view point, “update” of existing guidancemeans that they are encouraged to use the table/section/chapter in the new
Methodology Report instead of the corresponding table/section/chapter inthe 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

2. Elaboration

This is to elaborate existing guidance to address the needs explained in thefirst or third bullet under paragraph 6 in this TOR.
New elements that may be added to default approaches in the existingguidance is considered “elaboration”. Also, additional or alternative up-todate information and guidance provided to clarify existing guidance isconsidered “elaboration”. A typical example is to include the contents in
FAQs in TFI website in the new Methodology Report(s).
Elaboration of section or entire chapter is NOT to rewrite an existing section
or chapter, but to provide a sub-section or section which contains additionalor alternative up-to-date information without overlap with existing guidance.
From the inventory compiler’s view point, “elaboration” of existing guidancemeans that they are encouraged to use the table/section/chapter in the new
Methodology Report in conjunction with the corresponding
table/section/chapter in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

3. New guidanceThis is to add completely new guidance on issues for which there isessentially no guidance in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines to address the needs
explained in the first bullet under paragraph 6 in this TOR.
Creation of default approaches to issues that are not well covered in the2006 IPCC Guidelines is considered “new guidance”.
From the inventory compiler’s view point, “new guidance” means that they
are encouraged to use the section/chapter in the new Methodology Report
without reference to specific sections/chapters in the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines, recognizing that there is essentially no corresponding guidancein the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

Besides, “No refinement” should indicate that no refinement has been made in that section.
55

Annex 2 continued: Instructions to Experts and Authors
1. Work on a Methodology Report to refine the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2006
IPCC Guidelines) will be guided by the IPCC procedures for the Preparation, Review, Acceptance, Adoption, Approvaland Publication of the IPCC Reports (Appendix A to the Principles Governing the IPCC Work7). This document is
consistent with the IPCC procedures, and applies to all experts engaged in the production of a new Methodology Report.
2. In this document the term “experts” covers Co-Chairs, members of the TFI Bureau (TFB), TSU Staff, Coordinating Lead
Authors (CLAs), Lead Authors (LAs), and Review Editors (REs) as well as Contributing Authors (CAs) and Expert
Reviewers.
3. These notes are intended as guidance to experts contributing to a new Methodology Report. They are intended toensure a consistent and coherent approach across all the volumes or chapters and to promote common terms used.
Confidentiality
4. Authors meetings are closed meetings. Any discussions are confidential except for any published report of the meeting.
This is to ensure that experts participating in the meetings can express themselves and discuss issues freely andopenly.
5. The IPCC considers the drafts of a new Methodology Report, prior to acceptance, to be pre-decisional, provided inconfidence to reviewers, and not for public distribution, quotation or citation.
6. The TSU will keep drafts of a new Methodology Report sent for the IPCC review, any comments received on them andthe responses by authors. All written expert and government review comments will be made available to reviewers onrequest. These will be made available on the IPCC website as soon as possible after the acceptance by the Panel andthe finalisation of the report.
Conflict of Interest
7. It is important that all experts involved in the IPCC activities avoid any conflict of interest or the direct and substantial
appearance of a conflict of interest. It is recognised that many experts in Emission Inventories are employed by, or
funded by, parties with some interest in the outcome (e.g. most inventory compilers are funded by national governments
or industry). It is therefore important to be open and transparent about financial and other interests.
8. The IPCC implements a Conflict of Interest (COI) Policy 8 9 that applies to all individuals directly involved in the
preparation of IPCC reports, including senior IPCC leadership (IPCC Chair and Vice-Chairs), other Bureau and Task
Force Bureau members, authors with responsibilities for report content (CLAs, LAs), Review Editors and staff of theTechnical Support Units. The overall purpose of this policy is to protect the legitimacy, integrity, trust, and credibility of
the IPCC and of those directly involved in the preparation of reports, and its activities.
9. Before an individual is appointed as a CLA, LA and RE for a new Methodology Report, the TFB will request the individual
to complete a Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form (“the COI Form”) contained in Annex B to the COI Policy which will
be submitted to the TFI TSU. The TFB will then evaluate the form to determine whether the individual has a conflict ofinterest that cannot be resolved.
10. All CLAs, LAs and REs will inform the TFI TSU annually of any changes in the information provided in their previously
submitted COI Form. The TFB will evaluate the revised information.
11. All COI Forms and any records of the deliberations of the COI Expert Advisory Group, deliberations and/or decisionsof the COI Committee in relation to conflict of interest issues in respect of specific individuals and any information
disclosed by individuals for the purposes of the COI Policy will be transferred to the Secretariat after they have beenreviewed and will be securely archived by the Secretariat and retained for a period of five years after the end of theassessment cycle during which the relevant individual contributed, after which the information will be destroyed. Subject
to requirement to notify the existence of a conflict of interest to others, the information referred to above will beconsidered confidential and will not be used for any purpose other than consideration of conflict of interest issues underthese Implementation Procedures without the express consent of the individual providing the information.

7 http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a-final.pdf
8 http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-conflict-of-interest.pdf
9 The IPCC COI Policy including the COI Form is currently being reviewed and may be revised at the 44th Session of the IPCC in Bangkok, Thailand, on 17-20

October 2016. If it is revised at that session of the IPCC, paragraphs 8-11 of this document will be revised accordingly.

56

Responsibilities of authors and other experts
12. The role of authors is to impartially assess ALL the available literature and to describe the best methodologies available.
Experts should be impartial. Authors should review all literature available up to a cut-off date to be decided by the TFB
as part of the agreed work plan.
13. After drafting the report authors will be asked to consider all comments received on the drafts and to adjust and revise
the text accordingly. They should document their responses. If they do not accept a comment this should be explained.
Review Editors should check whether the accepted changes were fully incorporated in the revised text.
14. Responsibilities and duties of authors and other experts are currently explained in more detail in the IPCC proceduresfor the Preparation, Review, Acceptance, Adoption, Approval and Publication of the IPCC Reports (Appendix A to the
Principles Governing the IPCC Work).
Literature
15. The use of literature should be open and transparent. In the drafting process, emphasis is to be placed on the assuranceof the quality of all cited literature. Priority should be given to peer-reviewed scientific, technical and socio-economic
literature if available.
16. It is recognized that other sources provide crucial information for IPCC Reports. These sources may include reports
from governments, industry, and research institutions, international and other organizations, or conference proceedings.
Use of this literature brings with it an extra responsibility for the author teams to ensure the quality and validity of citedsources and information. In general, newspapers and magazines are not valid sources of scientific information. Blogs,
social networking sites, and broadcast media are not acceptable sources of information for IPCC Reports. Personalcommunications of scientific results are also not acceptable sources.
17. For any sources written in a language other than English, an executive summary or abstract in English is required.
18. All sources will be integrated into a reference section of an IPCC Report.
19. For more details of the procedure on the use of literature in IPCC Reports, see Annex 2 to the IPCC procedures for
the Preparation, Review, Acceptance, Adoption, Approval and Publication of the IPCC Reports (Appendix A to the
Principles Governing the IPCC Work).
Principles of the new Methodology Report
20. Guidance in the new Methodology Report should be understandable and easy to implement. Lead authors shouldmake efforts to balance the need to produce a comprehensive self-contained report with reasonable limits to the lengthand detail of the guidance. In particular:
a. The guidance should follow a cookbook approach by providing clear step by step instructions. It should not try
to be a textbook. Detailed background information on emission processes, scientific studies, etc. is generally
referenced rather than included.
b. Lead authors must consider all recent scientific developments and national methods used by countries in theirinventories.
c.

Significant changes from the 2006 IPCC Guidelines will have significant implications for all countries. Parties
to the UNFCCC use the IPCC Guidelines to prepare national inventories and national communications.
Substantial changes should only be introduced if they can be justified on sound scientific and technicalgrounds.

d. Authors should bear in mind that the target audience is a diverse group of readers who are primarily concernedwith the elaboration of national inventories. For this reason, the emphasis should be on ensuring clear
communication of practical and understandable guidance.
21. This work aims to cover all IPCC inventory sectors but only those categories where the science is considered to havesufficiently advanced since the 2006 or where new or additional guidance is required, namely the categories that wereselected through technical assessment carried out in 2015 and 2016 and the Scoping Meeting held in August 2016using the significance and prioritization criteria as shown below. However, authors should also develop modifications
for other parts of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines if deemed necessary to achieve consistency with the refinements mandated
by the IPCC Plenary. On the other hand, authors may conclude no refinement should be made even for the categories
that were selected through the process mentioned above, after comprehensive review of available literature.
57

Significance and prioritization criteria


Significance of the source/sink and the gas within the sector on a global scale. Sources significant only
for a limited number of particular countries, currently or in the foreseeable future, may not meet thiscriterion. The adequacy of the existing guidance for a particular category should be considered, asshould the likelihood that new information would lead to a definite improvement in the IPCC Guidelines.

Availability of relevant new scientific results.



Sufficient data availability and maturity of scientific advances since 2006 to provide a basis formethodological development or refinement, including:oAbility to develop new or updated default emission/removal factorsoFeasibility of obtaining the necessary data to implement the methods

Emergence of new sources or gases meeting these criteria

22. The new Methodology Report will cover the same greenhouse gases and precursors as included in the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines.
23. The general structure, approach and definitions used in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, such as tiered approach anddecision trees will be followed. Annexes may be used where necessary to contain additional data to support themethodologies, although large numbers of annexes will probably not be necessary. Appendices are not ruled out wherescientific knowledge is insufficient for countries to agree full methodologies, but please avoid as far as possible workon areas that have to be relegated to an appendix. Appendices should be sub-titled by “Basis for future methodologicaldevelopment”.
Reporting Tables and worksheets
24. Refinement of worksheets and reporting tables may be required. Worksheets reflect the application of tier 1 methods
only, due to the varied implementation of higher tier methods by countries. Lead authors should stress the importanceof documentation and archiving of particular types of information of relevance to each category, although advice may
be given of what needs to be reported for transparency at higher Tiers.
Emission factors and methods
25. Authors should provide default emission factors. In doing this work, they should draw on the widest possible range ofavailable literature, including the IPCC Emission Factor Database (EFDB), scientific articles and country reports.
26. All new default data should be evaluated for scientific and technical appropriateness, and their development should beclearly described and referenced. The attached form (Appendix 1) should be used as the means for documenting data
and the derivation procedure which will also facilitate future integration of the EFDB and the archiving of the derivation.
Lead authors should be familiar with the draft cross-cutting guidance on data collection in Volume 1 and the guidanceon cross-cutting issues in this note on terms, data types, data demands of methods and stratification requirements.
Default data should also meet the EFDB evaluation criteria – robustness, documentation, and applicability.
27. Authors should develop guidance to provide additional information on rationale, references and background information
on parameters used for estimating of default values where such information is available (similar to Annex 3A.3 ofWetlands Supplement), with a view to enhancing the transparency and applicability of default values presented in the
new Methodology Report.
28. Single IPCC default factors might not be ideal for any one country, but they can be recommended provided that regional
factors are unavailable, and the defaults are representative of typical conditions as far as can be determined. It may
be necessary or appropriate to provide a range of default factors along with clear guidance about how countries should
select from within the range. Lead authors may also provide multiple default emission factors, disaggregated by region,
technology, or another classification scheme (e.g., livestock type),
29. It is important to provide more default emission factors that reflect the unique conditions of developing countries. Default
emission factors for Tier 1 should represent emissions without category-specific mitigation measures.
30. Users of the guidelines should be encouraged to develop and use country specific data. Emission factors for higher
tiers need not be specified in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Default information is included primarily to provide users with58

a starting point from which they can develop their own national assumptions and data. Indeed, national assumptions
and data are always preferred because the default assumptions and data may not always be appropriate for specificnational contexts.
31. The basic principle concerning national methods will continue to apply – countries are encouraged to use national dataor methods so long as they are consistent with the IPCC Guidelines.

Decision trees
32. Consistent with the format and structure the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, the new Methodology Report may contain adecision tree for some sub-categories to assist countries in selecting from the IPCC methods. These decision trees link
the choice of IPCC methods to national circumstances via specific questions about data availability and status as a key
source category10.
33. To ensure consistency in decision tree logic and format across categories, lead authors should adhere to the following
requirements:
a. The decision trees should be based on a series of questions with clear yes/no answers, and two subsequent
branches along yes/no paths.
b. The decision trees should start with assessing data availability for the highest tier method, and then direct
countries step-wise towards lower tier methods if activity data, emission factors or other parameters are notavailable.
c. The decision tree should indicate the lowest tier method that is judged to be appropriate for estimating
emissions/removals from a key category.
d. If data are not available for the method referred to in 3, the ‘No’ response should direct the reader to thequestion “Is this a key category?” If the answer to this is ‘Yes’, the decision tree should recommend that thecountry collect the necessary data to implement a higher tier method. If the answer is ‘No’, then the decision
tree can recommend a lower tier method. There is no need to deal with the case for a key source where acountry does not have the resources to gather additional data needed to implement higher Tier methods. Thisis dealt with in Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
e. The branches of the decision trees should end in ‘out-boxes’ that correspond to specific tiers identified in theguidance for that category and are labelled by Tier. Lead authors may also recommend out-boxes for hybridtiers.
f. Lead authors may develop separate decision trees for different sub-categories. Alternatively, they may include
decision tree options for selecting different tiers for different sub-categories. This second option is appropriate
if it is advantageous to recommend a higher tier method only for significant sub-categories rather than for theentire category. Decision trees that use the ‘significance’ criterion must include the “25-30% rule” (i.e.,a significant sub-category is one that makes up more than 25-30% of emissions/removals from acategory).
34. Additional Formatting Guidelines (see example):a. Decision trees should be drafted in separate Microsoft Word files. The TSU will integrate these files into themain text at a later date.
b. Decision trees should NOT ask the question: “Does this source occur in the country?” This is because decision
trees will only be used for sources which occur.
c.

There should be a “START” box.

d. “Diamonds” should be used for questions/decisions.
e. “Squares” should be used for all other information.
f.

The out-boxes should be individually numbered.

g. The text font should be Times New Roman 10pt.
h. Text should be centred within the boxes.
10 The most appropriate choice of estimation method (or tier) may also depend on national circumstances, including the availability of resources and advice on thiswill be given in the cross-cutting volume.

59

Decision tree to estimate CO 2 –C and N 2 O emissions from Peatlands Remaining Peatlands
Start

Is detailed
information available onland conversion for peat extraction,
extraction methods, peat use, fertility,
and on-site
emissions?

Yes

Estimate emissions using
country-specificmethodology andemission factors (Tier 3).
Box 4: Tier 3NoAre
historicaland current data
available on the area of managed
peatlands and on peat
production?

Yes

Were
domestic studies
done on GHG emissions/removals on industrial
peatlands?

Yes

Estimate emissions
using default method
and country-specificdata (Tier2).
Box 3: Tier 2

No
No

Are
managed peatlands
a key category1?

Yes

Collect or compile historicaland current data from the national
peat industry, government
agency, or from the International
Peat Society

Estimate emissions
using default method
and emission factors
and national activity
data (Tier1).
Box 2: Tier 1

No
Estimate emissions
using default emission
factors and activity data
(Tier 1).
Box 1: Tier 1

Note:
1: See Volume 1 Chapter 4, "Methodological Choice and Identification of Key Categories" (noting Section 4.1.2 on limited resources), for
discussion of key categories and use of decision trees.

