DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 1: Introduction
First Order Draft

1

CHAPTER 1

2
3
4
5
6

INTRODUCTION

7

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

1.1Chapter 1: Introduction

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft

8

Contents

910

Overview of steps to estimating and reporting supplementary information for activities under Articles
1.1
3.3, 3.4 and 6 ....................................................................................................................................................... 5

11

1.2

General rules for categorisation of land areas under Articles3.3 and 3.4 .............................................. 9

12

1.3

Relationship between Annex I Parties’ national inventories and Article 6 LULUCF projects............ 16

13

Figures

14
15
16

Figure 1.1 Decision tree for classifying a unit of land under Article 3.3 (ARD) or land under FM, or land
under other Article 3.4 (CM, GM, RV and WDR) as of the reporting year of the commitment period. The boldarrow indicates the starting point. Secondary classifications are not shown in the Figure. .................................. 1017

Tables18

Table 1.1 Summary of the LULUCF activities under the Kyoto Protocol and the associated accounting rules ..... 8

19

Boxes

20
21

Box 1.1 Examples for the assignment of units of land to Article 3.3 activities and lands to Article 3.4 activities
over time ............................................................................................................................................................... 13

22

Box 1.1 Examples (continued) .............................................................................................................................. 14

23

1.2

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 1: Introduction
First Order Draft

24

1 INTRODUCTION

25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34

This document describes the supplementary methods and good practice guidance for measuring, estimating andreporting of greenhouse gas emissions and removals resulting from land use, land-use change and forestry(LULUCF) activities covered by the Kyoto Protocol for the second commitment period. The document addresses
activities under Article 3.3, and forest management and elected activities under Article 3.4. The supplementary
methods and good practice guidance of this document apply to those Parties listed in Annex B of the Kyoto
Protocol that have ratified the Protocol or to other purposes for which the document is agreed relevant. This
document does not provide good practice guidance for LULUCF projects hosted by Parties listed in Annex B(Article 6 projects) and afforestation / reforestation projects hosted by Parties not listed in Annex B of the Kyoto
Protocol (Article 12, Clean Development Mechanism or CDM projects), which are addressed in Section 4.3 ofthe IPCC Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (GPG-LULUCF).

35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44

Under the Kyoto Protocol, Parties are to report emissions by sources and removals by sinks of CO2 and otherspecified greenhouse gases resulting from LULUCF activities. These activities include under Article 3.3,
afforestation (A), reforestation (R) and deforestation (D) that occurred since 1990; and under Article 3.4, forest
management (FM) and any elected human-induced activities which can include: revegetation, cropland
management, grazing land management and wetland drainage and rewetting. 1 To ensure compliance withemission-limitation and reduction commitments, in the commitment period Parties are required to reportannually, along with their annual reports of greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks,
supplementary information related to LULUCF under the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol 2 . The annual
reporting requirement does not imply a need for annual measurements, but Parties are expected to develop
systems that combine measurements, models and other tools that enable them to report on an annual basis.

45
46
47
48

This supplementary methods and good practice guidance document builds on methods and guidance provided by
the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2006 IPCC Guidelines) and it replaces
Chapter 4 (except Section 4.3 on projects) of the GPG-LULUCF. The structure and wording of Chapter 4 havebeen maintained where appropriate for reasons of consistency.

49

1

LULUCF related requirements are outlined in Decision 16/CMP.1 and Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change andforestry) contained in document FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1, p.58 and FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.13 respectively:“Afforestation” is the direct human-induced conversion of land that has not been forested for a period of at least 50 years toforested land through planting, seeding and/or the human-induced promotion of natural seed sources.
“Reforestation” is the direct human-induced conversion of non-forested land to forested land through planting, seeding
and/or the human-induced promotion of natural seed sources, on land that was forested but that has been converted to nonforested land. For the first commitment period, reforestation activities will be limited to reforestation occurring on thoselands that did not contain forest 31 December 1989.
“Deforestation” is the direct human-induced conversion of forested land to non-forested land.
“Forest management” is a system of practices for stewardship and use of forest land aimed at fulfilling relevant ecological(including biological diversity), economic and social functions of the forest in a sustainable manner.
“Cropland management” is the system of practices on land on which agricultural crops are grown and on land that is set
aside or temporarily not being used for crop production.
“Grazing land management” is the system of practices on land used for livestock production aimed at manipulating theamount and type of vegetation and livestock produced.
“Revegetation” is a direct human-induced activity to increase carbon stocks on sites through the establishment ofvegetation that covers a minimum area of 0.05 hectares and does not meet the definitions of afforestation and reforestation
contained here.
“Wetland drainage and rewetting” is a system of practices for draining and rewetting on land with organic soil that covers aminimum area of 1 hectare. The activity applies to all lands that have been drained since 1990 and to all lands that havebeen rewetted since 1990 and that are not accounted for under any other activity as defined above, where drainage is the
direct human-induced lowing of the soil water table and rewetting is the direct human-induced partial or total reversal ofdrainage.

2

See Articles 3.3, 3.4, 3.7, 6 and 12 of the Kyoto Protocol (http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf) and Decision
16/CMP.1 and Decision 2/CMP.7…. ADD ALL OTHER RELEVANT DECISIONS HERE

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

1.3Chapter 1: Introduction

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
50
51
52
53
54

Relationship between UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol reporting:

55
56
57
58
59

In practice, national circumstances, and specifically the technical details of the greenhouse gas reporting systems
put into place by each country, will determine the sequence in which the reporting information is compiled. For
example, it is possible to start with the UNFCCC inventory (with the additional spatial information required for
Kyoto Protocol reporting) and expand it to the Kyoto Protocol inventory, or it is possible to use a system thatgenerates the information for both UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol reporting.

60
61
62
63
64
65

For example when a Party that has elected cropland management under Article 3.4 prepares its UNFCCC
inventory for croplands, it is efficient for stratification to reflect the same geographical boundaries (Section
2.2.2). Then, in preparing the supplementary information to be reported under the Kyoto Protocol, the Party
would delineate those UNFCCC cropland areas that originated from forests since 1990 (Chapter 5.3, Volume 4,of 2006 IPCC Guidelines, Land converted to cropland), report these under deforestation according to Article 3.3,
and report the remaining croplands under cropland management (Article 3.4).

66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74

This document covers supplementary estimation and inventory reporting requirements needed for accounting
under the Kyoto Protocol. It does not address the implementation of accounting rules as agreed in relevant
decisions4 of the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties (CMP) of the Kyoto Protocol(such as caps, annual vs. commitment period accounting and other specific provisions related to accounting).
Accounting is a policy matter that is excluded from the UNFCCC request to the IPCC to prepare guidance
documents. Estimation refers to the way in which inventory estimates are calculated, reporting refers to thepresentation of estimates in the tables or other standard formats used to transmit inventory information, andaccounting refers to the way the reported information is used to assess compliance with commitments under the
Kyoto Protocol.

75

CMP decisions refer to land in two ways, and these terms are adopted here:

76
77



Units of land refers to those areas subject to the activities defined under Article 3.3, namely afforestation,
reforestation and deforestation, and

78
79



Land refers to those areas subject to the activities defined under Article 3.4, namely forest management,
cropland management, grazing land management, revegetation and wetland drainage and rewetting.

80
81
82
83
84

This document uses the terms “mandatory” and “elective”. Mandatory refers to activities defined under Article
3.3, namely afforestation, reforestation and deforestation, as wells as forest management and those 3.4 activities
that were elected by a country in the previous commitment period. Elective refers to those 3.4 activities that canbe elected by a country for the commitment period, namely for the second commitment period cropland
management, grazing land management, revegetation and wetland drainage and rewetting.

85
86
87
88

Several complex issues contained in chapter 4 of the GPG-LULUCF have been simplified in this document
because decision 2/CMP.7 introduced mandatory reporting requirements for forest management and revised thedefinition of reforestation. This enables further harmonisation of methods used for UNFCCC and KP inventory
reporting.

89
90
91
92
93
94

Parties should harmonize UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol reporting in order to increase transparency, reduce costs
and increase accuracy. It is good practice to apply the same forest definition for both UNFCCC and Kyoto
Protocol reporting. Under the Kyoto Protocol Parties are requested to apply a forest definition that is consistent
with that used to submit historical information to FAO and other international bodies, including the UNFCCC.
The methods and emission factors used to prepare estimates of carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions are
determined by the UNFCCC land-use category.

The information to be reported under the Kyoto Protocol is supplementary to the information reported under theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Countries do not need to submit two
separate inventories but should provide supplementary information under the Kyoto Protocol, within theinventory report.3

95

3

Article 7, paragraph 1 of the Kyoto Protocol: Each Party included in Annex I shall incorporate in its annual inventory […]the necessary supplementary information for the purposes of ensuring compliance with Article 3 […].
Article 7, paragraph 2 of the Kyoto Protocol: Each Party included in Annex I shall incorporate in its national
communication, submitted under Article 12 of the Convention, the supplementary information necessary to demonstratecompliance with its commitments under this Protocol.

4

CMP decisions relevant for LULUCF accounting for the second commitment period: decision 2/CMP6, decision
2/CMP.7,…

1.4

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 1: Introduction
First Order Draft

96
97
98
99
100
101
102

Estimation and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and removals from activities defined under Article 3.3 andArticle 3.4 needs to be in accordance with relevant decisions relating to Articles 5, 7 and 8 of the Kyoto Protocol,and should be consistent with methods set out in volumes 1 and 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and in the 2013
Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands 5 , any future
elaboration of those guidelines, or parts of them, in accordance with relevant decisions of the Conference of theParties and the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol. It is goodpractice that methods be applied at the same or higher tier as used for UNFCCC reporting.

103
104

1.1

105
106
107

OVERVIEW OF STEPS TO ESTIMATING ANDREPORTING SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION FOR ACTIVITIES UNDERARTICLES 3.3, 3.4 AND 6

108
109
110
111

This section gives an overview of the steps required to measure, estimate and report changes in carbon stocks
and emissions and removals of non-CO2 greenhouse gases for LULUCF activities covered by Articles 3.3, 3.4
and 6 of the Kyoto Protocol. Detailed methods and good practice guidance for each individual activity areprovided in subsequent Sections of this document.

112
113

STEP 1: Define “forest”, apply definitions to national circumstances, and establish a hierarchy among
elected Article 3.4 activities.

114
115

STEP 1.1: Decide the numerical values of parameters to define “forest” for Afforestation and Reforestation (AR)and Deforestation (D) activities under Article 3.3 and for Forest Management (FM) activities under Article 3.4.6

116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124

Parties that have already selected the parameters of the forest definition in the previous commitment period
should consistently apply this definition during subsequent commitment periods. All other Parties need to selectthe parameters that define forest, i.e., the minimum area (0.05 – 1 ha), the minimum crown closure at maturity (10 –30%), and the minimum tree height at maturity (2 – 5 m). Areas that meet these minimum criteria are considered
forest, as are recently disturbed forests or young forests that are expected to reach these parameter thresholds. The
numerical values of those parameters cannot be changed during or between commitment periods. Each Party has tojustify in its reporting that such values are consistent with the information that has historically been reported to the
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations or other international bodies, and if they differ, explain
why and how differing values were chosen.

125
126
127

In addition to the minimum area of forest, it is good practice that countries specify the minimum width that they
will apply to define forest and units of land subject to ARD activities and lands subject to FM, as explained in
Section 2.2.6.1

128

STEP 1.2: Define natural forest and forest plantation

129
130
131

It is good practice that Parties, according to their national circumstances (a) provide their definition of naturalforest and planted forest, which should include forest plantations, (b) define when a transition from natural forest toplanted forest occurs; and (c) apply these definitions consistently throughout commitment periods.

132

STEP 1.3: Apply definitions to national circumstances for elected Article 3.4 activities.

133
134

Parties that have elected any eligible activity under Article 3.4 in a previous commitment period should report
the activity during subsequent commitment periods, consistently applying the activity definition to their national
5

The IPCC is currently preparing the 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories: Wetlands (the 2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplement) in parallel to this document. The 2013 IPCC Wetlands
Supplement provides guidance on estimating emissions and removals on lands with drained and rewetted organic soils in
Chapters 2, 3 and 4 and general issues on wetlands are addressed in Chapters 1 and 7. The guidance given here will be
updated to reflect the development of the 2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplement through its review by experts and governments
and its approval by the IPCC. The Government and Expert Review of the 2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplement will be held
between 11th February and 7th April, 2013 (see http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/home/wetlands.html).

6“Forest” is a minimum area of land of 0.05 – 1.0 hectares with tree crown cover (or equivalent stocking level) of more than
10 – 30 per cent with trees with the potential to reach a minimum height of 2 – 5 metres at maturity in situ. A forest may
consist either of closed forest formations where trees of various storeys and undergrowth cover a high proportion of theground, or open forest. Young natural stands and all plantations which have yet to reach a crown density of 10 – 30 per
cent or tree height of 2 – 5 metres are included under forest, as are areas normally forming part of the forest area which aretemporarily unstocked as a result of human intervention such as harvesting or natural causes but which are expected torevert to forest. See paragraph 1(a) of the Annex to decision -16/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry).

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

1.5Chapter 1: Introduction

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
135
136
137
138
139

circumstances as done in a previous commitment period. Parties decide and report which, if any, activities under
Article 3.4 they elect. It is good practice that Parties document, for each elected activity and for forest
management, how the definitions will be applied to national circumstances. Criteria on how to apply definitions
should be chosen in such a way as to minimize or avoid overlap and should be consistent with the guidance
provided in the decision tree in Figure 1.1 in Section 1.2.

140
141
142

STEP 1.4: Establish a hierarchy among ARD activities, FM activities and elected Article 3.4 activities (CroplandManagement (CM), Grazing land Management (GM), Revegetation RV, and Wetland Drainage and Rewetting(WDR)).

143

It is good practice that:

144
145



ARD and FM activities take precedence in the reporting hierarchy over any elected Article 3.4 activity,
because they are mandatory activities;

146
147
148
149



To increase reporting consistency and transparency, each unit of land subject to an AR or D activity(Article 3.3) be reported under the current Article 3.3 activity, such that the reported activity reflects thecurrent land use, For example, units of land that have been deforested and are currently reforested will
be reported under AR;

150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159



Each unit of land converted from forest to non-forest is reported under deforestation (Article 3.3) unlessa Party chooses to keep reporting under FM the emissions and removals associated with the harvest andconversion of forest plantations to non-forest land. Parties have this option only if the harvested forest
plantation was established or re-established after 1 January 1960 and before 1 January 1990 and if a
new forest of at least equivalent area as the harvested forest plantation is established through direct
human-induced planting and/or seeding of non-forested land that did not contain forest on 31 December
19897. If such harvest and conversion to non-forest land is reported under FM, then it is also required
to identify, monitor and report, including the georeferenced location and year of conversion theharvested land and the newly established plantation as subdivisions of land subject to forest
management (see section 2.2.6 and paragraphs 37 to 39 of the Annex to decision 2/CMP.7);

160
161
162



Each unit of land afforested or reforested, is reported under AR (Article 3.3) unless the unit of land isused to compensate the harvest of forest plantations and conversion to non-forest land, in which case itis reported under FM as explained in the previous paragraph;163



Forest land that is subject to forest management (Article 3.4) is reported under FM.

164
165
166
167
168

Where elected activities under Article 3.4 overlap, it is good practice that the country specifies a hierarchy
among activities prior to the commitment period, rather than deciding on a case-by-case basis. It is good practice
to apply the specified hierarchy consistently to determine under which activity the land is to be reported. For
example, if land could fall into both cropland management and revegetation (such as for new orchards), then the
country should report over time that land under one and only one activity according to the established hierarchy.

169
170
171
172
173
174

Agricultural land use at times rotates between cropland and grassland (where grasses are associated withgrazing). Where a Party has elected both CM and GM activities, to reduce reporting complexity and to avoid
artefacts or inaccuracies in CM and GM reporting associated with rotation of land between cropland andgrassland use, a Party may report all land subject to CM and GM under a single activity8, either CM or GM.
Where a Party has elected only one of either CM and GM (Article 3.4), it is good practice to keep reporting theland subject to rotation under the elected activity.

175
176

Wetland drainage and rewetting, being limited to lands that are not accounted for under any other activity, has
the lowest position in the hierarchy among elected activities under Article 3.4.9

177
178

It is also good practice to apply the same hierarchy among elected activities under Article 3.4 acrosscommitment periods.

179
180

STEP 2: Identify lands subject to mandatory activities and any newly elected activities under Article 3.4.

7

The area replanted should be at least equivalent to the area of harvested plantation and should be expected to reach at least
the equivalent carbon stock that was contained in the harvested forest plantation at the time of harvest, within the normal
harvesting cycle of the harvested forest plantation (see paragraph 37 of the Annex to decision 2/CMP.7)

8

Reporting requirements and accounting rules for CM and GM are identical9

cf. definition of WDR of decision 2/CMP.7, para (1b)1.6

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 1: Introduction
First Order Draft

181
182
183

The second step of the inventory assessment is to determine the areas on which the activities have taken placesince 1990 (and for which emissions and removals must be estimated). This step builds on the approaches
described in Chapter 3, Volume 3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

184
185
186
187
188

STEP 2.1: Stratify the country into areas of land for which the geographic boundaries will be reported, as wellas the area of the units of land subject to Article 3.3 and/or the areas of lands subject to Article 3.4 within thesegeographic boundaries (see Section 2.2.6). This step can be omitted if Reporting Method 2 (see Section 2.2.2) is
used.

189
190

STEP 2.2: Compile land-use and land-cover information in 1990 for the mandatory and elected activities.

191
192
193
194
195

Using the selected definitions of forest determine forest and non-forest areas in 1990 and update the dataset insubsequent time periods. This can be accomplished with a map that identifies all areas considered forest or withstatistical data derived from a national land survey as time-series of a national forest inventory. All forest-related
land-use change activities since 1990 can then be determined with reference to either those maps or statisticalsets of data (see Section 2.2.2 Reporting methods for lands subject to Article 3.3 and Article 3.4 activities).

196
197
198
199
200

STEP 2.3: Identify units of land that, since 1990, are subject to mandatory activities (ARD and FM), andestimate the total area of these units of land and lands within each geographic boundary. Under Reporting
Method 2 (Section 2.2.2) the estimation of the area of the units of land and lands will be carried out individuallyfor each unit of land and land.

201
202
203
204
205
206

It is good practice to identify the land area subject to FM in each inventory year of the commitment period. A
country could interpret the definition of forest management in terms of specified forest management practices,such as fire suppression, harvesting or thinning, undertaken since 1990 (narrow interpretation). Alternatively, acountry could interpret the definition of forest management in terms of a broad classification of land subject to asystem of forest management practices, without the requirement that a specified forest management practice has
occurred on each land (broad interpretation). (For details see Sections 2.2.2 and 2.7).10

207
208
209
210

Parties are required11 to estimate the area of the units of lands that have been subject to ARD and the area of lands
subject to FM within the boundaries mentioned in STEP 2.1 above (for details see Sections 2.2.2, 2.5 and 2.6).
Furthermore, each Party is required to estimate and report areas of unit of lands and of lands that fall into categories
defined by decision 2/CMP.7: It is therefore good practice to identify, for each year in the commitment period:

211
212

 units of land and lands affected by disturbances in the commitment period whose associated emissions andsubsequent removals have been excluded from accounting;12

213
214

 lands of forest plantation which have been converted to non-forest land and for which, at least an equivalentarea of land has been converted to forest (and other conditions are met); and215

 those lands that have been converted to forest to compensate for harvesting of forest plantation.

216
217
218
219

STEP 2.4: Identify and estimate the area of lands subject to elected activities under Article 3.4 within eachgeographic boundary. Under Reporting Method 2 (Section 2.2.2) the estimation of areas of land is carried out
individually for each land subject to elected Article 3.4 activities.

220
221

For cropland management (CM), grazing land management (GM), or revegetation (RV), as is discussed in more
depth in Sections 2.9 –2.11, the area under the same activity in 1990 (or the applicable base year) will also have
10

Possible issues related to unbalanced accounting resulting from selective inclusion of forest management and revegetation
are addressed in the IPCC Report on Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory and Report Emissions from
Direct Human-Induced Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types (IPCC, 2003).

11

By decisions of the Conference of the Parties serving as Meeting of the Parties (CMP) of the Kyoto Protocol

12

Need to think about LUC that occurs in the subsequent CP in cases where emissions were excluded in thepreceding CP. The issue here is that if the disturbance occurs near the end of the CP (and emissions are notaccounted) and LUC occurs early in the next CP, then should the disturbance emissions be included in theemissions from LUC? This is the case if the disturbance and deforestation occur in the SAME CP. This can beaddressed at the time the deforestation is detected – by asking if the D occurred on land previously affected by adisturbance, and if yes, then did the emissions from the disturbance get excluded from the accounting? This
could be represented in a decision tree?

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

1.7Chapter 1: Introduction

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
222
223

to be determined, because greenhouse gas emissions and removals on this area in 1990 have to be known to
implement accounting rules (see Section 2.9.1).