IPCC Emission Factor Database (EFDB)
35. The EFDB is an important resource for this work, both as a source of emission factors for consideration by the LAs andas a repository of emission factors once agreed for use in the guidelines.
36. The new Methodology Report may contain Tier 1 methods and the corresponding default emission factors (once theguidelines are approved by the IPCC, the default emission factors cannot change). These defaults need to be recorded
in to the EFDB, either because they are already there, or they will have to be entered as a result of the process ofdeveloping the Methodology Report. Preferably the EFDB should be populated with new emission factors as the
Methodology Reports are drafted, but if this proves impossible the guideline emission factors should be entered in the
EFDB with the underlying documentation information in the property fields as soon as possible, after guidelines
completion.
37. The evolving information on peer reviewed emission factors in the EFDB will also be a useful source of information for
countries to refer to in applying Tier 2 and 3 methods. In applying these methods (Tier 2 and/or 3) it will remain the
country’s responsibility to ensure that the choice of emission factors properly reflects national circumstances and isconsistent with the requirements of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, and to document that this is the case.
38. It should be noted that Methodology Reports go through IPCC reviews, but the EFDB does not. The EFDB is a long(er)term exercise. The TSU will provide technical advice/information to authors for their consideration.
Definitions
60

39. The following terms will be used throughout the new Methodology Report, and it is essential that all Lead Authors havea common understanding of their meaning and relevance:
40. Tier A Tier refers to a description of the overall complexity of a methodology and its data requirements. Higher tiermethods are generally more complex and data-intensive than lower tier methods. The guidance for each category
should contain at least a Tier 1 method, and in many cases there will be a Tier 2 and Tier 3. The general expectationis that Tier 2 and Tier 3 methods will both be consistent with good practice guidance for key sources, although in somecases Tier 3 will be preferred, for example with methane from coal mines where Tier 1 is a global default value, Tier 2basin specific and Tier 3 mine specific.
41. Tier 1 approaches are simple methods that can be applied by all countries in all circumstances. Default values for theemission factors and any other parameters needed must be supplied (see below for documentation needed).
42. Tier 2 methods should in principle follow the same methodological approach as Tier 1, but allow for higher resolution
country specific emissions factors and activity data. In some categories, this may not be the case. These methods
should better replicate the parameters affecting the emissions. Country specific emission factors are needed andpossibly more parameters will also be needed.
43. Tier 3 methods give flexibility either for country specific methods including modelling or direct measurement approaches,or for a higher level of disaggregation, or both. This is a more complex method, often involving a model. This will
replicate many features of nation emissions and require specific parameters for each country.
44. Default information is data that is appropriate for use where there is no better detailed, country specific information.
If appropriate, authors may specify regional default data. Users of the guidelines should be encouraged to try to findbetter country specific data. Default data are appropriate for Tier 1 methods and the guidelines should contain all thedefault values needed. Emission factors for higher tiers need not be specified because it is a function of higher tiermethods to find data reflecting national circumstances. Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines suggests that the EFDB
may help identify data reflecting national circumstances, but reference to the EFDB should in no case be used as adevice for evading the necessity of finding data for default methods. Default information is included primarily to provide
users with a starting point from which they can develop their own national assumptions and data. Indeed, national
assumptions and data are always preferred because the default assumptions and data may not always be appropriate
for specific national contexts. In general, therefore, default assumptions and data should be used only when national
assumptions and data are not available.
45. Decision Trees. A decision tree is a graphical tool to assist countries in selecting from the IPCC methods.
46. Sector refers to the four sectors of the guidelines (Energy; Industrial Process and Product Use (IPPU); Agriculture,
Forests and Other Land Use (AFOLU) and Waste) these are divided into source/sink categories and sub categories.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Sector 1
Category 1.A
Sub-category 1st order 1.A.1
Sub-category 2nd order 1.A.1.a
Sub-category 3rd order, 1.A.1.a.i,

47. Worksheets. These will be printed versions of spreadsheet tables, that, when filled in, enable the user to perform theemission estimation. They should contain all the calculations and written text with any formulae. Additional worksheets
may be required to compile the results of the worksheets into the reporting tables.
48. Reporting Tables are tables that present the calculated emission inventory and sufficient detail of other data used toprepare the inventories for others to understand the emission estimates.
49. Usage:a. Good Practice, is defined as a set of procedures intended to ensure that greenhouse gas inventories areaccurate in the sense that they are systematically neither over nor underestimates so far as can be judged,
and that uncertainties are reduced so far as possible. Inventories consistent with good practice are thosewhich contain neither over- nor under-estimates so far as can be judged, and in which uncertainties are
reduced as far as is practicable. To say that “It is Good Practice to do x” implies x is part of the good practiceprocedures.
b. “Shall” should not be used. Either say “Good Practice is…” or say what needs to be done or what should be
done. These all indicate what needs to be done to comply with Good Practice.
61

c.

"Be encouraged to" indicates a step or activity that will lead to higher quality inventory, but are not required
for ensuring consistency with the IPCC Guidelines.

d. “Recommend” should not be used. In the GPG2000, the word “recommend” was avoided and “Suggested”
was used instead.
e. “Inventory agency” is the body responsible for actually compiling the inventory, perhaps from contributions
from a number of other bodies while “inventory compiler” is the person actually compiling the inventory,
Units
50. SI units shall be used throughout: in text, equations, worksheets and tables. Emissions have to be expressed in massunits and units have to be used consistently within the each sector. When similar activity data is used for different
sectors same units need to be used (CLAs have to take care about such harmonisation). Conversion factors have tobe provided (for example to estimate N2O from N). Where input data available may not be in SI units conversions should
be provided.
51. Standard abbreviations for units and chemical compounds are given in Appendix 2. (See also a complete discussion
available at http://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure/)
52. For the purpose of reporting, the sign convention is positive (+) for emissions, and negative (-) for removals (uptake).
Where needed, for estimation of removals and carbon stock increases are counted positive, and the sign reversed forreporting purposes. This is consistent with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and other Methodology Reports on national GHG
inventories in the past.

62

Appendix 1. Data Documentation
This form should be used to document all data used in the new Methodology Report. This gives the minimum informationthat should be considered by the authors.
Author1
IPCC Source/Sink Category
Fuel2 (applicable only in the Energy
Sector):
Gas3:

CO2

CH4

N2O

Value:
Unit:
Uncertainty (as +/% or 2.5 and 97.5
percentiles )4
Applicability5 – fill in as necessary ifdata not generally applicable.
Describe appropriate
Technologies, Practices, Abatement
Technologies, Region, and/or
Regional Conditions
Measurement - Scientific Literature
Other Measurement
Source of data (chose one)

National Inventory Report
Calculated
Based on fuel quality
Expert Judgement

Method of derivation of the value(e.g., arithmetic mean, weighted
mean, adjustment of a literature databy expert judgment etc.)
Reference6
Note:
The author is the LA/CA/CLA who writes the relevant section and proposes the data.
Fuels as defined in the Energy volume
Add additional gases as required
As defined by cross-cutting volume
Only to be completed where it is necessary to specify the applicability of the data
As reference to document, report, calculation or if expert judgement to those involved (Names or group e.g. “Waste BOG
on Solid Waste Disposal Sites”)
63Appendix 2 Units and Abbreviations

Abbreviations of, and how to Spell, Chemical Compounds
CH4

MethaneN2 O

Nitrous oxide11

CO2

Carbon dioxide

CO

Carbon monoxide

NOX

Nitrogen oxides

NMVOCsNon-methane volatile organic compounds

NH3

Ammonia

CFCs

Chlorofluorocarbons

HFCs

Hydrofluorocarbons

PFCs

Perfluorocarbons

SF6

Sulphur hexafluoride

CCl4

Carbon tetrachloride

C2F6

Hexafluoroethane

CF4

TetrafluoromethaneS

Sulphur

Units and abbreviations
cubic metre

m3

Hectare

Ha

Gram

g

Gigagram

Gg

Tonne

T

Gigatonne

Gt

Joule

J

degree Celsius℃

Calorie

Cal

Year

Yr

CapitaCap

GallonGal

dry matterDm

11

In the IUPCA N2O is officially named “Dinitrogen Oxide”. However, “nitrous oxide” is widely used and understood in the emission
inventory community and by the UNFCCC and so, to avoid confusion, will be used.

64Prefixes and multiplication factors
Multiplication Factor

Abbreviation

PrefixSymbol1 000 000 000 000 000

1015

peta

P

1 000 000 000 000

1012

tera

T

1 000 000 000

109

giga

G

1 000 000

106

mega

M

1 000

103

kilo

k

100

102

hecto

h

10

101

deca

da

0.1

10-1

deci

d

0.01

10-2

centi

c

0.001

10-3

milli

m

0.000 001

10-6

micro



Standard equivalents
1 tonne of oil equivalent (toe)1 x 1010 calories

103 toe41.868 TJ

1 short ton

0.9072 tonne

1 tonne1.1023 short tons

1 tonne1 megagram

1 kilotonne

1 gigagram

1 megatonne

1 teragram

1 gigatonne

1 petagram

1 kilogram

2.2046 lbs

1 hectare

104 m2

1 calorieIT

4.1868 joule

1 atmosphere101.325 kPa

65

Annex 3: Annotated lists of issues for all sectors

Cross-sectoral (General Guidance and Reporting)Refinement Options:
1. Update
2. Elaboration
3. New guidance
For details of these options, see the document on “Explanation of Refinement Options”.
Issue #1.
Chapter 1. Introduction
Clarification of the concept of “anthropogenic emissions and removals”
Wollongong Expert Meeting (2016) recommended guidelines be updated to reflect the following: for the AFOLU sector toextend circumstances under which the “Managed Land Proxy” should be supplemented with techniques to distinguishbetween anthropogenic and natural or background emissions (e.g. by drawing on Guidance contained in the 2013 KP
Supplement chapter 2.3.4 and 2.3.5 and the 2013 Wetlands Supplement)

Suggested refinement option(s): [Update](Update of Section 1.1 Concepts, Chapter 1, and Volume 1 with Guidance contained in the 2013 KP Supplement chapter
2.3.4 and 2.3.5 and the 2013 Wetlands Supplement)

Issue #2.
Chapter 2: Approaches to Data Collection
Development of additional guidance to develop country-specific emission factors and design new
surveys for activity data collection.
At Wollongong Expert Meeting (2016) this item was subdivided into 2 sub-issues: (a) development of additional guidance
to develop country-specific emission factors and the other on (b) additional guidance on collection of activity data.

Background2a) Additional guidance to develop country-specific emission factors
The technical survey indicated the necessity to expand a methodological work focusing on developing countries and theircountry-specific emission factors. In many cases developing countries cannot accommodate emission factors which are
based on developed countries’ circumstances and are different in climate, technological and/or other conditions.

2b) Additional guidance to activity data collection
The technical survey also indicated, there is a capacity problem to gather and to manage national data which can beaddressed by an additional guidance for collecting activity data, utilizing best practices, suggesting surveys and activities todevelop suitable emission factors. National communications and BURs of developing countries can be potential sources of
information

Suggested refinement option(s): [New Guidance]
New guidance to develop country-specific emission factors and additional guidance on activity data collection (See table ofoutcomes from Wollongong Expert meeting on means of refinement - last page of this paper)

Issue #3.
Chapter 2. Approaches to Data Collection
Development of guidance on the integration of GHG emissions reported from industrial facilities into
national GHG inventories and development of guidance on use of models (including review andintegration of outcome of 2010 Sydney meeting and 2011 Wellington meeting)
At Wollongong Expert Meeting (2016) this item was subdivided into 2 sub-issues (a) Guidance on the integration of GHG
emissions reported from facilities into national GHG inventories and (b) Guidance on use and reporting of models
66

Background3a) Guidance on the integration of GHG emissions reported from facilities into national GHG inventories

The 2006 IPCC Guidelines focus on providing guidance on lower level tiers, leaving nationally specific Tier 3 approaches
to national inventory compilers to design and document. After the 2006 IPCC Guidelines were developed, many countries
started obtaining GHG emission reports from industrial facilities within their jurisdiction (e.g. EU-ETS). Based on theexperiences gained by such countries, new guidance may be developed to supplement the 2006 IPCC Guidelines on how
the data reported from facilities can be used in national GHG inventories.

3b) Guidance on use and reporting of models
This subject was discussed at two IPCC Expert Meetings - the Expert Meeting on Use of Models and Measurements in
GHG Inventories in Sydney, Australia (August 2010) and the Expert Meeting on the Use of Facility and Project Informationin National GHG Inventories in Wellington, New Zealand (July 2011). The outcome of discussion at these meetings are
summarized in the following publications:- Report of the IPCC Expert Meeting on Use of Models and Measurements in GHG Inventories:
http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/mtdocs/pdfiles/1008_Model_and_Facility_Level_Data_Report.pdf- TFI Technical Bulletin 1: “Use of Facility–Specific Data in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories” http://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/public/tb/TFI_Technical_Bulletin_1.pdf

Suggested refinement option(s): [New Guidance]
New Guidance on the integration of GHG emissions reported from industrial facilities into national GHG inventories and new
guidance on use of models (See table of outcomes from Wollongong Expert meeting on means of refinement - last page ofthis paper)

Issue #4.
Chapter 3. Uncertainty.
Refinement of guidance on uncertainty based on the latest scientific knowledge and simplification of
guidance by providing more default values, calculation examples and best practices
During the Wollongong expert meeting the following issues were identified for a further refinement and elaboration:i) incorporation of methodological development and/or case studies on issues, such as spatial variability, regional
upscaling, correlation/autocorrelation, resampling techniques, addressing representativeness of data, trend
analysis, population vs. mean varianceii) propagation of uncertainty applying Approach 1 for some sources and Approach 2 for others. Address large
percentage uncertainties when using Equation 3.1 in Chapter 3, Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.. Expand
good practice for Monte Carlo simulations (more direction but not be overly prescriptive)iii) inclusion of guiding principles for conducting an uncertainty analysis. Provide additional simplified explanation ofprocedures with case studies and decision treesiv) discussion on how to use uncertainty as a way to improve the inventory development (focusing effort on large
sources of uncertainty or reducing model complexity (e.g., simple decision tree)
Literature: over 50 relevant articles based on a brief search of the literature published since 2006, and over 10 years ofreporting by parties to the UNFCCC. Literature may be useful for general guidance that can supplement the existing methods(however it should not be a scientific review of the methods).
It was noted that it might be a need to address specific issues on uncertainty analysis in the sectoral sections of a report,
technical bulletin, etc.
The Wollongong expert meeting concluded that no major changes to the existing guidance are needed.

Suggested refinement option(s): [Update and/or Elaboration](Chapter 3, Volume 1)

Issue #5
Chapter 4: Methodological Choice and Identification of Key Categories (and other volumes)
Additional guidance on key category analysis to address treatment of disaggregation of categories, trend
analysis, equations for trend analysis and the need for consistent definition of significant subcategories
across the different volumes of the IPCC Guidelines
At Wollongong Expert Meeting (2016) this item was identified as high priority therefore for consideration at scoping meeting67

Background
The technical analysis identified the need to review and update Chapter 4 of Volume 1 highlighting that contents for thischapter have already evolved from the original "contribution to uncertainty" basis to a more general identification of"important" categories. The general guidance is that key categories are those worth investing in to develop accurate
estimation methods and under the UNFCCC guidelines the status of a category being key has many consequences. It is
worth exploring if and how the technical guidance for the identification of key categories can be improved. The feedback
from the use by the Parties of the methods can be a good input, in particular, the issue of aggregation/disaggregation of
categories is one that has not shown good results in the application of the analysis by many Parties therefore there is aneed for improving the guidance on this subject.

Suggested refinement option(s): [Elaboration]
Elaboration of Chapter 4, Volume 1 to add guidance on key category analysis to address treatment of disaggregation of
categories, trend analysis, equations for trend analysis and the need for consistent definition of significant subcategories
across the different volumes of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (See table of outcomes from Wollongong Expert meeting onmeans of refinement - last page of this paper)

Issue #6
Chapter 5. Time series consistency
Review and refinement of guidance on time series consistency (including discussion on theapplicability of default EFs over time)
At Wollongong Expert Meeting (2016) subdivided into 2 sub-issues (a) Guidance on time series consistency and (b)Guidance on applicability of EFs over time

Background6a) Guidance on time series consistency

Usefulness of additional guidance on how to ensure time series consistency has been suggested by some members of
Task Force Bureau.
It is often the case that data availability improves over time, therefore, the question is how we ensure time series consistency
in estimation of GHG emissions/removals for the entire time series while using different data sets for different periods during
the time series. Apparently countries have gained a lot of experiences in ensuring time series consistency in their national
greenhouse gas inventories, and there has been a lot of discussion on this issue during the UNFCCC inventory review
process. Additional practical guidance could be developed based on such experiences.

6b) Guidance on applicability of EFs over time
Another issue that deserves consideration is applicability of default emission factors over time. Emission factors and otherparameters to be used in estimation of GHG emissions/removals need to reflect various conditions of the associatedsource/sink, such as technology used, etc. Where such conditions change over time, it is not appropriate to use the samedefault values of emission factors and other parameters for all years. This issue is taken into account to some extent in theexisting guidance on some categories in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (e.g., Section 3.10.1 on HFC-23 emission from HCFC22 production where default emission factors are suggested as shown below). However, there is no explicit generic guidanceon this issue in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

Suggested refinement option(s): [Elaboration]
Elaboration of Chapter 5, Volume 1 to add guidance on time series consistency and guidance on applicability of EFs overtime. See table of outcomes from Wollongong Expert meeting on means of refinement - last page of this paper)

Issue #7
Chapter 6. QA/QC and verification. Section 6.10.2. Comparisons with atmospheric measurements.
Development or improvement of guidance on the verification using other estimation results like FAOSTAT
emissions database and GHG concentration in atmosphere by satellite observation (remote sensing data)

The experts at the Wollongong expert meeting pointed out that the verification section in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines is
outdated. There is a need to discuss various ways to verify emission estimates in the context of the latest science with caseexamples: i) atmospheric concentration data; ii) independent monitoring of carbon stocks and fluxes; iii) other approaches.
The refinement work should not be focused on developing detailed methods, but reference more detailed guidance material
that has been published elsewhere.
68

Also, other uses of these data should be discussed, for example, direct emission measurements to prepare better emission
factors and use of additional data to improve GHG inventories.
It was noted that it might be a need for some follow-up in the sectoral guidance about the use of atmospheric data and other
data.

Suggested refinement option(s): [Update and/or Elaboration](Update and/or Elaboration of Section 6.10.2, Chapter 6, Volume 1)

Issue #8.
Chapter 7. Precursors and Indirect emissions. Clearer guidance for the calculation of indirect CO2
emissions.

The expert’s discussion during the Wollongong expert meeting suggested that there is a need to provide clarity about
estimation of the indirect CO2 emissions across sectors that are not otherwise counted, to elaborate the Box 7.2 “Calculating
CO2 inputs to the atmosphere from emissions of carbon-containing compounds” (CH4, CO, NMVOC), to clarify if the adopted
GWPs include the indirect CO2 emissions, to clarify definition for “indirect” emissions in the guidelines (e.g., AFOLU vs.
Waste) and also other terms such as “offsite emissions”.

Suggested refinement option(s): [Update and/or Elaboration](Update and/or Elaboration Box 7.2, Chapter 7, Volume 1)

69

Table of Outcomes from Wollongong Expert Meeting (April 2016)
Chapter in Vol.1

Refinement

Suggested ways of refinement (to be further
explored and decided in the scoping meeting)

Chapter 1:
Introduction

1. Clarification of theconcept of“anthropogenic
emissions andremovals”

For the AFOLU, to extend circumstances under which
the “Managed Land Proxy” should be supplemented
with techniques to distinguish between anthropogenic
and natural or background emissions (e.g. by drawing
on Guidance contained in the 2013 KP Supplement
chapter 2.3.4 and 2.3.5 and the 2013 Wetlands
Supplement)

Chapter 2:
Approaches to Data
Collection

2. Additional guidance todevelop countryspecific emission
factors

Indication of source categories that are more sensitive(significant) to country-specific EF (e.g. by using
UNFCCC database and EFDB)
Examples of sector specific approaches
Addition of more rationale, references and backgroundinformation on the default parameters used for thecountry-specific EF“Australia example”:
“Decision tree approach” that can be applied
on different source specific categories

“Systematic way to make consistent choices in
the use of facility-specific data”

Use of CDM “database” and/or scientific papers fordescription of cases where country specific EF wheredeveloped (taking into consideration the need of
consistency with IPCC methodologies)
General:Links to capacity building opportunities and training
materials (FAQ)

Chapter 2:
Approaches to Data
Collection

3. Additional guidance toactivity data collection

Provide clarity on representative sample
Confidential data:

Example of agreement for disclosure
confidential information

Provisions of examples for incorporating
confidential data

Refinement of the “multi-year averaging” provision withadditional exception listed for guidance for AFOLU tier 370

approaches drawing on IPCC KP Supplement chapter
2.3.
Update links to international database and moredetailed description on data available and its potentialuse
New tools/technologies for data collection (e.g.
companies surveys) for completeness purposes
General:Links to capacity building opportunities and training
materials (FAQ)
Chapter 2:
Approaches to Data
Collection

4. Guidance on the
integration of GHG
emissions reported
from facilities into
national GHG
inventories

Use as a basis “TFI Technical Bulletin 1: “Use of
Facility–Specific Data in National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories”” and the “Report of the IPCC Expert
Meeting on Use of Models and Measurements in GHG
Inventories”

Chapter 2:
Approaches to Data

5. Guidance on use andreporting of models

Use as a basis the “Report of the IPCC Expert Meetingon Use of Models and Measurements in GHG
Inventories”

Chapter 4:
Methodological
Choice and
Identification of Key
Categories (and othervolumes)

6. Additional guidance on
key categories
analysis

In particular on:

Chapter 5: Time
Series Consistency

7. Guidance on timeseries consistency

Disaggregation

Trend analysis in situations of large
fluctuations in emissions



Equation for trend analysis (in the cases ofsmall sources and net sources and net sinks)Consistent definition of “significant
subcategories" across different parts of the
IPCC 2006 Guidelines (e.g. subcategories
which make up 60% of the key category
emissions according to their contribution in
Volume 1 and 25-30% of the emissions of a
key category in the AFOLU Volume)

Incorporate examples of country approaches (e.g.
Canada “merging of data sets from different time
periods”, Finland “ methods for F gases”, others)
Explore if there are new methods available (e.g.
elaboration based on the guidance for AFOLU tier 3
approaches drawing on 2013 KP Supplement chapter
2.3.)

71

Chapter 5: Time
Series Consistency

8. Applicability of EFs
over time

All volumes

9. Transparency andapplicability of default
EF

Incorporate guidance to reflect that parameters to be
used in estimation of GHG emissions/removals need toreflect various conditions of the associated source/sink,
such as technology used, etc. Where such conditions
change over time, it is not appropriate to use the samedefault/country specific values of emission factors andother parameters for all years

For new emission factors to be updated or developed
addition of more rationale, references and backgroundinformation on the parameters used for estimating thedefault EF where information is available for new andexisting ones (e.g. Annex 3A.3 of 2013 Wetlands
Supplement)
For the existing emission factors TSU to consider
prioritization, eg., TSU could find commonly used but
not well documented EF, where inventories area highly
sensitive to the emission factor used.

72

Energy Sector
Issue #1.
Category 1.A.1.c. Manufacture of solid fuels. Development of guidance for estimating GHG emissions
from charcoal production
There is no guidance for estimating GHG emissions from charcoal production in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, only clarification
on definition of wood/wood waste which is provided in Table 1.1 Volume 2. However, the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines
provide the default non-CO2 emission factors for charcoal production (Reference Manual (Volume 3) Energy, p.1.46).
During the Geneva expert meeting it was suggested to develop a guidance for estimating GHG emissions from charcoal
production taking into account a relationship between production and combustion, CO2 and non-CO2 emissions as well asa coordination with the AFOLU sector.

Suggested refinement option(s): [New Guidance]
Issue #2 and Issue #3 (abandoned facilities).
#2. Category 1.B.1. Fugitive emissions: Solid Fuels. Development of guidance for estimating GHG fugitive
emissions from abandoned or decommissioned surface mines#3. Category 1.B.2. Fugitive emissions: Oil and Natural Gas. Development of guidance for estimating GHG
fugitive emissions from abandoned or decommissioned oil and gas wells
The Technical Assessment pointed out that “after closure, abandoned or decommissioned surface mines may continue toemit methane as the gas leaks from the coal seams that were broken or damaged during mining. There are no methods atfor estimating emissions from this source at present. ...Methane emissions from non-producing oil and natural gas wells
may be significant for oil- or gas-producing nations. These methane emissions may consist of surface casing vent flows,
gas migration and other potential emissions. Such emissions are not covered in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and this maylead to a potential source of under-estimation of oil and gas fugitive emissions in national inventories”.
The Geneva expert meeting concluded that a new guidance is needed for abandoned facilities:i)abandoned or decommissioned surface mines;ii)
abandoned or decommissioned oil and gas wells.
It needs to be considered whether the robust data is available.

Suggested refinement option(s): [New Guidance]
Issue #4.
Category 1.B.2. Fugitive emissions: Oil and Natural Gas. Development of guidance for estimating GHG
emissions from unconventional oil and gas production such as shale gas, shale oil, tight gas, tight oil
and CBM
There is no clear guidance in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines on how to deal with the GHG emissions from unconventional oil
and gas production such as shale gas, shale oil, tight gas and tight oil. Definition of what the 2006 IPCC Guidelines mean
by conventional and unconventional production is needed as well. Refinement needs to consider development of Tier 1 EFs
for unconventional oil and gas production and refinement of methodology, if necessary.
Also, the materials of the 2013 Washington expert meeting needs to be taken into account (IPCC Expert Meeting: Fugitive
Emissions of Greenhouse Gases from Oil and Natural Gas Systems (including shale gas, coal bed methane, etc), August
2013, Washington, D.C., USA).

Suggested refinement option(s): [New Guidance]
Issue #5.
Category 1.B.2. Fugitive emissions: Oil and Natural Gas. Update or addition of default emission factorsof fugitive emissions from oil and gas by reflecting current practices and the latest measurement data
The update of Tier 1 EFs for this category is necessary based on a new and representative facility-specific information,
including a time-changing Tier 1 EFs (controlled EFs). The refinement needs to include new sub-categories more specificfor natural gas production. Also, the materials of the 2013 Washington expert meeting needs to be taken into account.
73

Suggested refinement option(s): [Update and/or Elaboration](Update and/or Elaboration of Section 4.2.2.3 and Table 4.2.4, Chapter 4, Volume 2)
Issue #6.
Category 1.B.3. Fugitive emissions: Other emissions from Energy production. Provision of clearer
guidance on fuel transformation considering linkages with the methodology on fugitive emissions under
IPPU
This issue was raised during discussion at the Geneva expert meeting and initially it was about reporting of emissions ofcoal-coke transformation and also it is linked to the Issue #1. Emissions from Charcoal production. Some guidance onemissions allocation is presented in the Volume 3. IPPU, but more clear guidance is probably needed in the Volume 2.
Energy.
Also, other fuel transformation (gas-to-liquid, solid-to-liquid, etc.) needs to be considered as well. During the Geneva expert
meeting the two options to address this issue were proposed – FAQ or Methodology Report. It was decided to bring thisissue to the Scoping meeting for a further consideration.

Suggested refinement option(s): [New Guidance]

74

IPPU Sector
Issue # 1.
Category 2.B. Chemical Industry (not specified). Hydrogen production. Development of guidance for
estimating GHG emissions from hydrogen production
Hydrogen can be produced either in petrochemical industry (IPPU) or in refineries (Energy). In IPPU, the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines do not provide specific guidance for hydrogen production, although Chapter 3.2 Ammonia production (Volume
3, p.3.11) and section on Methanol production (Volume 3, p. 3.58) refer to the steam reforming process (syngas technology).
With the growing production of hydrogen, it was suggested during the Technical Assessment that Hydrogen Production
should be recognized as a new category (e.g., 2B8g Hydrogen Production 2B8 Petrochemical and Carbon Black Production)and guidance should be provided noting that hydrogen can be used in the production of other chemicals. The production in
Energy should be noted as well.

Suggested refinement option(s): [New Guidance]
Issue # 2.
Category 2.B.2. Nitric Acid Production. Addition of guidance on appropriate emission factors to use forto dual pressure technologies for Nitric Acid Production
The 2006 IPCC Guidelines do not contain emission factors for dual pressure technologies for Nitric Acid Production (ascurrent – low, high, medium). It was suggested to add a new default EF into the Table 3.3 Chapter 3 Volume 3 (p.3.23).

Suggested refinement option(s): [Update](Update of Section 3.3.2.2 and Table 3.3, Chapter 3, Volume 3)

Issue #3.
Category 2.B.9. Fluorochemical Production. Update of guidance and default Tier 1 emission factors for
production of fluorinated compounds other than HCFC-22

During the Geneva expert meeting it was pointed out that the default EF of 0.5% is a factor of five to ten smaller than theuncontrolled EFs implied by information gathered during development of the US GHG Reporting Programme. Such an
inappropriately low default EF may result in failure to identify source category as key. It was suggested to consider thisissue at the Scoping meeting in order to update this EF with a support of the US information.

Suggested refinement option(s): [Update](Update of Section 3.10.2.2, Chapter 3, Volume 3)

Issue #4.
Category 2.C.1. Iron and Steel Production. Update of guidance and emission factors for Iron and Steel
Production

The estimation of GHG emissions from Iron and Steel Production is difficult because of a diversity of processes, products
flows, used materials and techniques. During the Technical Assessment it was suggested to produce more clear
differentiation between the Energy and the IPPU sectors, to comprehensively include all processes with a clear indicationof products flows including coke oven gas and blast furnace gases, to update default EFs based on existing scientific results
developed by different countries and international organizations, e.g. the World Steel Association (WSA).
The Geneva expert meeting pointed out that countries’ submissions according to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (from 2015)
can provide with information on implementation of Iron and Steel guidance. Country-specific EFs contained in the national
submissions as well as information in reports and other studies are required to update default EFs.
Recently the EU updated the report on Iron and Steel - 2012-2013 Best Available Techniques Reference Document forIron and Steel Production. The WSA reports are also available.