224
225
226
227
228
229
230

For wetland drainage and rewetting (WDR), each Party must identify the land area subject to either wetland
drainage or rewetting in each inventory year of the commitment period. A country could interpret the definitionof wetland drainage and rewetting in terms of specified practices undertaken since 1990 (narrow interpretation).
Alternatively, a country could interpret the definition of wetland drainage and rewetting in terms of a broadclassification of land subject to a system of drainage and rewetting practices, in 1990 and in the commitment
period years, without the requirement that a specified practice is started in 1990 (broad interpretation). (Fordetails see Sections 2.12.1 and 2.12.3).

231
232

STEP 2.5: Identify the areas subject to projects under Article 6.

233
234
235
236
237

Some units of land subject to Article 3.3 or lands subject to Article 3.4 can also be projects under Article 6 of the
Kyoto Protocol. These have to be reported under Article 3.3 or Article 3.4. In addition, these units of land or
lands need to be delineated and the greenhouse gas emissions and removals reported separately as part of project
reporting (see Section 4.3 of the GPG-LULUCF). The relationship between estimation and reporting of activities
under Articles 3.3 and 3.4, and projects under Article 6, is discussed in Section 1.3.

238
239
240

STEP 3: Estimate greenhouse gas emissions and removals on units of land and lands identified under Step
2 above.

241
242
243

STEP 3.1: Estimate greenhouse gas emissions and removals for each year of the commitment period, on allareas subject to the mandatory and elected reporting requirements (as identified in steps 2.3 and 2.4) while
ensuring that there are no gaps and no double counting.

244
245
246

The estimation of greenhouse gas emissions and removals for an activity begins with the onset of the activity or
the beginning of the commitment period, whichever comes later. For further details regarding the beginning ofan activity see Section 2.3.2 (Years for which to estimate stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions).

247
248
249
250
251

Table 1.1 provides an overview of the LULUCF activities in the Kyoto Protocol, and the accounting rules.
Accounting in the LULUCF sector is done by comparing greenhouse gas emissions and removals during thecommitment period with a benchmark under either a base year or a business-as-usual scenario, which could be a
scenario in which emissions and removals are assumed to balance to zero.

252
TABLE 1.1
SUMMARY OF THE LULUCF ACTIVITIES UNDER THE KYOTO PROTOCOL AND THE ASSOCIATED
ACCOUNTING RULES

Activities

BenchmarkCap on Credits13

Afforestation, Reforestation (Article 3.3)

Zero

No

Deforestation (Article 3.3)

Zero

No

Forest Management (Article 3.4)

either Business-AsUsual scenario(including zero) or
Base YearYes

All other activities under Article 3.4

Base Year

No

253
254
13

See paragraph 13 of the Annex to decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry).

1.8

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 1: Introduction
First Order Draft

256

GENERAL RULES FOR CATEGORISATION OF
LAND AREAS UNDER ARTICLES3.3 AND 3.4

257
258
259
260

Chapter 3 (Consistent representation of lands) of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines describes approaches to classifying
and representing land areas associated with LULUCF activities. This is the basis for good practice guidance
concerning identification of all relevant lands, for Kyoto reporting and for avoiding double counting of lands. It
is good practice to follow the decision tree in Figure 1.1 for each year of the commitment period in order to

261
262
263



Distinguish between afforestation and reforestation, deforestation, forest management, cropland
management, grazing land management, revegetation, and wetland drainage and rewetting activities under
Articles 3.3 and 3.4, as well as to remove potential overlaps and gaps between them; and to

264
265
266
267



Assign lands to a single activity at any given point in time (i.e., for each year of the second commitment
period from 2013 onwards). This is required because of the possible land-use changes which can lead to
double counting of units of lands / lands subject to mandatory and elective activities. Additional guidance on
how to deal with shifts in land use over time is given in the examples of Box 1.1 at the end of this section.

255

1.2

268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276

The decision tree in Figure 1.1 is based on the definitions given in COP/MOP decision 16/CMP.1 and in theannex to 2/CMP.7. It identifies the reporting category for land subject to an activity for a given year X of thesecond commitment period. The decision tree recognises that a specific piece of land could be reported under
different activities over time, subject to certain conditions explained below. The decision tree is to be appliedannually during the second commitment period in order to update the allocation of lands to activities, thus taking
into account changes in land use that may have occurred. This may be achieved by annual tracking of land or byinterpolation between periods. More detailed decision trees to determine whether or not land or a unit of land issubject to specific activities are presented in Sections 2.5 through 2.12.

277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286

Where countries that have elected one or more Article 3.4 activity it is necessary to know whether land waspreviously subject to an Article 3.4 activity, and to determine which elected Article 3.4 activity was mostrecently applied on the land. If land is subject to more than one Article 3.4 activity over time, it is good practice
to classify that land under only one Article 3.4 category. Therefore, it is good practice for countries to set up ahierarchy among the activities cropland management, grazing land management, and revegetation within thescope of the definitions in the Decision of the Conference of the Parties serving as Meeting of the Parties (CMP) of
the Kyoto Protocol – to set up criteria by which lands will be assigned to a single category (see Section 1.1,
Overview, STEP 1.4). Wetlands drainage and rewetting can only be reported for land that is not already included
in one of the other elected Article 3.4 activities. It is good practice to assign land according to specific, predetermined and consistent rules, rather than on a case-by-case basis.

287

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

1.9Chapter 1: Introduction

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
288
289
290
291

Figure 1.1

Decision tree for classifying a unit of land under Article 3.3 (ARD) or land
under FM, or land under other Article 3.4 (CM, GM, RV and WDR) as of thereporting year of the commitment period. The bold arrow indicates thestarting point. Secondary classifications are not shown in the Figure.
Report the land under
Article 3.4 Forest
Management

Yes

Yes

Report the unit of land under
Article 3.3 AR activities

No

Yes

Has theland been subject to
AR activity at any time since
1 Jan 2013 as part ofCarbon Equivalent Forest
Conversion?

Do theactivities on theland satisfy the national
definition of Forest
Management?

Yes

No

Has this land
been forest at any timesince 31 Dec 1989?

No
Go to AYes

Yes

Is this land
coveredby forest in thereporting year?

BHas
the land been
subject to AR activity
at any timesince 1 Jan
1990?

No

Has
the land been
subject to an activity, to bereported under Article 3.4,
at any time since
1 Jan 1990?

No

Yes

Yes

Is the forest
cover expected to return
within the regeneration
period?

Has the land
been harvested as partof Carbon Equivalent
Forest Conversion?
(Note 2)

No

Has theland been subject toany of the elected Art. 3.4
activities since
1 Jan 1990?

Go to BNo

Report the unit of land
under Article 3.3
Deforestation activities(Note 1)

No

Yes

Report the area of land
only (under the label“Other” in the NIR KP
CRF tables)

No

Yes

A

No

Has theland been reported in aprevious year?
No

Yes

Has theland been reported in aprevious year under thesame activity?

No

Is thecurrent activity
higher in the hierarchy
than the activity in theprevious year?

Yes

Report the land under theelected 3.4 activity to which
it is subject

Yes

No

Report the land under theelected 3.4 activity underwhich it was reported in
the previous year

292
293

Note 1: No matter whether it had been subject to an AR activity before.

294

Note 2: Additional requirements are defined in paragraph 37 of decision 2/CMP.7.

1.10

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 1: Introduction
First Order Draft

295
296

Abbreviations used in the Figure:AR
Afforestation / Reforestation
D
CM Cropland ManagementGM
WDR Wetland drainage and rewetting

Deforestation
Grazing Land Management

FM
RV

Forest Management
Revegetation

297
298

The definitions in Decision 2/CMP.7 specify that

299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306





307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317

In some cases, cropland or grazing land activities occur on lands that also meet the definition of forest. Countries
have two options to avoid gaps or overlaps in reporting: 1) It is good practice to interpret the definition of forest
management such that it covers all managed forests, including those where cropland and grazing land
management takes place. As a consequence, all lands subject to grazing or cropland management would
necessarily have to be non-forest. 2) Alternatively, it is also good practice to use pre-defined criteria other than"forest / non-forest" to determine whether a land area is subject to forest management or grazing land
management / cropland management. In that case it is possible that some forest lands are included undercropland or grazing land management. Examples of this second option could include orchards or short-rotation
tree crops for the cultivation of Christmas trees or bioenergy. Special attention should be given to avoid overlap orgaps between lands subject to revegetation (if elected) that could qualify under cropland management, grazing land
management (if elected).

318

In addition note that:

319
320



Article 3.3 applies to land that is subject to an afforestation, reforestation or deforestation activity at any
time between 1 January 1990 and December 31st of the last year of the commitment period.

321
322
323
324
325



Article 3.4 applies to land that is subject to forest management, or an elected cropland management, grazing
land management and wetland draining and rewetting activity during the commitment period14,15. Article 3.4
also applies to land subject to revegetation resulting from direct human-induced activities since 1 January
1990.16 and to forest management and wetland drainage and rewetting when a narrow interpretation of those
activities is applied.

326
327
328
329
330



Once a land is reported under Article 3.3 or Article 3.4, all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions bysources and removals by sinks on this land must be reported during the first and throughout subsequent andcontiguous commitment periods17, except where the Party chooses not to report a pool that has been shown
not to be a source as explained in Section 2.3.1. That is, the total land area included in the reporting of
Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities can never decrease.

Forest management can only take place on lands that meet the definition of a forest, with the exception of
those non-forest areas originating from the conversion of plantations established after Jan 1, 1960 and
before Jan 1 1990 that are compensated by at least an equivalent area of replanted lands, in which case boththe non-forest land and the compensating area are included under FM (See Section 2.7.7 for details);
Grazing land and cropland management can take place both on same lands. Any land should be reported
either under grazing land or cropland avoiding any double counting; andWetland drainage and rewetting (WDR) can take place on wetlands and/or organic soils in all land-use
categories but can only be reported for land not already subject to mandatory or elected reporting.

14

Conversely, for base year reporting, Article 3.4 applies to land that was subject to an elected cropland management, grazing
land management or revegetation activity in the base year.

15

The reason is that if a land was subject to an Article 3.4 activity between 1 January 1990 and 31 December 2007, but is nolonger in the years 2008-2012, it could not be accounted for under the Kyoto Protocol. Carbon reporting of this land during
the commitment period would be highly complicated because the land would be under a different land use. Land that left
the FM category as a result of deforestation would, of course, be reported under Article 3.3.

16

As stated in STEP 1.2 above, it is good practice to apply the definitions of Article 3.4 activities to national circumstances.
In doing so, there may be Article 3.4 activities where an individual practice triggers the land to be reported (“narrowly
defined activities”). This is likely to apply to revegetation, also possibly to forest management, and requires to report alllands that are subject to the activity since 1990 (as for AR and D). On the other hand, there will be Article 3.4 activities
where the mere classification of the land, without a concrete practice, will suffice for the land to be reported (“broadly
defined activities”). This is most likely for cropland and grazing land management – also because there the practices aremost likely to occur on an annual basis anyway. Here it is sufficient to report the lands subject to the activity in thereporting year of the commitment period.

17

Paragraph 19 of the Annex to draft decision -/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry), contained in document
FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1, p.61.

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

1.11

Chapter 1: Introduction

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
331
332
333



If certain activities occur during the commitment period, it is under certain circumstances possible that aunit of land or land can be reported under different activities in Article 3.3 and/or Article 3.4 over time
during the commitment period. However, for each year it can only be reported under a single activity.

334
335



In order to avoid the reporting of lands or units of land in more than one activity in any year during thecommitment period, the following should be applied:

336
337
338

(i)

Units of land subject to activities under Article 3.3 which would otherwise be included in land subject
to an Article 3.4 activity (see item (ii) in footnote 12) must be reported separately as lands that are bothsubject to Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities (secondary classifications are not shown in the decision tree).

339
340

(ii)

For lands that are subject to several activities under Article 3.4, it is good practice to apply the national
criteria that establish the hierarchy among Article 3.4 activities.

341



A unit of land subject to land-use changes (LUCs) can move between categories in the following cases:

342
343
344

 Afforestation/reforestation land that is subsequently deforested is reclassified as deforestation land
(Section 2.6 describes specific provisions for units of land subject to afforestation and reforestation
activities since 1990).

345
346

 Land under one elected Article 3.4 activity is converted into land under another elected Article 3.4
activity and must be reclassified accordingly.

347
348
349
350

 Land under an elected Article 3.4 activity becomes subject to an Article 3.3 activity and must
subsequently be reported under the latter. For the second commitment period, land subject to forest
management (and established as forest plantation after 1 Jan 1960 and before 1 Jan 1990) that is clearedof forest can be continued to be reported as FM, if certain conditions are met.

351
352
353



On the other hand, the following transitions are not possible. Note that these restrictions apply to reporting
under the Kyoto Protocol (but do of course not affect the actual management that a country applies to its
lands):

354

 Land cannot transition from FM (Article 3.4) to another elected Article 3.4 activity.

355
356

 Land cannot transition from an elected Article 3.4 activity to another Article 3.4 activity that was notelected.

357

 Land cannot leave Article 3.3 reporting18.

358
359
360
361
362



After the first commitment period land classified as deforested can transition to AR land. This transition
among 3.3 categories only affects the 3.3 category in which carbon stock increases are reported but not thereported amount because, in the first commitment period, carbon stock increases were already reported
under D for deforested units of land that have been replanted subsequently. Reporting such C stockincreases under AR enhances consistency and transparency because it reflects the current land use.19.

363
364
365
366
367

In summary, this means that the area under Article 3.3 (afforestation, reforestation and deforestation lands) willgrow from 0 hectares on 1 January 1990 up to a certain value at the end of each commitment period. It is goodpractice that the afforestation, reforestation and deforestation categories contain all areas of land that have beenafforested, reforested or deforested at any time since 1 January 1990.

368
369

The area of lands under Article 3.4 categories (FM, CM, GM, RV and WDR) can fluctuate because of various
land-use changes such as:

370
371
372
373






Deforestation can remove land from FM and can add it to an elected Article 3.4 category;
Afforestation and reforestation can remove land from CM and GM categories;
Grazing lands can become croplands and vice versa;
Revegetated lands can become croplands or grazing lands or vice versa; and18

It is theoretically possible to that a unit of land that was deforested after Jan 1 1990 could be replanted under the equivalent
forest provision. This would create a conflict between the requirement to always report under 3.3 (Deforestation) and therequirement to report the replanted equivalent forest area under FM. To be discussed.

19

Paragraph 1(c) of the Annex to draft decision -/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry), contained in document
FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1, p 58 stated that “For the first commitment period, reforestation activities will be limited toreforestation occurring on those lands that did not contain forest on 31 December 1989”. For the second commitment
period this constraint does not apply.

1.12

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 1: Introduction
First Order Draft

374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384



Forest management land areas can increase, for example, as countries expand the road infrastructure toaccess areas previously in the unmanaged forest category.

[consider moving all examples to an annex]
Box 1.1 provides several examples that summarise the considerations that apply for lands subject to activities
under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol. For more detailed explanations of the rationale behind theexamples in Box 1.1, the reader is referred to the detailed explanations in the remaining sections of thisSupplementary Guidance.

385
386
387

BOX 1.1
EXAMPLES FOR THE ASSIGNMENT OF UNITS OF LAND TO ARTICLE 3.3 ACTIVITIESAND LANDS TO ARTICLE 3.4 ACTIVITIES OVER TIME

388
389
390
391
392
393
394

The following examples are intended to show, conceptually and in accordance with the decision
tree in Figure 1.1, how different land-use transitions would be categorised in different inventory
years of the the Kyoto Protocol. This does not necessarily imply that the land-use transition can bedirectly measured on an annual basis. Note that for croplands and grazing lands only carbon stockchanges are discussed in the examples below. Non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions for such lands
are reported under the AFOLU Sector of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Chapter 11 Volume 4),
independently of which Article 3.4 activities were elected by the Party.

395

Example 1: A land under forest management is deforested in 1995 and turned into a cropland.

396
397

Carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions on this land are reported underdeforestation from 2008 onwards during all commitment periods.

398
399
400
401

Carbon stock changes on this land will not be reported under cropland management, even if
cropland management was elected, because deforestation takes precedence over cropland
management. The decision tree in Figure 1.1 therefore assigns this land to deforestation, withcropland management as a secondary classification.

402
403
404
405

Should trees be re-established on this unit of land after the end of the first commitment period, forexample in 2014, the unit of land transitions from one 3.3 category to another (from D to R) to
increase transparency and consistency with the observed land cover. Estimates of changes in carbon
stock, are based on the methodology for reforestation.

406
407

Example 2: A land under forest management is deforested on 1 January 2015 and turned
into a cropland.

408
409
410
411
412
413
414

Carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions on this land during the second
commitment period are reported under deforestation starting in 2015. The methodology forcroplands that were previously forest should be used to estimate carbon stock changes. Non-CO2
greenhouse gas emissions directly resulting from the deforestation should be reported under the
Deforestation category. Non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the agricultural
practices should be reported in the AFOLU sector of the national inventory as per the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines. Double counting should be avoided.

415
416
417
418

Carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emisisons on this land will not be reported under cropland
management, even if cropland management has been elected, because deforestation takes
precedence over cropland management. The decision tree in Figure 1.1 therefore assigns this land
to deforestation with cropland as a secondary classification.

419
420

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

1.13Chapter 1: Introduction

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
421

BOX 1.1 EXAMPLES (CONTINUED)

422
423
424

The following examples illustrate Article 3.3 or 3.4 land use activities are to be reported during thesecond commitment period (CP2). For each example a correct land use classification is provided intable of this format:
Activity

D

AR

FM

CM

GM

RV

WDR

Status in CP1

M

M

E/NE

E/NE

E/NE

E/NE

N/A

Status in CP2

M

M

M

E/[E/NE]E/E[NE]E/[E/NE]

E/NE

Note:
D-Deforestation; AR- Afforestation and Reforestation; FM- Forest Management; CM- CroplandManagement; GM:- Grazing Land Management; RV- Revegetation; WDR- Wetland Drainage andRewetting.
CP1- First Commitment period 2008-2012 inclusive
CP2- Second Commitment period 2013- 2020 inclusive.
M- Mandatory KP reporting; E- Elected by the Party; NE- Not elected by Party. If an activity was elected in
CP1 it is automatically also elected in CP2.

425
426
Note it may be possible more than one solution is acceptable after the conversion or managementchange.

427
428
429

Example X: A cropland was turned into a grazing land in 2010, FM, CM and GM were elected in
CP1.

430
431

Activity

D

AR

FM

CM

GM

RV

WDR

Status in CP1

M

M

E

E

E

NE

N/A

Status in CP2

M

M

M

M

M

NE

NE

X for
only
2008 and2009 of
CP1

X for all
years
2010
onwards
including
CP2

AnswerComments

It is mandatory to continue to report the GM activity elected for CP1 into CP2

432
433
434

Example X: A cropland was turned into a grazing land in 2015, CM, GM and RV were elected in
CP2.
Activity

D

AR

FM

CM

GM

RV

WDR

Status in CP1

M

M

NE

NE

NE

NE

N/A

Status in CP2

M

M

M

E

E

E

NE

X

X

X

Reportfor only2013 and2014

Reportfor allyears
2010
onwards

Reportfor allyears
2010
onwards

AnswerComments

435

1.14

Two reporting scenarios are possible. The converted land can be reported as Grazing
land or Revegetation. However, it may be preferable to report as grazing land as thismay be easier to ensure continuity of land identification into the future. The Party isrequired to provide the definitions of activities which will be classified under each KP
Activity when communicating the decision to elect the KP Activity for CP2.

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 1: Introduction
First Order Draft

436
437

Example X: A cropland was turned into a grazing land in 2015, FM, CM were elected in CP1and
GM is elected in CP2.
Activity

D

AR

FM

CM

GM

RV

WDR

Status in CP1

M

M

E

E

NE

NE

N/A

Status in CP2

M

M

M

M

E

NE

NE

X for
2008 to2014

X forperiod2015
onwards

AnswerComments

Continue to report under CM until conversion to GM in CP2.

438
439
440
441

Example X: A cropland was turned into a grazing land in 2015, FM, GM were elected in CP2 andCM is not elected in CP2.
Activity

D

AR

FM

CM

GM

RV

WDR

Status in CP1

M

M

E

NE

NE

NE

N/A

Status in CP2

M

M

M

NE

E

NE

NE

Answer442

Comments

X forperiod2015
onwards
Only report for the period after conversion to GM.

443
444

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

1.15Chapter 1: Introduction

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
445

1.3

446
447

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ANNEX I
PARTIES’ NATIONAL INVENTORIES AND
ARTICLE 6 LULUCF PROJECTS

448
449
450
451

Emissions or removals resulting from projects under Article 6 will be part of the host country’s annual inventory
under the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol reporting. The methods for estimating, measuring, monitoring andreporting greenhouse gas emissions and removals resulting from LULUCF project activities are addressed in
Section 4.3 of the GPG-LULUCF (LULUCF Projects).

452
453
454
455

When estimating the greenhouse gas emissions and removals of Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities, it is possible to use
the information that is reported for, or is meeting the standards of, Article 6 LULUCF projects on these lands(but not vice versa). Two options exist for Article 3.3 and Article 3.4 estimation, both of which are consideredgood practice:

456
457
458
459
460
461

Option 1: Carry out Article 3.3 and Article 3.4 assessment without consideration of information reported for
Article 6 projects (which are reported separately as outlined in Section 4.3 of the GPG-LULUCF). This assumes
that a properly designed national system will also automatically include the effects of Article 6 projects. Thisapproach is consistent with the approaches taken in the other emission sectors. For example, an Article 6 projectthat reduces emissions from fossil fuels is not individually considered in the national emissions inventory, butwill implicitly be included due to the project’s impacts in the national statistics for fossil fuels.