Suggested refinement option(s): [Update](Needs to specify - Update of Section XXX, Chapter 4, Volume 3)

75

Issue #5.
Category 2.C.3. Aluminium Production. Development of a new guidance and emissions factors on “nonanode effect” (“low-voltage anode effect”) PFCs emissions and its integration into the existing
methodology on anode-effect (“high-voltage anode effect”). Update of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 defaults.

During the Technical Assessment and the following Geneva and Wollongong expert meetings it was suggested “to develop
a method to estimate PFC emissions from Aluminium production that are NOT associated with anode effects. The methods
in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines assume that PFC emissions from Aluminium production only occur when anode effects occur.
If anode effects are not detected, PFC emissions are assumed to be zero. However, research over the last several years
shows that PFCs can be emitted from Aluminium production in the absence of anode effects as those have historically been
defined. In fact, for many new smelters using very large electrolytic cells, the PFC emissions that are NOT associated withanode effects account for the vast majority of PFC emissions, and the emission rate per ton of Aluminium for these smelters
is more than 50% greater than the global average. Moreover, these new smelters account for over 50% of global production.
Thus, "non‐AE" emissions from Aluminium are significant at the global level, and they are likely to grow as the average sizeof electrolytic cells continues to grow world‐wide”.
The term “low- or high- voltage anode effect” should be used reflecting the nature of the process and a language of the
published literature. Tier 1 and Tier 2 methods need to be updated accordingly.

Suggested refinement option(s): [New Guidance and/or Update](New Guidance and Update of Section 4.4.2.3 and 4.4.2.4, Chapter 4, Volume 3)

Issue #6.
Category 2.C.4. Magnesium Production. Update of guidance on fluorinated GHG emissions from
Magnesium Production taking into account replacement of SF6 by HFC-134a (subject to literature
availability)
SF6 is currently being replaced by HFC‐134a (and to small part by HFC‐125) as a cover gas in Magnesium Production. The
2006 IPCC Guidelines note that “the industrial use of fluorinated compounds other than SF6 for magnesium oxidation
protection commenced in 2003‐2004. As such, the industrial experience in using these compounds for magnesium
protection purposes is yet very limited. Even individual plants will have little historic data, if any, on actual emissions of theseother fluorinated compounds from their operations. While there is a general sense in industry that the volume use of thesealternate gases will be less than SF6, there are no data available at this time on which to base emission factors. Hence, it
is not possible at this time to develop an emission factor‐based approach (Tier 1 or 2) for reporting emissions”. [Relevant
Section 4.5.2.1 Volume 3, text on p. 4.65].
The Geneva expert meeting noted such a development, but the literature availability was questioned. The experts mentioned
only one good study in this respect - Bartos, Scott C.: Characterization of Emissions and Occupational Exposure Associatedwith Five Cover Gas Technologies for Magnesium Die Casting, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Climate Protection
Partnership Division, [EPA 430‐R‐07‐008] Washington DC August 2007 (http://www.epa.gov/magnesium‐sf6/documents/
lunt_measurement_study_full.pdf).
Some other publications exist as well, but their sufficiency to elaborate a new method/EFs is a subject for discussion.

Suggested refinement option(s): [Elaboration](Elaboration of Section 4.5.2.1, Chapter 4, Volume 3)

Issue #7.
Category 2.C. Metal Industry (not specified). Rare Earth elements. Development of a new guidance on
GHG emissions (PFCs and CO2) from production of Rare Earth elements
This missing and potentially significant category was identified during the Wollongong expert meeting during investigationof the observed gap in PFCs emissions. It was suggested that development of new guidance on PFCs is needed (taking
into account CO2 emissions as well). Current literature is limited; some laboratory studies exist. It is expected that more
literature will be available within the next two years.

Suggested refinement option(s): [New Guidance]76

Issue #8.
Category 2.E. Electronics Industry. Update of guidance and default Tier 1 and Tier 2 emission factors for
Semiconductor Industry, improvement of the Tier 3 guidance and elaboration of guidance on generationof by-products from abatement technologies (CF4 from NF3)

The US GHG Reporting programme has brought a new information to support the update and addition of EFs in
Semiconductor Industry. Update of the existing guidance for Tier 1 and 2 is needed as well as elaboration of Tier 3 guidance
and the guidance on generation of by-products from abatement technologies (CF4 from NF3).

Suggested refinement option(s): [Update and/or Elaboration](Update of Section 6.2.2 and Elaboration of Section 6.2.1.1 Chapter 6, Volume 3)

Issue #9.
Category 2.F.1. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning (RAC). Update of guidance on sub-applications anddefault emission factors for ODS substitutes, particularly for RAC, for different equipment types,
geographical regions and time periods
The range of estimates for charge, operation and end-of-life emissions is quite large. In view of a high uncertainty and alack of uniformity in this sector, further refinement of the default EFs would be welcomed. Although the Geneva expert
meeting pointed out the direction of refinement (more precise by further segregating equipment types, regions, and time
periods), the absence of sufficient literature could be an impediment for refinement.
The verification studies in Australia and the UK (presented at the Wollongong expert meeting) showed that the current
approach of a constant leakage rate needs an adjustment to better reflect the reality of RAC emissions. The concept of the“bank” accumulation is valid, specific EFs need to be better justified though it is a quite difficult task.
The Geneva meeting put this issue in a long-term methodology update when the literature and countries submissions canprovide sufficient information for refinement.

Suggested refinement option(s): [Update](Needs to specify - Update of Section XXX, Chapter 7, Volume 3)

77

AFOLU (Categories 3.A & 3C)
Issue #1.
Enteric Fermentation (3.A.1)
Improve parameters based on different feeding strategies for ruminants
Outcomes of the Sao Paulo meetingCH4 from enteric fermentation is a significant source. Feeding strategies are changing and mitigation strategies arerising in importance.
− Feed intake for cattle seems to be fine in the guidelines.
Methane conversion rates for dairy and other cattle:−

Refinement for CH4 mitigation options by feed additives and feed quality. There is a lot of new literature available,
including developed countries and Africa. The approach to be taken would be to relate CH4 conversion rates to feed
components, quantitatively define what low and high quality feed means (this choice is most critical!), derive a refined Tier
2 table for methane conversion rates and then check, and update if appropriate, the Tier 1 factors. The analysis has to becarefully consider the representativeness of feeding strategies for regional and global conditions. The main concern is thatdifferent models produce different methane conversion rates so that guidance on model applications is needed. Additional
guidance is also needed how to derive a time series of methane conversion rates and corresponding activity data. Check
whether scaling factors or time series of the defaults are feasible. It is important to add quantitative uncertainty estimatesto the default factors
Methane conversion rates for sheep, buffalo, yaks…: Availability of new data is unclear

Suggested refinement option(s): [Update/elaboration](Update of Section 10.3, Chapter 10, Volume 4)

Issue #2.
Manure Management (3.A.2)
Refine parameters based on new science
Outcomes of the Sao Paulo meeting
−

−
−
−

−
−

Temperature dependence of CH4 can be updated. Tier 1 should still use annual mean temperature ranges for the
MCFs. Higher tiers may use seasonal temperatures rather than annual means, and typical temperatures in manure
stores.
Storage time is an important driver to be considered in MCFs.
A good background documentation of the development of the new default MCFs is required to support countries in
producing higher Tier values consistent with the defaults.
The current guidance on C and N from bedding is inconsistent. The current emission factors could, however, alreadyinclude the bedding. Additional guidance for higher tiers could be included suggesting to consider carbon from beddingin the VS estimate.
The effect of natural crusts on CH4 emissions from slurry storage may need to be re-evaluated based on new findings.
Bo for cattle and swine seems to be different in global regions (feed characteristics!) and may be further stratified.

Suggested refinement option(s): [Update/elaboration](Update of Section 10.4, Chapter 10, Volume 4)78

Re-evaluate and update where appropriate all parameters and EFs, including further stratification for countries with better
activity data.

Issue #3.
Manure Management (3.A.2)
Develop/update guidance on how to deal with avoided methane emissions due to biogas production
Outcomes of the Sao Paulo meeting
New data and methodological experience is available from several world regions, including the MCF
CH4 from barn + farm prior to storage is missing.

Suggested refinement option(s): [Update/elaboration](Update of Section 10.4, Chapter 10, Volume 4)
Cross-cutting issue to develop, complete and update the equation (Table 10.17) and parameters, that is cross-cutting
between energy, waste and agriculture for biogas, including all substrates (manure, waste, biomass).

Issue #4.
Manure Management (3.A.2)
Reconsider method of estimating nitrogen excretions, development of the MCF factors, N2O estimationof N2O from liquid manure storage based on surface area of manure storage
Outcomes of the Sao Paulo meeting−−−

Re-evaluate and update, if appropriate, the default N excretion rates for applicability in world regions. Clarify the animal
categories (e.g., rabbit values are for mother+children).
Emission factors for N2O: new data available. Table 10.21 contains a lot of expert judgement. EFs can be re-evaluatedand updated, if appropriate, with new measured data, in particular for treatment systems.
N2O estimation from liquid manure storage based on surface area of manure storage: Surface area is inconsistent withthe available activity data in most countries and does not suit for a lower tier method.

Suggested refinement option(s): [Update/elaboration](Update of Section 10.5, Chapter 10, Volume 4)− Verification and plausibility checks for the default N excretion rates if possible.
− Re-evaluate and update Table 10.21 EFs, if appropriate.
Note: The update should not result in new methodologies and animal categories but rather improve the existing tables.

Issue #5.
Direct N2O Emissions from Managed Soils (3.C.4)
Evaluation of EF1 and options for stratification/disaggregation (e.g. climate zone)
Outcomes of the Sao Paulo meeting−

There are a lot of new high-quality measurements available. Evaluate those whether the EF1 could be stratified by
79

−
−

climate zone as an option for countries with data on fertilizer use by climate zone.
New findings are available to be considered in higher Tiers, e.g. a non-linear N2O response to fertilizers.
There is not enough evidence yet to change the methodology for N2O from N input by crop residues.

Suggested refinement option(s): [Update/elaboration](Update of Section 11.2, Chapter 11, Volume 4)
Evaluate EF1 and include an option for stratification by climate, if appropriate, and the change would be significant.
Outcomes of the Wollongong meeting
Evidence is solid that there can be further disaggregation of these emission factors. At this point it is not possible toevaluate how far we can go in disaggregation and what factors could be considered. There is adequate evidence to takethis to a Methodology Report.
The refinements recommended include the update of defaults with new data, and the elaboration of existing guidance,
based on further disaggregation, specifically for climate factors. It is important to note that the current default nondisaggregated method would be retained. Further guidance and case examples could be included for movement to higher
Tiers.

Suggested refinement option(s): [Update/elaboration](Update of Section 11.2, Chapter 11, Volume 4)

Issue #6.
Direct N2O Emissions from Managed Soils (3.C.4)
Evaluate the EF3 as 2% of the N applied to soils, pasture, range and paddock by grazing animals
Outcomes of the Sao Paulo meeting
The preliminary data suggest that the current EF3 is too high. It would be more logical that the EF3 is similar to the EF1,
which includes organic manure application. EF3 should be re-evaluated based on clear quality criteria for the studies.
Care has to be taken that the measurements cover a long enough phase to allow for decomposition of the dung. The EF3
should still relate to the sum of urine and dung.

Suggested refinement option(s): [Update/elaboration](Update of Section 11.2, Chapter 11, Volume 4)
Encourage input of preliminary evidence to the EFDB. Methodology report to finally elaborate the new EF3.

Issue #7.
Indirect N2O Emissions from Managed Soils (3.C.5)
Derive new emissions factors for indirect N2O, both the amount of leaching/runoff and volatilization, as
well as the indirect emission factor
Outcomes of the Sao Paulo meeting
80

−
−
−

−
−
−
−
−

New evidence on N volatilization is captured in the link to EMEP/EEA Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook, EF
is OK.
Leaching/runoff: there is new scientific evidence to be considered in the guidelines.
EFs have to be seen in combination with the leaching factor, FracLEACH. There is a major methodological issue that
the N leached from the root zone is currently assumed to entirely enter the ground- and surface waters. This neglects
significant N loss by denitrification along the N pathway.
The methodology description is not transparent regarding the simplifications. Indirect N2O also occurs in the waste
sector (waste effluent). The approach has to be the consistent across sectors.
N2O hotspots may also occur in riparian zones, which are not included in the methodology.
EFr: surface waters: new studies suggest higher EF for rivers with high N load, but the measurements are related to
the N that finally reaches the rivers, not the N leached, which is used in the equation.
EF5g: groundwaters: OK, supported by new studies
EF5e: estuaries: no new studies

Suggested refinement option(s): [Update/elaboration](Update of Section 11.2, Chapter 11, Volume 4)
The indirect N source is significant and would require some change in methodology and EF.
Scientific evaluation is needed. Science on N retention in ground- and surface waters has to be stimulated and matured.
FAQ to better explain the concept of indirect N2O leaching/runoff pathways.
Methodology report or appendix on methodological improvements accounting for N retention in the derivation of EFs or toreconcile the measurements in rivers with N leached from agricultural systems.

Issue #8.
Rice Cultivation (3.C.7)
Update emission factor (N2O) based on country-specific publications
Outcomes of the Sao Paulo meeting−−−

The source is significant. The current EF by N input does not consider management practices. New management
strategies, in particular alternating wet-dry may clearly alter (increase) N2O emissions.
New data is available from many important rice producing countries to improve and refine and disaggregate the existingEF.
Evaluate and update the EF based on new literature. Additional guidance on activity data is needed how to allocate
fertilizer fractions to the different rice management regimes, consistent with the guidance on CH4 from rice, including
an aggregated EF if no further stratification by management regime is possible

Suggested refinement option(s): [Update/elaboration](Update of Section 11.2, Chapter 11, Volume 4)81Forestry and Other Land Use (FOLU) - 3B
Category: Forest Land (3.B.1) Gas CO2
Issue #1a:
Update default values for litter and develop default values for deadwood (Table 2.2, page. 2.27, 2006
IPCC Guidelines); that have been provided in the 2013 Wetlands Supplement and other parameters fromscientific literature.
Background
Table 2.2 provides Tier 1 default values for litter but not for dead wood carbon pool these are broad-scale estimates withconsiderable uncertainty when applied at the country level therefore Table 2.2 is incomplete because of the paucity of
published data for dead wood carbon pools. The technical survey identified limitations of the IPPC approach, the IPCC
definitions of dead organic matter carbon stocks include litter and dead wood. The litter pool contains all litter plus finewoody debris up to a diameter limit of 10 cm (see Vol 4, Chapter 1, Table 1.1). Published litter data generally do not include
the fine woody debris component, so the litter values in Table 2.2 are incomplete 2006 IPCC Guidelines page 2.26). Survey
results indicated that there is a need to update values for litter and develop default values for deadwood, (2006 Guidelines,
Table 2.2, page. 2.27).