462
463
464
465
466

Option 2: Consider all changes of carbon stocks as well as greenhouse gas emissions and removals at the projectlevel as a primary data source for Article 3.3 and/or Article 3.4 estimation and reporting, for example byconsidering projects as a separate stratum. Any Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities that are not projects need to bemonitored separately. In this case, the design of the monitoring must ensure that projects are explicitly excluded
from the remaining lands under Articles 3.3 and 3.4, to avoid double counting.

467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474

One important difference between project and national (Articles 3.3 and 3.4) accounting is that projects have abaseline scenario (i.e., only additional carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions due to theproject are accounted), while afforestation, reforestation, deforestation, cropland management, grazing land
management and revegetation do not have a baseline scenario. After the first commitment period, Forest
Management does have a baseline. Therefore, when using project-level information for reporting under different
categories of Articles 3.3 and 3.4, countries must take into account the projects’ total contribution to reported
overall carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions and not just the change relative to theprojects’ baseline scenario.

1.16

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

475

CHAPTER 2

476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483

METHODS FOR ESTIMATION,
MEASUREMENT, MONITORING ANDREPORTING OF LULUCF ACTIVITIESUNDER ARTICLES 3.3 AND 3.4

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.1

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft

484

Contents

485
486

Relationship between UNFCCC land-use categories and Kyoto Protocol (Articles 3.3 and 3.4) land-use
2.1
categories ............................................................................................................................................................ 8

487

2.2

Generic methodologies for area identification, stratification and reporting .......................................... 11

488

2.2.1

Reporting requirements ................................................................................................................... 11

489

2.2.2

Reporting Methods for Lands subject to Article 3.3 and Article 3.4 activities ............................... 12

490

2.2.3

Reporting Methods for Lands subject to Special Accounting Provisions ....................................... 13

491
492

2.2.4
Relationship between Approaches in Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines andReporting methods in Section 2.2.2 .............................................................................................................. 15

493

2.2.5

Choice of Reporting Method ........................................................................................................... 16

494

2.2.6

How to identify lands (units of land) in general .............................................................................. 17

495
496

2.3
Generic Methodological Issues for Estimating Carbon Stock Changes and Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions .......................................................................................................................................................... 21

497

2.3.1

Pools to be reported ......................................................................................................................... 22

498

2.3.2

Years for which to estimate carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions .......... 24

499

2.3.3

Correct implementation of C stock change estimation methods when areas are changing ............. 25

500

2.3.4

Reporting and measurement intervals ............................................................................................. 28

501

2.3.5

Time Averaging of Interannual Variability ..................................................................................... 28

502

2.3.6

Choice of method ............................................................................................................................ 30

503

2.3.7

Factoring out indirect, natural and pre-1990 effects........................................................................ 32

504

2.3.8

Reference Levels ............................................................................................................................. 32

505

2.3.9

Disturbances .................................................................................................................................... 33

506

2.3.10Interannual variability ................................................................................................................. 51

507

2.4

Other generic methodological issues ..................................................................................................... 52

508

2.4.1

Developing a consistent time series ................................................................................................ 52

509

2.4.2

Recalculation of Time Series .......................................................................................................... 53

510

2.4.3

Uncertainty assessment ................................................................................................................... 54

511

2.4.4

Reporting and documentation ......................................................................................................... 57

512

2.4.5

Quality assurance and quality control ............................................................................................. 90

513

2.4.6

Verification ..................................................................................................................................... 91

514

2.5

Afforestation and Reforestation ............................................................................................................ 92

515

2.5.1

516
517

2.5.2
Choice of methods for identifying units of land subject to direct human-induced afforestation/
reforestation .................................................................................................................................................. 93

518

2.5.3

519

2.6

Definitional issues and reporting requirements ............................................................................... 92

Choice of methods for estimating carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions .......................... 96
Deforestation ......................................................................................................................................... 98

520

2.6.1

Definitional issues and reporting requirements ............................................................................... 98

521

2.6.2

Choice of methods for identifying units of land subject to direct human-induced deforestation .... 99

522

2.6.3

Choice of methods for estimating carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions ........................ 103

2.2

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

523

2.7

Forest Management ............................................................................................................................. 105

524

2.7.1

Definitional issues and reporting requirements ............................................................................. 105

525

2.7.2

Choice of methods for identifying lands subject to Forest Management ...................................... 106

526

2.7.3

Choice of methods for estimating carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions ........................ 111

527

2.7.4

Methods to address natural disturbance ........................................................................................ 112

528

2.7.5

Forest Management Reference Levels .......................................................................................... 112

529

2.7.6

Technical Corrections for accounting purposes ............................................................................ 118

530

2.7.7

Carbon Equivalent Forests ............................................................................................................ 124

531

2.8

Harvested Wood Products (HWP) ...................................................................................................... 132

532

2.8.1

Initial steps to estimate HWP contribution .................................................................................... 132

533

2.8.2

Tier 1: “Instantaneous oxidation”.................................................................................................. 141

534

2.8.3

Tier 2: First order decay ................................................................................................................ 142

535

2.8.4

Tier 3: Country-specific methods .................................................................................................. 145

536

2.8.5

Consideration of the HWP pool in FMRLs ................................................................................... 151

537

2.8.6

Uncertainty assessment ................................................................................................................. 154

538

2.8.7

Quality assurance/Quality control ................................................................................................. 156

539

2.9

Cropland Management ........................................................................................................................ 157

540

2.9.1

Definitional issues and reporting requirements ............................................................................. 157

541

2.9.2

Choice of methods for identifying lands subject to cropland management activities ................... 160

542

2.9.3

Choice of methods for estimating carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions 161

543

2.10

Grazing land management ................................................................................................................... 174

544

2.10.1

Definitional issues and reporting requirements......................................................................... 174

545

2.10.2

Choice of methods for identifying lands subjected to grazing land management ..................... 175

546
547

2.10.3

Choice of methods for estimating carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions
177

548

2.11

Revegetation........................................................................................................................................ 180

549

2.11.1

Definitional issues and reporting requirements......................................................................... 180

550

2.11.2

Choice of methods for identifying lands ................................................................................... 181

551
552

2.11.3

Choice of methods for estimating carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions
182

553

2.12

Wetland drainage and rewetting .......................................................................................................... 184

554

2.12.1

Definitional issues and reporting requirements......................................................................... 184

555

2.12.2

Choice of methods .................................................................................................................... 185

556

2.12.3

Choice of methods for identifying lands ................................................................................... 186

557

2.12.4

Choice of methods for estimating greenhouse gas emissions and removals ............................. 189

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.3Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft

558

Equations

559

Equation 2.3.1 Calculation of the standard deviation of the mean for the calibration period ............................... 46

560

Equation 2.7.1 Technical Correction................................................................................................................... 118

561
562

Equation 2.8.1 Estimation of annual fraction of feedstock for HWP production originating from domestic harvest............................................................................................................................................................................ 138

563
564

Equation 2.8.2 Estimation of annual fraction of domestically produced wood pulp as feedstock for paper andpaperboard production ........................................................................................................................................ 138

565
566

Equation 2.8.3 Estimation of annual fraction of feedstock for HWP originating from forest activities under
Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4 .............................................................................................................................. 140

567
568

Equation 2.8.4 Estimation of annual HWP amounts being produced from domestic harvest related to activities
under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4 .................................................................................................................... 140

569
570

Equation 2.8.5 Estimation of carbon stocks and annual carbon stock changes in HWP pool of the reporting
country ................................................................................................................................................................ 142

571
572

Equation 2.8.6 Approximation of the carbon stocks in HWP pools at initial time, i.e. since when activity data are
available .............................................................................................................................................................. 143

573

574

Figures

575
576

Land classification in the national inventories under the UNFCCC for a hypothetical country in
Figure 2.1.1
year X of the commitment period ......................................................................................................................... 10

577
578

Figure 2.1.2
Land classification for Kyoto Protocol reporting for a hypothetical country in year X of thecommitment period. This classification corresponds to the “final” status in Table 2.1.1 ..................................... 10

579

Figure 2.2.1

Two reporting methods for land subject to Articles 3.3 and 3.4 activities .................................. 13

580
581

Figure 2.2.2
and 3.4.

Decision tree for choosing a reporting method for land subject to activities under Articles 3.3
17

582
583

Figure 2.5.1
Decision tree for determining whether a unit of land qualifies for direct human-induced (dhi)Afforestation/Reforestation (AR) or Revegetation (RV) ...................................................................................... 95

584
585

Figure 2.6.1
Decision tree for determining whether a unit of land is subject to direct human-induced (dhi)Deforestation (D) ................................................................................................................................................ 102

586
587
588
589

Relationship between different forest categories. Some of these lands may also be subject toFigure 2.7.1
activities under Article 3.3 (afforestation or reforestation) as outlined in Figure 1.1. Thick arrows indicate where
the majority of the area included in a particular category for UNFCCC reporting is likely to be included for
Kyoto Protocol reporting. See Sections 2.7 and 2.7.1 for further explanation. ................................................... 107

590
591

Figure 2.7.2
Decision tree for determining whether land qualifies as being subject to Forest Management.
This decision tree applies to lands which are not eligible for direct human-induced AR (see Figure 2.5.1) ...... 109

592
593

Figure 2.7.3
Relationship among forest lands, lands subject to FM, lands subject to natural disturbance andCarbon Equivalent Forests. ................................................................................................................................. 110

594
595

Figure 2.7.4
period.

Decision tree for identifying the need for Technical Correction during the second commitment
120

596

Figure 2.7.5

CEFC decision tree for forest clearance .................................................................................. 125

597

Figure 2.7.6

CEFC decision tree for forest establishment ............................................................................ 126

2.4

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

598
599

Figure 2.7.7(CEF-d land)

Decision tree for determining the eligibility of land to be deforested under CEFC provision
128

600
601

Figure 2.7.8
land)

Decision tree for determining eligibility of land to be afforested under CEFC provision (CEF-ar
130

602

Figure 2.8.1

Decision tree for selection of a correct tier method for estimating HWP carbon stock change 134

603
604

Figure 2.8.2
Forest-wood chain based on simplified classification of wood products based on FAO forestry
products definitions4 ........................................................................................................................................... 136

605

Figure 2.8.3

606
607

Figure 2.9.1
Decision tree for selecting the appropriate tier for estimating carbon stock changes in mineralsoils under cropland for Kyoto Protocol reporting (see also Figure 3.1.1) ......................................................... 164

608
609
610

Figure 2.9.2
Schematic representation of a change in soil carbon stocks after a carbon-sequestering
management change is imposed represented by a broken-stick model of stock change (as used in the IPCC
Guidelines where the time to a new equilibrium is 20 Years) and by an asymptotic curve (for definitions of ... 166

611
612

Figure 2.9.3
Decision tree for selecting the tier at which to report carbon stock changes in organic soils under
the Kyoto Protocol .............................................................................................................................................. 169

Allocation of carbon in harvest associated with ARD and FM activities ................................. 139

613

614

Tables615

Table 2.1.1 Summary of the LULUCF activities under the Kyoto Protocol and the associated accounting rules .. 9

616
617

Table 2.2.1 Relationship between approaches in Chapter 3 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines and reporting methods inThis report ............................................................................................................................................................. 16618

Table 2.3.1 Relationship between Kyoto protocol activities and IPCC land categories for LULUCF ................. 31

619
620
621
622

Table 2.4.1 Supplementary information to be reported for the annual greenhouse gas inventory during the second
commitment period according to relevant decisions of the Conference of the Parties serving as Meeting of theParties (CMP) of the Kyoto Protocol. Text in italics indicates a direct quote from the relevant paragraphs in the
CMP decisions text ............................................................................................................................................... 58

623
624
625
626

Table 2.4.1 (Continued) Supplementary information to be reported for the annual greenhouse gas inventory
during the first commitment period according to relevant decisions of the Conference of the Parties serving as
Meeting of the Parties (CMP) of the Kyoto Protocol. Text in italics indicates a direct quote from the relevant
paragraphs in the decisions text ............................................................................................................................ 60

627

Table 2.4.2a Summary Table ................................................................................................................................ 63

628

Table 2.4.2b Additional information: Selection of parameters for defining "Forest"under the Kyoto Protocol .. 64

629
630

Table 2.4.2c Additional information: Background level of emissions associated with natural disturbances and its
margin ................................................................................................................................................................... 64

631

Table 2.4.2d Additional information: Forest Management reference level........................................................... 64

632

Table 2.4.3a Land transition matrix ...................................................................................................................... 66

633
634

Table 2.4.3b Additional information: Area of natural forest converted to forest plantations in the current
inventory year ....................................................................................................................................................... 67

635
636

Table 2.4.4 Summary overview for key categories for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry activities under
the Kyoto Protocol ................................................................................................................................................ 68

637

Table 2.4.5 Article 3.3 activities: Afforestation and Reforestation(1), (2) ............................................................... 69

638

Table 2.4.5 (Continued) Article 3.3 activities: Afforestation and Reforestation (1), (2) .......................................... 70

639

Table 2.4.6 Article 3.3 activities: Deforestation(1) ................................................................................................ 73

640

Table 2.4.7 Article 3.4 activities: Forest Management(1) ...................................................................................... 75

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.5Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
641

Table 2.4.7 (Continued) Article 3.4 activities: Forest Management(1) .................................................................. 76642

Table 2.4.8 Elected Article 3.4 activities(1), (2), (3), (4), (5) .......................................................................................... 79

643
644

Table 2.4.9 Direct N2O emissions from N fertilization(1), (2) and N2O emissions from disturbance associated withland-use conversion to cropland(1), (2) .................................................................................................................... 81645

Table 2.4.10 CH4 and N2O emissions from drainage and rewetting of soils(1)...................................................... 83

646

Table 2.4.11 Carbon emissions from lime application(1) ....................................................................................... 85647

Table 2.4.11 (Continued) Carbon emissions from lime application(1)................................................................... 86648

Table 2.4.12 GHG emissions from biomass burning ............................................................................................ 87649

Table 2.4.12 (Continued) GHG emissions from biomass burning ........................................................................ 88

650

Table 2.7.1 Criteria to detect the need for Technical Correction ....................................................................... 122

651

Table 2.7.2 Example of documentation documentationwhen performing a Technical Correction ..................... 123

652

Table 2.8.1 Default conversion factors for the default HWP categories and their subcategories ....................... 144

653

Table 2.8.2 Tier 2 Default half-lives of HWP categories .................................................................................... 145

654
655

Table 2.8.3 Example on how to derive country-specific half-life for HWP categories as a function of information
on market share, Estimated service life (ESL) and obsolescence ....................................................................... 151

656
657

Table 2.9.1 Sections where methodologies can be found for estimating different carbon pools associated withcropland management activities .......................................................................................................................... 162

658

Table 2.12.1 ........................................................................................................................................................ 191

659

660

Boxes

661

Box 2.3.1 Example ................................................................................................................................................ 24

662

Box 2.3.2 Example ................................................................................................................................................ 25

663

Box 2.3.3 Example ................................................................................................................................................ 27

664

Box 2.3.4 Examples of approaches for identifying lands affected by natural disturbance.................................... 37

665

Box 2.3.5: Approach for adjusting for a change in area between commitment period and historic data .............. 45666

Box 2.3.6: Examples of approaches for the development of the background level .............................................. 48

667

Box 2.4.1 An example of consistency in estimating the effect of management practices ..................................... 53

668

Box 2.5.1 ............................................................................................................................................................... 96

669

Box 2.5.2 ............................................................................................................................................................... 97

670

Box 2.6.1 ............................................................................................................................................................. 100

671

Box 2.6.2 ............................................................................................................................................................. 104

672

Box 2.7.1 ............................................................................................................................................................. 111

673

Box 2.7.2 ............................................................................................................................................................. 112

674

Box 2.7.3 Approaches used for constructing Forest Management Reference Levels ......................................... 114

675

Box 2.8.1 Example on the calculation of national ESL by means of factor method ........................................... 150

676

Box 2.8.2 Example on the estimation of HWP contribution as presented in Parties’ FMRL ............................. 153

677

Box 2.9.1 Steps for estimating emissions and removals from cropland management ........................................ 158

678
679

Box 2.9.2 An example of cropland management areas in 1990 and in the commitment period (net-net accounting)............................................................................................................................................................................ 159

2.6

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

680

Box 2.9.3 ............................................................................................................................................................. 161

681

Box 2.9.4 ............................................................................................................................................................. 162

682

Box 2.9.5 Examples of possible influences of carbon stock changes on emissions of non-CO2 gases ............... 174

683

Box 2.10.1 ........................................................................................................................................................... 176

684

Box 2.10.2 ........................................................................................................................................................... 177

685

Box 2.11.1 .......................................................................................................................................................... 181

686

Box 2.11.2 ........................................................................................................................................................... 182

687

Box 2.11.3 ........................................................................................................................................................... 183

688

Box 2.12.1 Wetland drainage and rewetting areas in 1990 and the commitment period (net-net accounting) ... 187

689

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.7

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft

693

2 METHODS FOR ESTIMATION,
MEASUREMENT, MONITORING ANDREPORTING OF LULUCF ACTIVITIESUNDER ARTICLES 3.3 AND 3.4

694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701

Chapter 2 of this supplementary guidance provides a description of generic methodological issues concerning all
possible land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) activities under Kyoto Protocol Articles 3.3 and 3.4.
Section 2.1 deals with the relationship between land-use categories in reporting under the UNFCCC and the
Kyoto Protocol, Section 2.2 deals with land areas, Section 2.3 with estimating carbon stock changes and nonCO2 greenhouse gas emissions, and Section 2.4 with other generic methodological issues. This is followed by
specific methodologies for monitoring afforestation and reforestation (treated together), deforestation, forest
management, cropland management, grazing land management, revegetation, wetlands drainage and rewetting(Sections 2.5 – 2.12). Readers should refer to both the generic and the specific issues for any one of the activities.

690
691
692

702

706

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN UNFCCC LANDUSE CATEGORIES AND KYOTO PROTOCOL(ARTICLES 3.3 AND 3.4) LAND-USE
CATEGORIES

707
708
709
710
711

This section provides an overview of how the activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 relate to the land-use
categories introduced in Volume 4, Chapter 2 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories (2006 IPCC Guidelines). The use of these categories for the purposes of reporting on national
greenhouse gas emissions and removals under the UNFCCC is elaborated in Chapter 3 of the Good PracticeGuidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (GPG-LULUCF).

712

Land-use systems are classified in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines into:

713

(i)

Forest land (managed and unmanaged) (Chapter 4)

714

(ii)

Cropland (Chapter 5)

715

(iii)

Grassland (managed and unmanaged) (Chapter 6)

716

(iv)

Wetlands (managed and unmanaged) (Chapter 7)

717

(v)

Settlements (Chapter 8)

718

(vi)

Other land (Chapter 9)

719
720
721
722

The relationships between the basic land-use categories (i) to (vi) described in Section 2.2 and the activities of
the Kyoto Protocol (Articles 3.3 and 3.4) are summarised in Table 2.1.1. Land subject to Kyoto Protocol
activities should be identified as a subcategory of one of these six main categories. There are no reporting
requirements for unmanaged land categories.

723
724
725
726
727
728
729

Using categories (i) to (vi) as a basis for estimating the effects of Articles 3.3 and 3.4 activities helps meet goodpractice requirements and will be consistent with the national land categorization used for preparing LUCF
greenhouse gas inventories under the Convention. For example: Forest Land could be partitioned into: a) Forest
Land under Article 3.3; b) Forest Land under Article 3.4, c) Other managed Forest Land (only if the definition of“managed forests” differs from the definition of “lands subject to forest management”); and d) Unmanaged
Forest Land. More information on the relationship between “managed forests” and “forest management” can befound in Section 2.7, Figure 2.7.1.

730
731
732
733
734

Many of the methods described in subsequent sections of this Chapter build on methodologies that appear in
Chapters 1 and Section 2.1 to 2.4 of this supplementary guidance or in Volume 4, Chapter 2 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines. For continuity and clarity, cross-references to these descriptions appear periodically in Boxes. Directreferences to the reporting tables in Chapter 3 of the GPG-LULUCF is not possible because for Kyoto Protocol
reporting additional spatial stratification is required that cannot be inferred from those Reporting Tables, and for

703

2.1

704
705

2.8

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

735
736

the second Commitment Period, additional reporting categories have been introduced. [cross reference thereporting tables in the Supplementary Guidance if we include them]

737
TABLE 2.1.1
SUMMARY OF THE LULUCF ACTIVITIES UNDER THE KYOTO PROTOCOL AND THE ASSOCIATED ACCOUNTING RULES
Transitions from the “initial” to the “final” land category indicate which management activities may have occurred onthat land. Bold font indicates mandatory reporting categories; regular font indicates elective categories where theclassification depends on the election of Article 3.4 activities by a country. Management activities cannot create“unmanaged land” and therefore unmanaged categories are not included in the final columns.
FinalManagedForest land

CroplandManagedGrasslandManagedForest land

FM

D

D

Unmanaged
Forestland**

FM

D

A/R*

ManagedGrassland
Unmanaged
Grassland**InitialCroplandWetlandSettlements

Other land

WetlandSettlements

Other land

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

CM, RV,
WDR***

GM, RV,
WDR***

RV, WDR***

RV

A/R*

CM, RV,
WDR***

GM, RV,
WDR***

GM, RV,
WDR***RV

A/R*

CM, RV,
WDR***

GM, RV,
WDR***

GM, RV,
WDR***RV

A/R*

CM, RV,
WDR***

GM, RV,
WDR***

GM, RV,
WDR***

RV, WDR***

A/R*

CM, RV,
WDR***

GM, RV,
WDR***

GM, RV,
WDR***RV

A/R*

CM, RVGM, RV

RV

RV

Notes
A/R: Afforestation / Reforestation, D: Deforestation, FM: Forest Management, CM: Cropland Management, GM: Grazing Land
Management, RV: Revegetation, WDR: Wetland Drainage and Rewetting.
*

A/R takes precedence over FM, and therefore the land is subject to FM, but not reported in the FM category.