Outcomes from Sao Paulo Expert Meeting July 2015
Update default values for litter and develop default values for deadwood (Table 2.2, page. 2.27, 2006 IPCC Guidelines );taking into account values provided in the 2013 Wetlands Supplement and other parameters from scientific literature. NOTE:
Plus the development of equation for estimating DOMout (equation 2.18 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines) based on existingknowledge of decomposition rates in each land use

Suggested refinement option [Update][Update Section 2.3.2.1, Chapter 2, Volume 4, IPCC default values for litter and dead wood (Table 2.2, page. 2.27,
2006 ); IPCC Guidelines and development of equation 2.18 for estimating DOMout]
Note: For litter and deadwood - Generic Methodologies Applicable to Multiple Land-Use Categories

Issue #1b:
Update values for BEF/BCEF (Box 4.2, page 4.13-4.14, 2006 IPCC Guidelines ), harvest losses androot/shoot ratio, average biomass stocks and average biomass increments, emissions factors that havebeen provided in the 2013 Wetlands Supplement and other parameters from scientific literature.
BackgroundBox 4.2, 2006 IPCC Guidelines Vol 4, page 4.13-4.14 provides Biomass Conversion and Expansion Factors for assessing
biomass and carbon in forests. Survey further highlighted that there is a need to update values for BEF/BCEF, harvest
losses and root/shoot ratio, average biomass stocks and average biomass increments according to the current state ofscientific knowledge and to reflect data from tropical countries. There were substantial developments since the publicationof the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Increasingly allometric equations are used. An international compilation of allometric equations
was established available at: http://www.globallometree.org/ Guidelines for developing allometric equations are now
available. In addition, recent scientific compilations and/or studies on average biomass stocks and average biomass
increments are available.

Outcomes from Sao Paulo Expert Meeting July 2015:82

Update default values for BEF/BCEF (Box 4.2, page 4.13-4.14, 2006 IPCC Guidelines), harvest losses and root/shootratio, average biomass stocks and average biomass increments, emissions factors to reflect latest science and otherparameters from scientific literature.

Suggested refinement option [Update][Update Section 4.2.1, Chapter 4, Volume 4, default values for BEF/BCEF (Box 4.2, page 4.13-4.14, 2006 IPCC GuidelinesGL), harvest losses and root/shoot ratio, average biomass stocks and average biomass increments, emissions factors]
Note: For Harvest losses, IPCC Guidelines do not contain such data (they are activity data). May however need to add
guidance on the use of international sources (e.g. FAO data) on harvesting and HWP.

Category AFOLU: Gas CO2, CH4 and N2OIssue #2:
Update guidance on activity data (including natural disturbances), for land representation to link land
classification system with digital maps (Remote Sensing or GIS data) and also stratified by climate, soil
and land use
Background
There is a lack of guidance in Chapter 3 on Land representation in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines on linking land classification
system with the digital maps. There is a need to update or further develop guidance on activity data on land representation
to link the land classification system and digital maps (remote sensing data or GIS data). This should allow for aggregationof relevant classes into the main six IPCC Land Use Categories defined in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Forest Land, Cropland,
Grassland, Wetlands, Settlements and Other Land), also addressing the need to capture land use conversion while also
stratifying by climate, soil and land use type
Section 3A.2.4 on “Tools for Data Collection” in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines has a subsection on “Remote
Sensing Techniques” which provides a simple outline of the type of RS data acquired by sensors (Optical, Radar or LIDAR)
on board satellites or by cameras equipped with optical or infrared sensors operated on airborne platforms. Since the 2006
IPCC Guidelines were produced, RS technologies have further continued to develop and there is considerably moreexperience in their use. In addition, the need for reliable estimates of GHG emissions and removals from forests indeveloping countries has increased because of the GHG mitigation measures such as REDD+ incentives and therequirement to report information on GHG emissions/removals in their Biennial Update Reports (BURs) under the UNFCCC
process.

Outcome from Sao Paulo Expert Meeting July 2015




Recommend expert meeting for technical assessment of available information and consider updating guidance on
how to assemble activity data to allow for aggregation of relevant classes into the main six IPCC Land
Use/Conversion Categories defined in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Also stratified by climate, soil and land use typeand capture other information such as natural disturbances.
Recommend expert meeting to update references in Chapter 3 (including list of RS datasets - Annex 3A.2.4 inVolume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines). Update guidance, (including information on data organization, use ofreference data, and integrating frameworks for a consistent land representation) referring to material elsewhere(FAO emissions database, GFOI, GOFC-GOLD, FFPRI REDD+ Cookbook).
Recommend expert meeting to consider that in order to make this update relevant to the inventory compilers, thismeans that an assessment of land use change is required, measurement of land use change that is consistentover time and the need to clarify in guidelines distinction between land use and land cover. Specify, for example,
how GFOI products can help inventory compliers with examples of land use transition/LUC of remote sending data
into LUC and land use.

83

Outcome from Wollongong Expert Meeting April 2016
Summary of discussions:Due to advances in the last 10 years’ progress IPCC good practice guidance on RS is outdated, several examples of therecent advances were presented. Remote sensing techniques (such as National Land Cover Database - NLCD) havealready been used in representing IPCC land use categories, however, there are still remaining technical issues such as:Definition (can we live with remote-sensing-based definitions or develop guidelines on scientifically-acceptable
conversion tables) and Standard for accuracy (should it be 80%, 85%, 90 %?) by specific classes.
Remote sensing tools such as FAO-Google Collect Earth can help inventory compilers in accessing remote sensing imagery
and the use of sampling based approach to classify land for IPCC land representation. Use of different RS systems in
different land categories for example Brazilian case study (up to now more focus was given to forest land with PRODES,DEGRAD and DETER), the use of different allometric equations produce different results, recognition that several maps ofdifferent biomes can be presented. Possibility of mixing techniques: including field data, statistics and remote imagery (e.g.
LIDAR, optical, aircraft, satellite, and space station). Development of verification techniques and quantifying uncertainties
associated with RS data. How to overcome difficulties to move from national land classification to IPCC classification. New
Zealand example on clarifying land cover is not the same as land use, therefore mapping land cover requires additional
information to get to land use data. Land-use change takes time to confirm and any new guidance should allow for that.
Australia presented good example to allow for tracking of land use. Further, guidance on a consistent land representation,i.e. constant area across time, transition time within land use change categories would be needed to avoid frequent errors
in GHG inventories..

Outcomes from Wollongong Meeting: Chapter 3, Volume 4 on Land Representation
Elaboration of existing guidance inter alia:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
vi)
vii)
viii)
ix)
x)
xi)

How to decide when to use global data, products and tools for land use representation? Use of techniques(in conjunction and/or in complement with national data)
Guidance on activity data uncertainties
Extend IPCC Guidance on consistent use of time series data, including for tracking land use change
Integration of ground observation, ancillary and RS data
Identification and tracking of disturbances in land representation
Guidance on how to better assess conversion to forest land and forest regrowth in the context of RS andground data
How to relate national land classification to IPCC land categories, including sub-stratification
Guidance on how RS land cover data, ground based data and ancillary data can be used to derive land use
Guidance on how consistency between REDD+ and/or project activities and IPCC inventory guidelines canbe demonstrated
Guidance on how to use Tier 1 and 2 methods with Approach 3
Guidance on how to deal with seasonal nature of specific land categories

Table of Outcomes from Wollongong Meetingi)

How to decide when to use global data,
products and tools for land use
representation? Use of techniques (inconjunction and/or in complement withnational data)
84

Elaboration of existing guidance(i.e. Chapter 3) based on, interalia:
 MGD Module 2 and version 2(currently in preparation);




ii)

Guidance on activity data uncertainties

iii)

Extend IPCC Guidance on consistent use oftime series data, including for tracking land
use change

iv)

Integration of ground observation, ancillary
and RS datav)

Identification of disturbances in land
representationvi)

Guidance on how to better assessconversion to forest land and forest
regrowth in the context of RS and ground
data

vii)

How to relate national land classification to
IPCC land categories, including substratification

viii)

Guidance on how RS land cover data,
ground based data and ancillary data canbe used to derive land use

85

GOFC-GOLD/GFOI/ESA
Workshop on global datasets;
FFPRI Cookbook;
FAO (currently in preparation)

Elaboration of existing guidance(i.e. section 3.5) by inter alia:‐ including material on
statistical inference;‐ updating table 3.7 in IPCC
guidelines;‐ using section 3.7 of MGD(Version 1);
etc.
Elaboration of existing guidanceby, inter alia:
Using examples from relevant
countries (e.g. Canada, Australia,etc.);
Using FAO sampling approach;
Etc.
Elaboration of existing guidanceby, inter alia:‐ Correlation of different typesof data;‐ Using MGD;
‐ Using countries examples;‐ GOFC/GOLD;‐ ALU Software;
Etc.
Elaboration of existing guidanceby, inter alia:‐ Using KP supplement;
Etc.
Elaboration of existing guidanceby, inter alia:‐ Adding use of time series, RS
data and ancillary data;
Etc.
Elaboration of existing guidanceby, inter alia, using:‐ Decision tree;‐ Ancillary data andmanagement practices;‐ Examples of countries
approaches;
Etc.
Elaboration of existing guidanceby, inter alia, identifying theattribution of the change throughthe use of:‐ Time series data;‐ Ancillary data;
Etc.

ix)

Guidance on how consistency between
REDD+ and/or project activities and IPCC
inventory GL can be demonstratedx)

Guidance on how to use Tier 1 and 2
methods with Approach 3

xi)

Guidance on how to deal with seasonal
nature of specific land categories

Elaboration of existing guidanceby, inter alia:‐ Using MGD (in respect of
REDD+);‐ GOFC/GOLD;‐ FFPRI Cookbook;
Etc.
Elaboration of existing guidanceby, inter alia:‐ Covering multiple transitions
for estimating emissions;
Etc.
Elaboration of existing guidanceby, inter alia:‐ Better categorization of landthrough use of thresholds toidentify seasonality;
Etc.

Suggested refinement option [Elaboration and Update][Elaboration of Chapter 3, Volume 4, update Table 3.7 using section 3.7 of MDG (Version 1) and update Annex 3A.2.4,
see Table of outcomes from Wollongong Meeting April 2016 for mode of refinement]

Category: AFOLU, Gas CO2, N2O and CH4
Issue #3:
Revise emission factor for flooded land (Wetlands) and to fully develop a methodology for estimating CH4emissions from flooded lands and possible refinement of methodology for estimating CO2 taking into
consideration issues such as the following: the quantity and type of flooded land; management activities
prior to flooding and during reservoir management; inflow/outflow rates and drawdown area, water depth
drawn off and timing/frequency; upstream watershed and erosional estuarine exchange- inputs of organic
material and nutrients; and other new scientific literature.
Background
Methane emissions are covered in Appendix 3 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, as “For Further Methodological
Development”. The results from the survey highlighted a number of issues including the fact that both CO2 and N2Oemissions can vary due to upstream watershed and erosional estuarine exchange. There is risks of double counting. Betterguidance of watershed reporting/ protocols is necessary in order to clarify the need to account for N2O or allochthonous
CO2.
Although much of the advice on derivation of emission factors in Appendices 2 and 3 is still applicable, research results
published since 2006 indicate that there are other important factors which should be considered in order to obtainrepresentative flux CO2 values. These factors include: the quantity and type of carbon pool flooded (e.g. tropical forest
biomass vs. boreal peatland soil), management activities prior to flooding (e.g. harvesting) and during reservoir management,
inflow/outflow rates and drawdown area. The types of ecosystems flooded have been shown to influence the magnitude
and spatial patterns of CO2 emissions (Teodoru et al., 2010; Brothers et al., 2012b). The availability of numerous publishedarticles from many countries, reporting emissions from both young and older reservoirs as well as various synthesis studies
support the development of relevant methodologies for various tier levels and the derivation of both new and updated
emission factors. Countries with new data include Finland, India, China and Russia. (See EDG for literature sources)

Outcome from Sao Paulo meeting July 201586

Sao Paulo meeting (2015) recommend expert meeting with a view to providing advice to the scoping meeting on thedevelopment of a methodology report to update and complete methods in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines to estimate emissions
and removals from flooded lands.
Wollongong expert meeting (2016) considered what information exists to allow the development of more complete guidance
for all gases and what management practices for which there is enough knowledge that could justify their inclusion in theguidelines. (See EDG for Scientific references)

Outcomes from Wollongong Meeting April 2016
The expert meeting considered the following for the scope of the definitions for flooded land:The definition used in this report agrees with common definitions used in the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands andthe Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
 Flooded lands are defined as water bodies regulated by human activities for energy production, irrigation,navigation, recreation, etc. and where substantial changes in water area due to water regulation occur.
 Regulated lakes and rivers, where the main pre-flooded ecosystem was a natural lake or river, are not considered
as flooded lands. Rice paddies are addressed in the Agriculture Chapter of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and Good
Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (GPG-2000).
 N2O is considered elsewhere
The discussion also covered “natural” reservoirs (= regulated lakes) used for hydroelectricity generation that do not havesubstantial changes in water area in comparison with the pre-flooded ecosystem. They do not meet the definition of “Flooded
Land” in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines although they can be significant sources of GHGs and the same methodology can beapplied as reservoirs for hydroelectricity that meet the definition of “Flooded Land” in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. How should
we treat these reservoirs? Do we need to change the definition of “Flooded Land”?

Emerging issues to be considered at scoping meeting or by authorsi)“Net emissions” approach was recommended by presenters (Anthropogenic emissions to be included in theinventory = Post-flood emissions – Pre-flood emissions.) However, this is not consistent with the Managed
Land Proxy in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (=all emissions from managed land should be included in theinventory).
In relation to the discussion about “Net emissions” approach, the following were noted.


IPCC Inventory Guidelines provide methods to estimate and repot national GHG emissions/removals, but do notdeal with “accounting” (= relating to emission reduction commitment).
This issue may need to be considered also in the context of cross-sectoral issues such as time-series consistency
and recalculation. (In the case natural wetlands were converted to Flooded Lands for hydroelectricity in 20XX,
should we recalculate the inventory to include emissions from that areas for years before 20XX which were notincluded because they were considered as emissions from “unmanaged lands”?

ii)
Definition of flooded land to include run of the river damsiii)
Several key emission pathways can be addressed at Tier 1leveliv)
Some emission pathways will require higher tier approach in countries where they are importantv)
Cross cutting issues
 Consistency/overlap with some categories in the 2013 Wetlands Supplement
 Avoidance of double counting/not accounting for carbon and nitrogen exported from terrestrial ecosystems andprocessed within flooded lands

Suggested refinement option [New Guidance and Update][Revision of emission factor for flooded land (Wetlands) and development of a methodology for estimating CH4 emissions
from flooded lands and possible refinement of methodology for estimating CO2]87

(Annotated list of Issues discussed in Agriculture BOGs in 2015 and 2016 Expert meetings)
Forestry and Other Land use
CROPLAND (3.B.2)
Issue #4:
Mineral soils under Cropland: Carbon stock change factors
Outcomes of the Sao Paulo meeting July 2015
Main difficulty is to find necessary activity data. Maybe it is useful to show alternative methods to get necessary data(consistent with 3.D) or to use them in a refined alternative methodology (gain-loss; C input minus C losses; Russia has
experience, Stephen Ogle suggests equilibrium model runs). The methodology would somehow be less data-intensive
than the current methodology (simpler). But methodologies have to be consistent across land-uses and in the time series.
Tillage: a lot of new research; no-till effect does not work everywhere, so the defaults may imply an impact which does not
happen everywhere. Check how much information comes from tropics and regions where the default method is commonly
used
Productivity: new data, in particular on cover crops. Highlight that residue etc. data is available from N input estimate in
3.D. Strive for internal consistency and highlight this here
Organic input: new data available, factor was very uncertain. Highlight that organic manure data is available from N input
estimate in 3.D. Strive for internal consistency and highlight this here.