**

D takes precedence over cropland/grassland categories.

***

WDR only applies when none of the other elective activities under Article 3.4 have been elected by the country.

738
739
740
741
742
743
744

Figures 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 exemplify the relationship between these land-use categories reported in national
inventories under the UNFCCC and those under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol in any single
reporting year. The outer rectangle represents the boundaries of a hypothetical country. Figure 2.1.1 shows thereporting categories for the UNFCCC national inventory according to Chapter 3 of the GPG-LULUCF, andFigure 2.1.2 includes additional categories resulting from reporting requirements under the Kyoto Protocol.

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.9Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
745
746

Figure 2.1.1

Land classification in the national inventories under the UNFCCC for ahypothetical country in year X of the commitment period 1
Settlements

Unmanaged Wetland

Other landManaged Wetland

Managed forest

Managed grassland

Unmanaged
forestUnmanaged
grassland
Cropland

747
748
749
750
751

Figure 2.1.2

Land classification for Kyoto Protocol reporting for a hypothetical country
in year X of the commitment period. This classification corresponds to the“final” status in Table 2.1.1

Settlements

Unmanaged Wetland

Other landManaged Wetland
RV

D

WDR

D

Managed forest
AR

FM

ND

WDR

Managed grassland
CM

WDR

GM
RV

CEFC

D

WDR*

FM

GM

Unmanaged
grassland

Unmanaged
forestRV

D

CM

Cropland

752
753
754

* WDR on cropland can only occur if CM is not elected, otherwise the associated emissions have to be reported
under CM.

755
756
757
758
759

In Figure 2.1.2, dashed lines delineate areas subject to Forest Management (FM), and two of the elective
activities under Article 3.4, cropland management (CM) and grazing land management (GM). Revegetation canoccur on various land categories. Wetland drainage and rewetting can only occur on lands that are not already in
one of the other Article 3.4 categories. The area subject to forest management can be smaller than the area ofmanaged forest under UNFCCC reporting because (i) countries could use different thresholds for defining
1

Unmanaged forests and unmanaged grasslands are not reported in UNFCCC inventories.

2.10

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771

forests for the Kyoto Protocol and UNFCCC reporting, (ii) Article 3.4 requires that the management activity
took place since 1990. For further discussion of this possible definitional difference see Figure 2.7.1 andaccompanying text in Section 2.7.2 (Choice of Methods for identifying lands subject to forest management).
Emissions and removals on unmanaged forests that remain unmanaged are not included in the UNFCCC or the
Kyoto Protocol reporting. However, should a deforestation event occur in unmanaged forests, the associatedemissions would be reported as deforestation event under Article 3.3. Lands for which emissions from natural
disturbances are not reported (see Section 2.3.9.6 for additional requirements) need to be identified separately forboth FM and AR lands (“ND” in Figure 2.1.2). Lands that are used to establish an equivalent forest area tocompensate for harvesting of plantations established after Jan 1, 1960 and before Jan 1st 1990, that are reestablished in a different location are shown in Figure 2.2 as “CEFC”, which includes both the land area that was
cleared and may now be in a different land use and the non-forest land on which the plantation was reestablished (see Section 2.7.7 for additional requirements).

772
773

For Kyoto reporting lands subject to cropland management as described in Decision 16/CMP.1 are identical to
Cropland/arable/tillage lands in UNFCCC reporting.

774
775
776

Grazing land management usually occurs on lands classified as grasslands in the UNFCCC inventory. However,grazing land management can also occur in managed forests, and not all grasslands are necessarily grazing lands.
Unmanaged grasslands will be excluded from both the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol reporting.

777
778

Afforested and reforested (A/R) lands are always managed forests. Carbon stock changes and non-CO2
greenhouse gas emissions are to be reported under Article 3.3 only.

779

Deforested lands are usually managed (thus, there is no “D” box in the unmanaged grasslands).

780

2.2

GENERIC METHODOLOGIES FOR AREA
IDENTIFICATION, STRATIFICATION ANDREPORTING

784

2.2.1

Reporting requirements

785
786
787
788
789

Decisions 16/CMP.1 and 2/CMP.7 state that areas of land subject to Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities must be
identifiable2, adequately reported3 and tracked in the future.4 Section 2.2.2 discusses two land reporting methods
that can be applied to all Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities. Section 2.2.4 discusses how these reporting methods candraw on the three approaches presented in Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines Section 2.2.5
provides a decision tree for selecting one of the two reporting methods, and Section 2.2.6 includes a more

781
782
783

2

Paragraph 20 of the Annex to the Decision 16/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry), contained in document
FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1, p.61: National inventory systems under Article 5.1 shall ensure that areas of land subject toland use, land-use change and forestry activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4 are identifiable, and information
about these areas should be provided by each Party included in Annex I in their national inventories in accordance with
Article 7. Such information will be reviewed in accordance with Article 8.

3

Paragraph 6 of the Annex of the Decision 15/CMP.1 (Article 7):
General information to be reported for activities under Article 3, paragraph 3, and any elected activities under Article 3,
paragraph 4, shall include: […](b)The geographical location of the boundaries of the areas that encompass:(i) Units of land subject to activities under Article 3, paragraph 3;(ii) Units of land subject to activities under Article 3, paragraph 3, which would otherwise be included in land subject
to elected activities under Article 3, paragraph 4, under the provisions of paragraph 8 of the annex to decision /CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry); and(iii) Land subject to elected activities under Article 3, paragraph 4. […](c)The spatial assessment unit used for determining the area of accounting for afforestation, reforestation anddeforestation.

4

Paragraph 19 of the Annex to the Decision 16/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry): Once land is accounted forunder Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources from and removals by sinkson this land must be accounted for throughout subsequent and contiguous commitment periods.

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.11

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
790
791

detailed discussion of how lands subject to Articles 3.3 and 3.4 can be identified, so that the requirements ofeither reporting method can be satisfied.

792

2.2.2

793

Reporting Methods for Lands subject to Article 3.3
and Article 3.4 activities

794
795
796
797
798

To meet the reporting requirements set out in Decision 15/CMP1, general information to be reported on activities
under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 must include the geographical boundaries of areas encompassing units of land subject
to afforestation and reforestation, deforestation, and lands subject to elected activities among forest management,
cropland management, grazing land management, revegetation and wetland drainage and rewetting activities. To
achieve this a Party may choose one of two methods (Figure 2.2.1):

799
800
801
802
803

Reporting Method 1 entails delineating areas that include multiple land units subject to Article 3.3 and 3.4
activities by using legal, administrative, or ecosystem boundaries. This stratification is based on samplingtechniques, administrative data, or grids on images produced by remote sensing techniques. The identified
geographic boundaries must be georeferenced. See Section 2.2.3 for additional reporting requirements arisingfrom Decision 2/CMP.7.

804
805

Reporting Method 2 is based on the spatially explicit and complete geographical identification of all units ofland subject to Article 3.3 activities and all lands subject to Article 3.4 activities.

806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814

To implement Reporting Method 1, it is good practice to stratify the entire country and to define and report thegeographic boundaries of these areas of land. Criteria for stratification of the country could include statisticalconsiderations for the sampling intensity or sampling approaches, considerations of the type and amount of landuse change activities (Article 3.3) and elected activities (Articles 3.4), as well as ecological or administrative
considerations. Within each resulting geographic boundary the units of land subject to Article 3.3 activities andthe lands subject to any Article 3.4 activities (if elected) must then be quantified using the approaches describedin Chapter 2 (Section 2.3 Representing land areas) of the GPG-LULUCF, in accordance with the guidance inSection 2.2.3, as well as the methods in Sections 2.2.5 (generic methods) and 2.5 to 2.12 (activity-specificmethods).

815
816
817
818
819
820

To implement Reporting Method 2, a Party should identify and report the spatial location of all lands and unitsof land based on a complete mapping of all areas within its national boundaries. This is described in Chapter 3 ofthe 2006 IPCC Guidelines as the wall-to-wall mapping version of Approach 3 (see also Section 2.2.4.3). This
reporting method uniquely identifies lands and units of land and enables activities to be reported without the riskof double counting. To put this reporting method fully into practice requires large-scale data collection andanalysis, and the preparation of summary statistics to ensure that reporting is transparent yet concise.

821
822
823

[Consider adding a short paragraph on published national examples implementing RM1 (e.g. Canada, Stinson etal. 2011, other published examples?) or RM2 (e.g. Australia, papers by Gary Richards or Rob Waterworth otherexamples?) in CP1.]

824

2.12

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

825

Figure 2.2.1

Two reporting methods for land subject to Articles 3.3 and 3.4 activities

826
827
828
829
830
831
832

With either reporting method, once land is reported as being subject to activities specified under the Kyoto
Protocol, it should be traceable for the first and subsequent commitment periods. Therefore, if a Party chooses
Reporting Method 1, it is good practice to record the information needed to identify the sample locations and theunits of land or lands identified in the samples, and to use the same sample locations for any future monitoring.
This ensures that changes in the status of land covered by sample plots (Reporting Method 1) or in the entire
country (Reporting Method 2) can be tracked and monitored from 1990 to the end of the commitment period.

833
834

The geographic boundaries resulting from the stratification of the country should be reported using printed maps
or digital maps, as described in Section 2.4.4.1 (Reporting).

835
836
837
838
839

For Reporting Method 1, depending on the size of the country and the ecological and climate variability within
the country, it is good practice to select the number of geographic areas for which the geographic boundaries ofland are defined with the goals to reduce heterogeneity and to increase reporting transparency. Thus, unless thecountry is relatively small it is good practice to define the boundaries of more than one geographic area and for
relatively large countries it is good practice to limit the number of geographic areas to maintain transparency.