Suggested refinement option [Methodology Report]
If there is a methodology change in croplands, this has implications in all land-use categories.
Assess the potential other, simpler methodology for croplands for applicability in other land-use categories
Generic equations including equation 2.25, Chapter 2, Vol 4 and relevant parameters used in equations and default
factors are given in respective chapter of (Cropland Chapter 5, Table 5.5) and Grassland (Chapter 6, Table 6.2) of Vol 4.

Outcomes of the Wollongong meeting April 2016
i.

Assessment of feasibility of other potential simpler methodology

Alternative methodologies were presented and considered. Modified gains-loss or hybrid gains-loss approach. They were
not simpler or less data intensive. However, they may fit better with certain national data availability and circumstances.
This would only be considered if default factors can be developed, activity data is available and the method is verified.
The current methodology would be retained and be an option for countries to use if it is more appropriate for their national
circumstances.

Suggested refinement option [New Guidance]
Alternative methodologies should be explored in a methodology report.
This requires the development of new guidance. Development would be based on methods currently being used bycountries or developed in the scientific literature.
Authors should consider the comparability of the existing Tier 1 method with any alternative Tier 1 methodology.
88

ii.

Consideration of implications in all land-use categories if there is a methodology change, andapplicability of the method in other land-use categories

Changes to carbon stock change factors will have implications on land-use change categories and also other land-use
categories. Elaboration on the use of higher Tier methods is required and the application of different higher Tier methods
among different land-use categories.

Suggested refinement option [New Guidance]
These changes will have implications for other land-use categories.
Updates and addition of default factors is required.
Factors that require exploration are the time of transition for carbon following land-use change in different ecosystems.
The use of a two stage transition, as applied in the wetland supplement was discussed, and the use of different transition
periods for different climates and different management practices.
Special emphasis should be placed on integrating information about tropical land-use changes.
Guidance should be developed to provide approaches to develop carbon stock change estimates for land-use transitions
when using different Tier 1 or higher Tier methodologies for different land-use categories.

iii. Consideration of data availability to update default C stock change factors for mineral soils

Currently the current methodology is not being used widely due to the complexity of the current guidance. It is necessary
to revise this guidance.

Suggested refinement option [New Guidance]
There is adequate evidence to take this to a methodology report.
There is evidence that default factors in the current guidance could be updated. In particular new defaults for tropicalregions and tropical land-use change can be developed based on recent research. Other factors such as the tillage stockchange factor also requires revision based on recent research. Other factors within the current guidance should be
reviewed in light of new research.
The elaboration required to applying the present guidance would require clear instructions on applying increasing
amounts of information (activity data) on soil carbon management in the present method. A guide to continuous
improvement of the application of the Tier 1 methodology (prioritization of application of management factors). For
example the compiler should use at least the land-use change effects, followed by addressing management and input
factors.
This should include clear guidance, as well, on how and why it is important to move to higher Tier methods.
Links should be made between spatial representation approaches and the collection of information on soil management
through mechanisms such as expert information surveys.

GRASSLAND (3.B.3)
Issue #5
Mineral soils under grassland: Carbon stock change factors
Outcomes of the Sao Paulo meeting July 201589

C stock change factors in 2006 IPCC Guidelines were made on a small data base; several more are available and could
make a difference, which cannot be assessed by the expert group; defaults, e.g. linked to production, could be morerobust. An update of the EF is probably not a big effort, since the overall information is relatively scarce. Would also help
to improve burning estimates.

Suggested refinement option [Methodology report]
In line with changes in croplands.
Generic equations including equation 2.25, Chapter 2, Vol 4 and relevant parameters used in equations and default
factors are given in respective chapter of (Cropland Chapter 5, Table 5.5) and Grassland (Chapter 6, Table 6.2) of Vol 4.

Outcomes of the Wollongong meetingi.

Assessment of feasibility of other potential simpler methodology

The same approach as proposed for cropland should be explored for grasslands.

Suggested refinement option [New Guidance]
This subject should be addressed in a methodology report.
This requires the development of new guidance. Development would be based on methods currently being used bycountries or developed in the scientific literature.

ii.

Consideration of implications in all land-use categories if there is a methodology change, andapplicability of the method in other land-use categories

The same considerations would be considered for grassland as cropland.

Suggested refinement option [New Guidance]
See croplandiii. Consideration of data availability to update default C stock change factors for mineral soils
Grassland methodology requires the same elaboration of guidance in its application as cropland C. The majority ofevidence of changes in C stock changes factors is in the cropland category, but new research should be reviewed toevaluate if similar changes could be made to grassland factors.

Suggested refinement option: [New Guidance]
There is adequate evidence to take this to a methodology report.
Elaborate on guidance, a step-by-step guide to continuous improvement of methodology.
Review C-stock change factors, in light of recent research.

Waste Sector
Issue #1.
Domestic Wastewater Treatment and Discharge (4.D.1)
Development or update of methods and default emission factors for emission estimation for septic tanks−−−

Unclear of significance but used in almost every country
Encouraged addition of data to EFDB to reflect different types of septic systems (e.g., bottomless, water sealed) andtemperature
Recommended expert meeting for technical assessment of ability to update/complement default parameters and clarify
the methodology (e.g., when using multiple systems)

Suggested refinement option(s): [Update](Update of Section 6.2, Chapter 6, Volume 5)90Issue #2.
Domestic Wastewater Treatment and Discharge (4.D.1)
Improvement of guidance and update or addition of default emission factors of N2O emissions from
nitrification and denitrification at wastewater treatment plants
New studies confirm highly variable emissions dependent on type of treatment, but the current EF is considered too
low for these types of systems and there may be need for an EF for other types of systems
Encouraged addition of data to EFDB to evaluate the default factor and evaluate range of emissions
Discuss/highlight potential source in FAQ
Current guidance is outdated and does not respond to recent research
Recommended expert meeting for technical assessment of method, EF, and activity data before further consideration
for supplementary guidance related to N2O emissions from wastewater treatment

−
−
−
−
−

Suggested refinement option(s): [Update](Update of Section 6.3, Chapter 6, Volume 5)
Issue #3.
Industrial Wastewater Treatment and Discharge (4.D.2)
Development of guidance on N2O emissions from industrial wastewater treatment process
−
−
−
−
−

Significance of this source is not clear
Methodology used for domestic wastewater could be applied to industrial wastewater (both direct and indirect N2O)
for countries where this is a significant source and activity data are available
Guidance could be provided on how to address industrial wastewater treatment emissions in FAQ
Encouraged addition of data to EFDB to reflect industrial data and emissions
Recommended expert meeting for technical assessment of activity data and method before further consideration for
supplementary guidance related to N2O emissions from wastewater treatment

Suggested refinement option(s): [New Guidance]
Overall summary of recommendations of the Geneva meeting: CH4 emissions from septic systems− Flagged for focused scoping meeting− Most relevant topic globally− Need to update and refine emission factors (MCF) based on new data to address different types of tanks
 N2O emissions from wastewater− Flagged for focused scoping meeting− Overall recommendation is to relook/rewrite N2O section to address new data and need for better guidance Improvement of N2O emission factors from wastewater treatment plants (nitrification/denitrification processes
and conventional treatment) Inclusion of industrial wastewater (new source)
 Mass balance approach (clarify how to address N lost through system) FAO data on protein consumption vs protein supply− Need to keep methods simple, because it is a minor source but allow also for higher Tiers

91

Annex 4. Draft Integral Table of Contents (TOC)2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

Draft Table of Contents
Introductory Note

The 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2019
Refinement) will be a single Methodology Report comprising an Overview Chapter and five volumes following
the format of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2006 IPCC Guidelines).
Overview Chapter
Volume 1: General Guidance and Reporting
Volume 2: Energy
Volume 3: Industrial Processes and Product Use
Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use
Volume 5: Waste
The draft table of contents is presented below for each volume. Its structure is the same as that of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines so as to make it easier for inventory compilers to use this Methodology Report with the 2006
IPCC Guidelines. For those Chapters/Sections/Subsections where refinement is expected, the following threeelements are explained.
- Issue (which needs to be addressed)- Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines (location of relevant guidance in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines)- Type of refinement (Update, Elaboration or New guidance, as explained in the draft Terms of Reference)
On the other hand, for those Chapters/Sections/Subsections where refinement is NOT expected, “Norefinement” is indicated.
However, the following two principles need to be noted.
Authors should develop modifications even for those Chapters/Sections/Subsections where “Norefinement” is indicated in this draft table of contents, if deemed necessary to ensure consistency with therefinements made in the other Chapters/Sections/Subsections.
Authors may conclude no refinement should be made even for the Chapters/Sections/Subsections whererefinement is expected in this draft table of contents, after comprehensive review of available literature.

In addition, authors should develop modifications for Annexes (e.g. Worksheets) at the end of each volume aswell, if deemed necessary to ensure consistency with the refinements made in Chapters/Sections/Subsectionsin the same volume, even though those Annexes are not explicitly included in this draft table of contents.

Overview Chapter

Background – Technical Assessment of IPCC Inventory Guidelines
Fundamental principle (not revising, but refining)
Relationship with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines
Policy Relevance92

Volume 1: General Guidance and Reporting
Chapter 1

Introduction to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines

Issue 1: Provide a better description on how to implement a national inventory management system that manages allparts of Volume 1, implements continuous improvement and leads to the development of mature inventories.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New Section in Chapter 1
Type of refinement: New guidanceIssue 2: Clarify the concept of “anthropogenic emissions and removals”.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 1.1 Concepts, with Guidance contained in the 2013 KP
Supplement Chapter 2.3.4 and 2.3.5 and the 2013 Wetlands Supplement
Type of refinement: Update

Chapter 2

Approaches to Data Collection

Issue 1: Add guidance for the development of country-specific emission factors, focusing on developing countries.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New guidance in Chapter 2
Type of refinement: New guidanceIssue 2: Add guidance for activity data collection; technical survey indicated there is a capacity problem to gather andmanage national data which can be addressed by an additional guidance.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New guidance in Chapter 2
Type of refinement: New guidanceIssue 3: Add guidance on the integration of GHG emissions reported from facilities into national GHG inventories
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New guidance in Chapter 2
Type of refinement: New guidance

Chapter 3
Issue:

Chapter 4
Issue:

Chapter 5
Issue:

Chapter 6

Uncertainties
Refine guidance on uncertainty based on the latest scientific knowledge and simplification of guidance by
providing more default values, calculation examples and best practices.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Chapter 3
Type of refinement: Update

Methodological Choice and Identification of Key Categories
Add guidance on key category analysis to address treatment of disaggregation of categories, trend analysis,
equations for trend analysis and the need for consistent definition of significant subcategories across thedifferent volumes of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Chapter 4 (and relevant guidance in the other volumes)
Type of refinement: Elaboration

Time Series Consistency
Provide practical guidance on how to apply existing guidance on time series consistency because this proved
to be a problem for many countries.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Chapter 5
Type of refinement: Elaboration

Quality Assurance / Quality Control and Verification

Issue 1: Add guidance on the use and reporting of models
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New Section in Chapter 6
Type of refinement: New guidanceIssue 2: Elaborate user-friendly description of verification, validation, audit and QA/QC because users are unclear on
their IPCC meanings compared to outer definitions, such as ISO as used by CDM.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.1, Box 6.1
93

Type of refinement: Elaboration
Issue 3: Update/elaborate verification guidance because the existing guidance is outdated (especially the guidanceon comparisons with atmospheric measurements and new datasets).
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.10
Type of refinement: Update/Elaboration

Chapter 7
Issue:

Precursors and Indirect Emissions
Elaborate clearer guidance for the calculation of indirect CO2 emissions.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 7.2.1.5
Type of refinement: Elaboration

Chapter 8

Reporting Guidance and Tables

No refinement

Volume 2: Energy
Chapter 1

Introduction

No refinement

Chapter 2
2.1

Stationary Combustion

Overview
No refinement

2.2

Description of sources
No refinement

2.3

Methodological issues

Issue:

2.4

Link to issue related to biomass combustion and methodologies for HWP
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 2.3.3.4
Type of refinement: Elaboration

Uncertainty assessment
No refinement

2.5

Inventory Quality Assurance/Quality Control QA/QC
No refinement

2.6

Worksheets
No refinement

Chapter 3

Mobile Combustion

No refinement

Chapter 4
4.1

Fugitive Emissions

Fugitive emissions from mining, processing, storage and transportation of coalIssue1: Elaborate chapter to include guidance on emissions from exploration and CO2 emissions (Undergroundcoal mines, Surface coal mining)
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Sections 4.1.3 and 4.1.4 (Sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2 and 4.1.6 are
relevant)
Type of refinement: Elaboration
Issue2: Include new section on abandoned surface coal mines
94Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Not applicable. (Next to Section 4.1.5. Sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2 and4.1.6 are relevant)Type of refinement: New guidance

4.2

Fugitive emissions from oil and natural gas systems
Issue:

4.3

Update chapter including update/inclusion of EFs representative for current practice. Additional guidance
for unconventional oil and gas production and abandoned wells.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Sections 4.2
Type of refinement: Update

Fuel transformation [New]
Issue:

Chapter 5

Include new section on fuel transformation
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New Section in Chapter 4 (Next to Section 4.2)
Type of refinement: New guidance

Carbon Dioxide Transport, Injection and Geological Storage

No refinement

Chapter 6

Reference ApproachNo refinement

Volume 3: Industrial Processes and Product Use
Chapter 1

Introduction

No refinement

Chapter 2

Mineral Industry Emission

No refinement

Chapter 3
3.1

Chemical Industry Emissions

Introduction
No refinement

3.2

Ammonia production
No refinement

3.3

Nitric acid production
Issue:

3.4

Update guidance on appropriate emission factors to use for dual pressure technologies for Nitric Acid
Production
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 3.3.2.2 and Table 3.3
Type of refinement: Update

Adipic acid production
No refinement

3.5

Caprolactam, glyoxal and glyoxylic acid production
No refinement

3.6

Carbide production
No refinement

3.7

Titanium dioxide production
No refinement
95

3.8

Soda ash production
No refinement

3.9

Petrochemical and carbon black production
No refinement

3.10 Fluorochemical production
Issue:

Update guidance and default Tier 1 emission factors for production of fluorinated compounds other than
HCFC-22
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 3.10.2.2Type of refinement: Update/Elaboration

3.11 Hydrogen production [New]
Issue:

Chapter 4
4.1

Develop guidance for estimating GHG emissions from hydrogen production
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New Section in Chapter 3 (Next to Section 3.10)
Type of refinement: New guidance

Metal Industry Emissions

Introduction
No refinement

4.2

Iron & steel and metallurgical coke production
Issue:

4.3

Update emission factors for Iron and Steel Production and elaborate methodological guidance.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 4.2.2.3 and Table 4.1
Type of refinement: Update/Elaboration

Ferroalloy production
No refinement

4.4

4.5

Primary aluminium production
Issue:

Elaborate guidance and emissions factors to incorporate “low-voltage anode effect” PFC emissions andintegrate this guidance into the existing methodology on “high-voltage anode effect” PFC emissions.
Update of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 defaults.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 4.4
Type of refinement: Update/Elaboration

Issue:Develop a new methodology for the CO2 emissions from the alumina production. Ensuring completenessand avoiding double counting
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New guidance in Section 4.4
Type of refinement: New guidanceMagnesium production
No refinement

4.6

Lead production
No refinement

4.7

Zinc production
No refinement

4.8 Rare Earth elements [New]
Issue:Develop a new guidance on GHG emissions (PFCs and CO2) from production of Rare Earth elements
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New Section in Chapter 4 (Next to Section 4.7)
96

Type of refinement: New guidance

Chapter 5

Non-Energy Products from Fuels and Solvent use

No refinement

Chapter 6
Issue:

Electronics Industry Emissions
Update guidance and default Tier 1 and Tier 2 emission factors for Semiconductor Industry, improvement of
the Tier 3 guidance and elaboration of guidance on generation of by-products from abatement technologies(CF4 from NF3)
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.2.1 and 6.2.2, and 6.3.1 (uncertainty, to the extent necessary)
Type of refinement: Update/Elaboration/New guidance

Chapter 7
7.1

Emissions of Fluorinated Substitutes for Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS)

Introduction
No refinement

7.2

Solvents (non-aerosol)
No refinement

7.3

Aerosols (propellants and solvents)
No refinement

7.4

Foam blowing agents
No refinement

7.5

Refrigeration and air conditioning
Issue:

7.6

Add examples (collection of activity data, distribution of ODS substitutes by application within countries).
Elaborate by adding a box with “recipe-style” guidance on how to launch the ODS substitutes inventory.
Elaborate the reference to Montreal Protocol. Update emission factors by further segregating equipment
types, regions, and time periods where possible.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Sections 7.5.2.1 - for the recipe, 7.5.2.2 - for emission factors, 7.5.2.3- for activity data
Type of refinement: Update/Elaboration

Fire protection
No refinement

7.7

Other applications
No refinement

Chapter 8
8.1

Other Product Manufacture and Use

Introduction
No refinement

8.2

Emissions of SF6 and PFCs from electrical equipment
No refinement

8.3

Use of SF6 and PFCs in other products
Issue 1: Develop guidance for PFCs (GHG) emissions from Textile Industry.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New guidance in Section 8.3
Type of refinement: New guidanceIssue 2: Develop guidance for PFCs (GHG) emissions from water-proofing electronic circuit boards
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New guidance in Section 8.3
97

Type of refinement: New guidance

8.4

N2O from product uses
No refinement

Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use
Chapter 1

Introduction

No refinement

Chapter 2
2.1

Generic Methodologies Applicable to Multiple Land-use Categories

Introduction
No refinement

2.2

Inventory framework
No refinement

2.3

Generic methods for CO2 emissions and removals

2.3.1

Change in biomass carbon stocks (above-ground biomass and below-ground biomass)

Issue 1: Develop guidance on the use of allometric equations for biomass estimation
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New Subsection in Section 2.3.1
Type of refinement: New guidanceIssue 2: Develop guidance on how to use biomass density (amount per unit area) maps generated from remotesensing data for biomass estimation
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New Subsection in Section 2.3.1
Type of refinement: New guidance
2.3.2

Change in carbon stocks in dead organic matter

Issue 1: Update default values for litter stocks and develop default values for deadwood stocks
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 2.3.2.1, IPCC default values for litter and dead wood
(Table 2.2)
Type of refinement: Update/Elaboration
Issue 2: Develop equation 2.18 for estimating DOMout and associated default values
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 2.3.2.1, IPCC default values for litter and dead wood
(Table 2.2)
Type of refinement: Elaboration
2.3.3

Change in carbon stocks in soils

Issue 1: Update reference carbon stocks.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 2.3.3.1, Table 2.3
Type of refinement: Update
Issue 2: Develop new Tier 2 method for mineral soils that requires less activity data than the current default
methodLocation in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New guidance in Section 2.3.3.1
Type of refinement: New guidanceIssue 3: Elaborate Tier 3 Methodologies with case study examples for soils.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Tier 3 methods, Section 2.3.3.1,
Type of refinement: Elaboration

2.4

Non-CO2 emissions
98Issue:2.5

Replace defaults for cropland mass of fuel with crop residue estimation method in Chapter 11 for soil
N2O method to ensure consistency in the calculation of residues between the two categories, andprovide a basis to estimate mass of fuel for all crops instead of just the 4 crops listed in Table 2.4.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 2.4, Table 2.4
Type of refinement: Update

Additional generic guidance for Tier 3 methods
Issue 1: Provide guidance on how to address inter-annual variability
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Chapter 2.5
Type of refinement: Elaboration
Issue 2: Elaborate guidance on the use of Tier 3 methods
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2
Type of refinement: Elaboration

Chapter 3
3.1

Consistent Representation of Lands

Introduction
No refinement

3.2

Land-use categories
No refinement

3.3

Representing land-use areas
Issue:

3.4

Matching land areas with factors for estimating greenhouse gas emissions and removals
Issue:

3.5

Develop guidance on how remotely sensed data, ground based data, and ancillary data can be integrated
and used to derive consistent time series estimates of land use and land-use change
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 3.3 and Annex 3A.1 and 3A.2
Type of refinement: Update/Elaboration/New guidance
Provide guidance on how to use methodologies within different methodological tiers in combination withdifferent approaches for land representation
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New Subsection in Section 3.4
Type of refinement: New guidance

Uncertainties associated with the Approaches
No refinement

Annex 3A.1 Examples of International land cover datasets(See the above issue under Section 3.3)

Annex 3A.2 Development of land-use databases(See the above issue under Section 3.3)

Chapter 4
4.1

Forest Land

Introduction
No refinement

4.2

Forest Land Remaining Forest Land

4.2.1

Biomass

No refinement
4.2.2

Dead organic matterNo refinement994.2.3

Soil carbon

Issue:

4.2.4

Provide guidance and develop new Tier 2 method for mineral soils that requires less activity data thanthe current default method
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New guidance in Section 4.2.3
Type of refinement: New guidanceNon-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions from biomass burning

No refinement

4.3

Land Converted to Forest Land
(All issues for Section 4.2 above apply to this Section similarly.)

4.4

Completeness, time series, QA/QC, and reporting and documentation
Issue:

4.5

TablesIssue:

Chapter 5
5.1

Develop guidance on how to ensure methodological consistency of time series, such as through the useof age class structure data
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 4.4.2 on time series consistency
Type of refinement: Elaboration
Update values for BEF/BCEF and root/shoot ratio, average biomass stocks, and average biomass
increments
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Tables 4.4, 4.5, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11A and 4.11B, 4.12
Type of refinement: Update/Elaboration

CroplandIntroduction
No refinement

5.2

Cropland Remaining Cropland

5.2.1

Biomass

Issue:

5.2.2

Update default biomass carbon parameters.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 5.2.1.2, Tables 5.1, 5.2, 5.3
Type of refinement: Update

Dead organic matterNo refinement
5.2.3

Soil carbon

Issue 1: Update carbon stock change factors.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 5.2.3.2, Table 5.5Type of refinement: Update
Issue 2: Develop new Tier 2 method for mineral soils that requires less activity data than the current default
methodLocation in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New guidance in Section 5.2.3
Type of refinement: New guidance
5.2.4

Non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions from biomass burning

No refinement

5.3

Land Converted to Cropland(All issues for Section 5.2 above apply to this Section similarly.)
100

5.4

Completeness, time series, QA/QC, and reporting
No refinement

5.5

Methane emissions from rice cultivation
Issue:Develop regionally specific default EFs
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 5.5.2, Tables 5.11 to 5.14,
Type of refinement: Update

Annex 5A.1 Estimation of default stock change factors for mineral soil C emissions/removals forcropland(See the above issues under Section 5.2.3.)

Chapter 6
6.1

Grassland

Introduction
No refinement

6.2

Grassland Remaining Grassland

6.2.1

Biomass

Issue:

6.2.2

Update default biomass carbon parameters.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.2.1.2, Table 6.1
Type of refinement: Update

Dead organic matterNo refinement
6.2.3

Soil carbon

Issue 1: Update carbon stock change factors.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.2.3.2, Table 6.2
Type of refinement: Update
Issue 2: Develop new Tier 2 method for mineral soils that requires less activity data than the current default
methodLocation in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New guidance in Section 6.2.3
Type of refinement: New guidance
6.2.4

Non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions from biomass burning

No refinement

6.3

Land Converted to Grassland(All Issues for section 6.2 above apply to this Section similarly.)

6.4

Completeness, time series, QA/QC, and reporting
No refinement

Annex 6A.1 Estimation of default stock change factors for mineral soil C emissions/removals forgrassland(See the above issues under Section 6.2.3.)

Chapter 7
7.1

Wetlands

Introduction
No refinement

7.2

Managed peatlands101

No refinement

7.3

Flooded Land
Issue:

7.4

Update CO2 emission factors for land converted to flooded land (Wetlands) and fully develop a consistentmethodology for estimating CO2 and CH4 emissions from flooded lands (both land converted to flooded
land and flooded land remaining flooded land).
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 7.3 and associated good practice guidance in Section 7.4,
and Appendices 2 and 3; also relevant to Chapter 2, Section 2.3 (Generic Methodologies for CO2
emissions and removals).
Type of refinement: New guidance/Update

Completeness, time series consistency, and QA/QC
No refinement

7.5

Future methodological development
Issue:

Clarify that this section of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines is no longer relevant
Location in the 2006 Guidelines: Section 7.5
Type of refinement: Elaboration

7.X. Additional guidance on Tier 2 method for mineral soils [New]
Issue:

Chapter 8
8.1

Develop guidance to implement new Tier 2 method for mineral soils that requires less activity data thanthe current default method, taking into consideration Chapter 5 of the 2013 Wetlands Supplement to the2006 IPCC Guidelines: Wetlands.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New Section in Chapter 7 (Between Sections 7.3 and 7.4)
Type of refinement: New guidance

Settlements

Introduction
No refinement

8.2

Settlements Remaining Settlements

8.2.1

Biomass

Issue:

8.2.2

Update default biomass carbon parameters.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 8.2.1.2,
Type of refinement: Update

Dead organic matterNo refinement
8.2.3

Soil carbon

Issue:

8.3

Develop new Tier 2 method for mineral soils that requires less activity data than the current default
methodLocation in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New guidance in Section 8.2.3
Type of refinement: New guidanceLand Converted to Settlements(All Issues for section 8.2 above apply to this Section similarly.)

8.4

Completeness, time series consistency, QA/QC and reporting
No refinement

8.5

Basis for future methodological development
Issue:

Clarify the elements in this section of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines that are no longer relevant102Location in the 2006 Guidelines: Section 8.5
Type of refinement: Elaboration

Chapter 9
9.1

Other Land

Introduction
No refinement

9.2

Other Land Remaining Other Land
No refinement

9.3

Land Converted to Other Land

9.3.1

Biomass

No refinement
9.3.2

Dead organic matterNo refinement
9.3.3

Soil carbon

Issue:

9.4

Develop new Tier 2 method for mineral soils that requires less activity data than the current default
methodLocation in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New guidance in Section 9.3.3
Type of refinement: New guidanceCompleteness, time series, QA/QC and reporting
No refinement

Chapter 10

Emissions from Livestock and Manure Management

10.1 Introduction
No refinement

10.2 Livestock population and feed characterisation
Issue 1: Update Section 10.2.2 to include guidance on improved description of feeding systems
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 10.2.2Type of refinement: Update
Issue 2: Develop consistent system descriptions for manure management between source categories(regionally/climatically stratified) for basic and enhanced characterisation for livestock populations
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 10.2.2Type of refinement: Update

10.3 Methane emissions from enteric fermentation
Issue:

Improve parameters based on different feeding strategies for cattle and sheep.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 10.3.2, Table 10.11 and Table 10.12
Type of refinement: Update

10.4 Methane emissions from manure management
Issue 1: Update methodology, temperature relationships, Tier 1 Emission Factors and Tier 2 parameters fordifferent manure management systems
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 10.4.2
Type of refinement: Update
Issue 2: Update guidance on how to deal with non-CO2 emissions due to biogas production.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 10.4.2, Table 10.17
103

Type of refinement: Update

10.5 N2O emissions from manure management
Issue 1: Update N excretion parameters for all livestock categories considering updated livestock characterizationin Section 10.2.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 10.5.2
Type of refinement: Update
Issue 2: Update emission factors for N2O for manure management system descriptions.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 10.5.2, Table 10.21
Type of refinement: Update
Issue 3: Update manure management volatilization and leaching factors with manure management systems
identified in Section 10.2.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 10.5.4, Tables 10.22 and 10.23,
Type of refinement: Update
Issue 4: Provide text on quality control procedures that use a mass balance approach to evaluate C and N flows
through animal management systems.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 10.5.6
Type of refinement: Elaboration

Chapter 11

N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application

11.1 Introduction
No refinement

11.2 N2O emissions from managed soils
11.2.1

Direct N2O emissions

Issue 1: Update N2O EF1, stratification by climate
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 11.2.1.2, Table 11.1
Type of refinement: Update
Issue 2: Update crop parameters for calculating residue quantity and N.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 11.2.1.4, Table 11.2
Type of refinement: Update
Issue 3: Update the EF3 for N applied to soils, pasture, range and paddock by grazing animals.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 11.2.1, Table 11.1
Type of refinement: Update
Issue 4: Update emission factor for rice production (N2O)
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 11.2, Table 11.1
Type of refinement: Update
11.2.2

Indirect N2O emissions

Issue:

11.2.3

Evaluate emissions factors for indirect N2O, both the amount of leaching/runoff and volatilization, as
well as the indirect emission factor.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 11.2.2, Table 11.3
Type of refinement: Update

Completeness, Time series, QA/QC

No refinement

11.3 CO2 emissions from liming
No refinement10411.4 CO2 emissions from urea fertilization
No refinement

Annex 11A.1

References for crop residue data in Table 11.2

No refinement

Chapter 12

Harvested Wood Products (HWP)

Issue 1: Update the relevant technical parameters, maintaining the existing approaches in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Chapter 12
Type of refinement: Update

Volume 5: Waste
Chapter 1

Introduction

No refinement

Chapter 2
2.1

Waste Generation, Composition and Management Data

Introduction
No refinement

2.2

Waste generation and management data
Issue:

2.3

Update default data on Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) generation and management
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 2.2.1, Table 2.1
Type of refinement: Update

Waste composition
Issue 1: Update default data on MSW composition data
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 2.3.1, Table 2.3
Type of refinement: Update
Issue 2: Add information on nitrogen (N) content, Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) or Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD) of sludge
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New guidance in Section 2.3.2
Type of refinement: New guidance

Annex 2A.1 Waste Generation and Management Data - by country and regional averages
Issue: Update default data on MSW generation and management
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Table 2A.1
Type of refinement: Update

Chapter 3

Solid Waste Disposal

3.1

Introduction

3.2

Methodological issues
Issue 1: Elaborate on the First Order Decay (FOD) method taking into account active aeration of landfills
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New guidance in Section 3.2.1.1
Type of refinement: New guidanceIssue 2: Elaborate on default DOC which decomposes (DOCf) values for different waste components
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 3.2.3 (Fraction of degradable organic carbon which
decomposes (DOCf))
Type of refinement: Elaboration
105

3.3

Use of measurement in the estimation of CH4 emissions from solid waste disposal site (SWDS)
No refinement

3.4

Carbon stored in SWDS
No refeinement

3.5

CompletenessNo refeinement

3.6

Developing a consistent time series
No refeinement

3.7

Uncertainty assessment
Issue:

3.8

Update uncertainty for DOCf values
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 3.7.2
Type of refinement: Update

QA/QC, reporting and documentation
No refinement

Annex 3A.1 First Order Decay ModelNo refinement

Chapter 4

Biological Treatment of Solid Waste

No refinement

Chapter 5
5.1

Incineration and Open Burning of Waste

Introduction
No refinement

5.2

Methodological issues
No refinement

5.3

Choice of activity data
No refinement

5.4

Choice of emission factors
Issue 1: Update oxidation factors for open burning of MSW
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 5.4.1, Table 5.2 (Oxidation factor for open burning of MSW)
Type of refinement: Update/Elaboration
Issue 2: Elaborate on EF for CH4 from incineration related to new technologies gasification, pyrolysis, and plasma
technology)
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 5.4.2, Table 5.3
Type of refinement: Elaboration
Issue 3: Elaborate on EF for N2O from incineration related to new technologies (e.g. gasification, pyrolysis, andplasma technology)
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section, 5.4.3, Table 5.4
Type of refinement: Elaboration

5.5

CompletenessNo refinement

5.6

Developing a consistent time series106

No refinement

5.7

Uncertainty assessment
No refinement

5.8

QA/QC, reporting and documentation
No refinement

Wastewater Treatment and Discharge

Chapter 6

6.1

Introduction
Issue 1: Update introduction language to reflect current understanding of CH4 and N2O emissions from wastewater
treatment.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.1
Type of refinement: Elaboration
Issue 2: Update Figure 6.1 and Table 6.1 to reflect additional types of treatment and disposal systems, such as
aerobic/anaerobic treatment systems (e.g., anaerobic/anoxic/oxic (A2O), nitrification/denitrification, etc.)
and constructed wetlands, as well as various types of septic systems (e.g., bottomless systems).
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.1
Type of refinement: Elaboration
Issue 3: Discuss updates/changes from 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.1.1
Type of refinement: Elaboration

6.2

Methane emissions from wastewater

6.2.1

Methodological issues

6.2.2

Domestic wastewater

Issue 1: Update Section 6.2.2.1. Some inventory compilers are misinterpreting Equation 6.1 and combining
zero emissions from aerobic systems with recovered methane from sludge digestion, but missing thestep of calculating emissions from sludge digestion.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.2.2.1
Type of refinement: Update
Issue 2: Develop new Methane Correction Factors (MCFs) to reflect treatment processes that may be a
combination of aerobic and anaerobic or anoxic zones (e.g., anaerobic/anoxic/oxic (A2O), modified
Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE), etc.).
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.2.2.2Type of refinement: Update
Issue 3: Consider the development of new MCFs to reflect different types of septic system (e.g., bottomless)and also to consider the effect of temperature on the MCF.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.2.2.2Type of refinement: Potential update
Issue 4: Elaborate guidance on what systems are classified as “not well managed”/overloaded for centralized
aerobic treatment plants.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.2.2.2Type of refinement: Elaboration
Issue 5: Provide guidance on estimating emissions from septic systems that are connected to larger centralized
treatment plants.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.2.2.2Type of refinement: Elaboration107

Issue 6: Determine whether methane emissions from treated effluent should be included, particularly thatdischarged to stagnant water or overloaded receiving waters.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.2.2.2Type of refinement: Update
Issue 7: Provide guidance on the origin of the (maximum CH4 producing capacity) Bo values presented in thechapter.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.2.2.2Type of refinement: Update
6.2.3 Industrial wastewater
Issue 1: Develop new MCFs to reflect treatment processes that may be a combination of aerobic and anaerobic
or anoxic zones (e.g., anaerobic/anoxic/oxic (A2O), modified Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE), etc.).
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.2.3.2
Type of refinement: Update
Issue 2: Elaborate guidance on what systems are classified as “not well managed”/overloaded for centralized
aerobic treatment plants
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.2.3.2
Type of refinement: Elaboration
Issue 3: Determine whether methane emissions from treated effluent should be included, particularly thatdischarged to stagnant water or overloaded receiving waters.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.2.3.2
Type of refinement: Update
Issue 4: Update uncertainty tables to include new EFs and AD
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.2.3.5
Type of refinement: Update/Elaboration

6.3 Nitrous oxide emissions from wastewater
6.3.1 Methodological issues
Issue 1: Address “indirect” emissions and how this terminology interacts with Chapter 7.3, Volume 1 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.3.1.1
Type of refinement: Elaboration
Issue 2: Add discussion on the latest research related to how N2O is formed and emitted in treatment system
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.3.1.1
Type of refinement: Elaboration
Issue 3: Consider introducing Tier 1 and Tier 2 methods, similar to the CH4 section.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.3.1.1
Type of refinement: Update
Issue 4: Correct EF for nitrification/denitrification and develop N2O emission factors for additional treatment
system configurations (aerobic/anaerobic/anoxic systems) as well as activated sludge systems.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.3.1.2
Type of refinement: Update/Elaboration
Issue 5: Add EF for septic systems.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New guidance in Section 6.3.1.2
Type of refinement: New guidanceIssue 6: Update text regarding N (influent) to make consistent with Table 6.11.
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.3.1.3
108

Type of refinement: Elaboration
Issue 7: Clarify Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) data in relation to protein supplied vs protein
consumed
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.3.1.3
Type of refinement: Elaboration/Update
Issue 8: Addition of N2O emission calculation for centralized plants and septic systems
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Sections 6.3.1.3/6.3.1.1
Type of refinement: Update
Issue 9: Improve the calculation of Neffluent
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.3.1.3
Type of refinement: Update/Elaboration
Issue 10: Addition of N2O from industrial wastewater
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: New guidance in Sections 6.3.1.1 and 6.3.1.3
Type of refinement: New guidance
6.3.2 Time series consistency
No refinement
6.3.3 Uncertainties
Issue:

Update uncertainty tables to include new EFs and AD
Location in 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Section 6.3.3
Type of refinement: Update/Elaboration

6.3.4 QA/QC, completeness, reporting and documentation
No refinement

109Annex 5: Proposal for a technical note on reporting of carbon from HWP between importing and exporting countries
Table 1 shows the number of times emissions from HWP (including emissions from HWP-based energy production) will bereported if exports/imports of HWP are involved and depending on the choice of reporting approach selected by the country
that exports wood and the country that imports that wood. Two of the four approaches (default and production approach)report the emissions associated with exported HWP as occurring in the country where the wood was harvested, while thetwo other approaches (stock change and atmospheric flow) report the emissions as occurring in the country that imported
the wood (provided that HWP were not re-exported).
The table shows under which conditions emissions are under reported (0), over reported (2) or correctly reported (1).
For example, if the wood exporting country uses the stock change or the atmospheric flow approach but the wood importing
country uses the Default or production approach, then neither will report the emissions originating from exported HWP(under reporting). Conversely, if the exporting country uses the Default or the Production Approach while the importing
country uses the stock change or atmospheric flow approach the emissions will be double counted and over reported.
Table 1: The four approaches are IPCC Default (D), Production Approach (PA), Stock Change (S) and Atmospheric
Flow Approach (AF).

110

Annex 6: List of ParticipantsDavid Buluku Adegu
Ministry of Environment & Natural Resources
Kenya

Kathrine Loe Bjønness
Statistics Norway
NorwayAndrea Vanina Afranchi
Energy Performance SRL
Argentina

Andrea Brandon
Ministry for the Environment
New Zealand

Naikoa Aguilar-Amuchastegui
World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)Bofeng Cai
Chinese Academy for Environmental Planning
China

Rehab Ahmed Hassan
Higher Council for Environment and Natural Resources
Sudan
Hiroko Akiyama
National Agriculture and Food Research Organization
Japan

Edwin Castellanos
Center for Environmental Studies, Universidad del Vallede Guatemala
GuatemalaMichael Roger Czerniak
Edwards Vacuum Limited
UK

Marta A. Alfaro
INIA
Chile

Laura Elena Dawidowski
National Atomic Energy Commission
Argentina

Jukka Alm
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke)
FinlandRetno Gumilang Dewi
Institut Teknologi Bandung
Pusat Kebijakan Keenergian, ITB
Indonesia

Joao Wagner Alves
CETESB
BrazilAbe Yapo Eric-Michel Assamoi
Climate Change Direction, Ministry of Environment
Cote d'Ivoire

I Wayan Susi Dharmawan
Forest Research and Development Center, Ministry ofEnvironment and Forestry
Indonesia

Carlos Humberto Bahamondez
Instituto Forestal
Chile

Grant Michael Domke
US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
USA

Nathan Barros
Federal University of Juiz de Fora
Institute of Biology Science
BrazilHongmin Dong
Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development
in Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Agricultural
Sciences
China

Deborah Bartram
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
USA

Yoshitaka Ebie
National Institute for Environmental Studies
Japan

Martial Bernoux
FAO

Simon Eggleston
Global Climate Observing System (GCOS)
111

John Harrison
Washington State University
USA

Takahiro Endo
Remote Sensing Technology Center of Japan(RESTEC)
Japan
Sandro Federici
San Marino

Elsa Hatanaka
National Institute for Environmental Studies
Japan

Laura Finster
Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA)
Argentina

Anke Herold
Oeko-Institut
Germany

Jason FunkClimate Action Network (CAN)

Yasumasa Hirata
Forestry and Forest Products Research InstituteJapan

Amit Garg
Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad
India

Edward Charles Huffman
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
CanadaMichael W. Gillenwater
Greenhouse Gas Management InstituteUSA

Matthew R. Johnson
Energy & Emissions Research Lab., Mechanical &Aerospace Engineering, Carleton University
CanadaMikhail Gitarskiy
Institute of Global Climate and Ecology
RussiaSamuel Kainja
Total Landcare
Malawi

Carlos Gomez
Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina
Peru

Joseph Katongo Kanyanga
Zambia Meteorological Department
ZambiaKristina Gonchar
RUE "Bel SRC "Ecology" under the Ministry of Natural
Resources and Environmental Protection
Belarus

Jamidu Hizzam Yahaya Katima
University of Dar es Salaam
Tanzania

Justin William Lawton Goodwin
AetherUK

Ermias Kebreab
University of California, Davis
USA

Barbara Gschrey
Oeko-Recherche GmbHGermany

Werner Alexander Kurz
Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service
CanadaCéline Gueguen
CITEPA
FranceAdrian Leip
European Commission (EC)
Magda Aparecida Lima
Embrapa Meio Ambiente
BrazilSteen Gyldenkærne
Department of Environmental Science,
Aarhus University
Denmark

James Douglas MacDonald
Environment and Climate Change Canada
CanadaJavier Marcelo Hanna Figueroa
UNFCCC112

Elsayed Mansour Nasr
Freelancer
Egypt
Brian McConkey
Ministry of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Government of
CanadaCanadaXuebiao Pan
Department of Agrometeorology,
China Agricultural University
China
Yves Prairie
International Hydropower Association (IHA)

Dzmitry Melekh
RUE "Bel SRC "Ecology"
BelarusAna Derly Pulido
Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology and Environmental
Studies of Colombia
Colombia

Takashi Morimoto
Mitsubishi UFJ Research and Consulting Co., Ltd.
Japan

Klaus Radunsky
Umweltbundesamt
Austria

Michael Mugarura
Ministry of Water and Environment, Climate Change
Department
UgandaNijavalli H. RavindranathCentre for Sustainable Technologies, Indian Institute of
Science
India

Rodrigo Mussi Buzarquis
National University of Asunción
Paraguay

Shanti Reddy
Department of the Environment & Energy
Australia

Aleksandr Nakhutin
Institute of Global Climate and Ecology
RussiaKristiina Regina
Natural Resources Institute Finland
FinlandFrank Neitzert
Environment and Climate Change Canada
CanadaHector Ivan Restrepo Orozco
Warnell School of Forestry and Nat. Res.
at University of Georgia
USA

Ole-Kenneth Nielsen
Aarhus University
DenmarkSini Maaria Niinistö
Statistics Finland
Finland
Stephen Michael Ogle
Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State
University
USA
Jean Pierre Ometto
National Institute for Space Research (INPE)
BrazilDeborah Ottinger
Climate Change Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
AgencyUSA
113

Daniela Romano
Institute for Environmental Protection and Research ISPRA
Italy
Kokou Sabi
Université de Lomé (UL), Faculté Des Sciences (FDS),
Laboratoire de Chimie Atmosphérique (LCA)
Togo
Sukarni Sallons-Mitro
Meteorological Service Suriname
Suriname
Estela Santalla
UNICEN, College of Engineering(Universidad Nacional del Centro)
Argentina

Jung Hun Woo
Department of Advanced Technology Fusion (DATF),
Konkuk University
Republic of Korea

María José Sanz Sánchez
Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3)
Spain
Atsushi Sato
Mitsubishi UFJ Research & Consulting Co,. Ltd.
Japan

Jong Su Yim
National Institute of Forest Science
Republic of Korea

Dingane SitholeBusiness Council for Sustainable Development in
Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe
Zoltán Somogyi
NARIC Hungarian Forest Research Institute
Hungary
Alexey SpirinInternational Aluminium Institute (IAI)
Michael Strogies
Federal Environment Agency
Germany
Samir Tantawi
United Nation Development Programme (UNDP)
Egypt
Marcelo Theoto Rocha
Fábrica Éthica Brasil
BrazilFrancesco Nicola TubielloUSA
Jason Alan Tullis
University of Arkansas
USA
Gabriel Vazquez-Amabile
AACREA (Argentine Association of Regional
Consortiums for Agricultural Experimentation)Argentina
John David Watterson
Ricardo Energy & Environment
UK
Melissa Weitz
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USA
Jongikhaya Witi
Department of Environmental Affairs
South Africa
114

IPCC Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories (TFI)
Task Force Bureau (TFB)

Thomas Charles Wirth
US Environmental Protection Agency
USA

Fahmuddin Agus
Indonesia Soil Research Institute, Indonesian Agency for
Agricultural Research and Development
Indonesia

Irina Yesserkepova
JSC "Zhasyl Damu", the Ministry of Energy, Almaty office
Kazakhstan

Dominique Blain
Environment and Climate Change Canada
Canada

IPCC TFI TSU
C/o Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies (IGES)

Eduardo Calvo Buendia (TFI Co-chair)
Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos (UNMSM)
Peru

Andrej Kranjc
Baasansuren Jamsranjav
Sekai Ngarize
Pavel Shermanau
Toru Matsumoto
Eriko Nakamura
Koh Mikuni

Fatma Betül Demirok
Turkish Statistical Institute (TurkStat)
TurkeyDario Gomez
Atomic Energy Commission of Argentina
Argentina
G. H. Sabin Guendehou
Benin Centre for Scientific and Technical Research
Benin
Bundit Limmeechokchai
Sirindhorn International Insitute of Technology,
Thammasat University
ThailandRiitta Kristiina Pipatti
Statistics Finland
Finland
Yasna Rojas
Instituto Forestal (INFOR)
Chile
Batouli Said Abdallah
National Center of Documentation and Scientific
Research (CNDRS)
Comoros
Rob Sturgiss
Department of the Environment & Energy
Australia
Kiyoto Tanabe (TFI Co-chair)
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)Japan
115