840

2.2.3

841

Reporting Methods for Lands subject to Special
Accounting Provisions

842
843
844
845

Decision 2/CMP.7 introduced additional reporting requirements for (1) the georeferenced locations of forest
areas subject to natural disturbances for which emissions and subsequent removals are excluded from theaccounting5 and (2) the georeferenced locations of forest plantations converted to other land uses for which acarbon equivalent forest was established on non-forest land6.

846
847
848
849
850
851
852

Georeferenced locations of areas affected by natural disturbances are required to track whether or not these areas
have been converted to non-forest land uses (deforestation) in the years after the natural disturbance. Countries
can meet this requirement either by monitoring post-disturbance land-use change on disturbed areas for whichemissions were excluded from the accounting or by demonstrating for all units of forest land subject todeforestation that these are not lands previously affected by natural disturbances for which emissions were
excluded from the accounting. If land-use change does occur then the emissions from the natural disturbancealso have to be reported and accounted.

853
854
855
856

Decision 2/CMP.7 also states that countries need to demonstrate that emissions associated with salvage logging
of these areas were not excluded from the accounting. It is good practice to report and account emissions fromall salvage logging, which includes emissions associated with salvage logging on lands affected by natural
disturbances for which emissions were excluded from the accounting. If salvage logging does occur, then only
5

Decision 2/CMP.7 – Paragraph 34 (a) establishes the requirement to report the georeferenced location of these areas.

6

Decision 2/CMP.7 – Paragraphs 37 – 39 outline all requirements that must be met for this provision.

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.13

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
857
858

those emissions are reported and accounted, but not the emissions from the prior natural disturbance.
Section 2.3.9 for additional requirements associated with the natural disturbance provision.

See

859
860
861
862
863
864

Decision 2/CMP.7 requires that the georeferenced locations are reported for cases where plantations are
harvested and converted to non-forest land and subsequently non-forest land in another location is planted toestablish a carbon equivalent forest. The georeferenced locations of both the converted plantation and the newly
established plantation are to be reported. The associated emissions are reported under Forest Management(Article 3.4). See Section 2.7.7 for additional requirements associated with the establishment of carbonequivalent forests.

865
866
867

These new reporting requirements imply that Reporting Method 1 can only meet the reporting requirements forthe second commitment period if additional, georeferenced information about specific land areas within thegeographic boundaries is provided.

868

2.14

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

869

872

Relationship between Approaches in Chapter 3,
Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and Reporting
methods in Section 2.2.2

873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883

Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Consistent representation of lands) describes three
approaches to representing land area. The detailed reporting requirements of Articles 3.3 and 3.4 of the Kyoto
Protocol as elaborated in Chapter 3 are met by the two reporting methods given in this chapter, and underpinnedby the approaches described in Chapter 3. This section, summarised in Table 2.2.1, discusses which of the three
3 approaches are suitable for identifying units of land subject to Article 3.3 activities or lands subject to selected
activities under Article 3.4. Note that even the most data-intensive Approach 3 outlined in Chapter 3 can only be
sufficient without supplemental information if the spatial resolution at which land-use changes are tracked isconsistent with the size parameter selected by a country to define forest, i.e., polygon sizes of 0.05 to 1 ha or
grids of 20 to 100 m (see STEP 1.1 in Section 1.1). Land cover and land-use mapping using, for example, 1 km2(100 ha) pixel resolution does not meet the Protocol’s requirements and supplemental information will be
required.

884
885
886
887
888
889

This section describes three Approaches that may be used to represent areas of land use using the categories as
defined and explained in more detail in Chapter 3 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Approach 1 identifies the totalchange in area for each individual land-use category within a country, but does not provide information on thenature and area of conversions between land uses. Approach 2 introduces tracking of land-use conversions
between categories (but is not spatially explicit). Approach 3 is characterized by spatially-explicit observationsof land-use categories and land-use conversions.

870

2.2.4

871

890
891

2.2.4.1

892

APPROACH 1: TOTAL LAND-USE AREA, NO DATAON CONVERSIONS BETWEEN LAND USES

893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902

Approach 1 in Chapter 3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines provides information that is not spatially explicit and it
only reports the net changes in the areas of different land-use categories. Hence, this approach does not meet theland identification requirements of Decisions 16/CMP.1 and 2/CMP.7. National inventory databases are often
compiled from detailed spatial inventories that can be based, for example, on sampling approaches that involve agrid or sample plot system. In countries where this is the case, it may be possible to re-compile the detailed
inventory information for the geographical boundaries, which have resulted from the stratification of the country,
to meet the reporting requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. This means that Approach 1 can only be applied toReporting Method 1 if additional spatial data at the required spatial resolution are available as a result of recompiling the inventory information or from other sources, and if additional information is available to quantify
the gross land-use transitions (rather than the net changes in land-use categories).

903

2.2.4.2

904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914

APPROACH 2: TOTAL LAND-USE AREA,
INCLUDING CHANGES BETWEEN CATEGORIESApproach 2 focuses on land-use transitions and provides an assessment of both the net losses or gains in the areaof specific land-use categories and what these conversions represent (i.e., changes both from and to a category).
The final result of this Approach can be presented as a nonspatially-explicit land-use conversion matrix. Thus,
Approach 2 differs from Approach 1 in that it includes information on conversions between categories, but isstill only tracking those changes without spatially-explicit location data. Hence, additional spatial information at
the required spatial resolution is necessary to meet the reporting requirements of Decisions 16/CMP.1 and
2/CMP.7. This approach can therefore only be used to identify units of land or land subject to activities under
Articles 3.3 and 3.4 if additional spatial data are available. As with Approach 1, it may be possible to apply
Approach 2 to Reporting Method 1 if additional spatial data at the required spatial resolution become available
from re-compiling the inventory information.

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.15

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
915

2.2.4.3

916
917
918
919
920
921
922

APPROACH 3: SPATIALLY-EXPLICIT LAND-USE
CONVERSION DATA

Approach 3 is characterized by spatially-explicit observations of land-use categories and land-use conversions,
often tracking patterns at specific point locations and/or using gridded map products, such as derived fromremote sensing imagery. The data may be obtained by various sampling, wall-to-wall mapping techniques, or
combination of the two methods. This approach is applicable to Reporting Methods 1 and 2 above, as long as thespatial resolution is fine enough to represent the minimum forest area as defined by the Party under Decisions
2/CMP.6, 16/CMP.1 and 2/CMP.7
TABLE 2.2.1
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN APPROACHES IN CHAPTER 3 OF 2006 IPCC GUIDELINES
AND REPORTING METHODS IN THIS REPORT
Chapter 3 Approaches

Reporting Method 1(Broad area identification)

Reporting Method 2(Complete identification)

Approach 1
Total land-use area, nodata on conversions
between land uses

Can only be used if additional spatial information isavailable by re-compiling inventories.

Not applicable

Approach 2
Total land-use area,
including changes
between categories

Can only be used if additional spatial information isavailable by re-compiling inventories.

Not applicable

Approach 3
Spatially explicit land-use
conversion data

Good practice
if resolution is fine enough to represent minimum
forest area. Involves aggregating data within thereported geographic boundaries.

Good practice
if resolution is fine enough torepresent minimum forest area.

923
924

2.2.5

925
926
927
928
929

It is good practice to choose an appropriate reporting method using the decision tree in Figure 2.2.2. National
circumstances may enable a Party to use a combination of both reporting methods. In such a case, it is goodpractice to first stratify the entire country and then to quantify and report the area of units of land and land using
Reporting Method 1. Within those geographical boundaries where complete spatial identification of lands andunits of land is possible, Reporting Method 2 can then be applied.

930
931
932
933
934
935

As outlined in section 2.2.3, additional georeferenced information is required for areas subject to natural
disturbances for which emissions and subsequent removals are excluded from the accounting as well as for thelocations of forest plantations converted to other land uses for which a carbon equivalent forest was establishedon non-forest land lands. For either Reporting Method, this additional information would have to be reported
using maps or tables containing the relevant information. [If this is covered in more detail in the reportingtables we can cross-reference to that section.]

2.16

Choice of Reporting Method

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

936
937

Figure 2.2.2

Decision tree for choosing a reporting method for land subject to activities
under Articles 3.3 and 3.4.

Does yourcountry use Approach 3 fornational UNFCCC
reporting?

Yes

No
Develop additional spatial
information by re-compilingdetailed inventory database

Develop spatial
information of
the boundaries

No

Is spatial
information of boundaries
encompassing units of land or
land under Articles 3.3 and 3.4
available?

Yes
Use Reporting Method 1

Is fine-scalespatial information ofunits of land or land under
Articles 3.3 and 3.4
Noavailable?

Yes
Use Reporting Method 2

938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946

When using Method 1 it is usually good practice to use the same geographical boundaries for all activities. This
will greatly facilitate the identification, quantification, and reporting of land-use changes. However, national
circumstances may provide justification for different choices of geographic boundaries for different activities.
For example, different geographic boundaries may be chosen to reduce the variance of estimates for one activity
within a given boundary. When a Party uses more than one set of geographic boundaries (i.e., more than one
stratification system is used), lands or units of land subject to Article 3.3 or 3.4 activities that moved from one
category to another must be appropriately assigned to the correct geographical boundary. This might require
proportional allocation of the units of land to each stratification system in use.

947
948

2.2.6

How to identify lands (units of land) in general949

2.2.6.1

SPATIAL CONFIGURATION OF FORESTS AND
AFFORESTATION, REFORESTATION OR
DEFORESTATION EVENTS

950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962

Each Annex I Party to the Kyoto Protocol has chosen country-specific parameters within the definition of forest
as an integral part of their Kyoto Protocol reporting. This required selecting values for the following threeparameters: the size of the minimum area of land that can constitute a forest, ranging between 0.05 and 1 ha, andparameters for crown cover (10 – 30%) and tree height at maturity (2 – 5 m). The parameter for the minimum
area of land that constitutes a forest effectively also specifies the minimum area on which
afforestation/reforestation, deforestation, or conversion of natural forests to planted forests events occur. Thus acountry that selects, for example 0.5 ha as the minimum area of forest land, must also identify all deforestationand conversion of natural forests to planted forests events that occur on lands that are 0.5 ha or larger. The
identification of units of land on which land-use changes occur, such as deforestation, requires the detection of areduction in forest cover from above to below the country-specific threshold of forest, accompanied by a change
in land-use.

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.17

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970

The CMP decisions do not specify the shape of areas, neither for forest, nor for those areas on which
afforestation, reforestation or deforestation events occur. Square areas that meet the 0.05 to 1 ha range would be
22.36 m to 100 m (1 ha) on each side. But a rectangle that is 10 m wide and 1,000 m long is also 1 ha in area, as
is a 5 m wide and 2,000 m long rectangle. Therefore, a treed shelterbelt or any other strip of trees that exceeds
these sizes could be considered a forest. But if such “linear forests” are included in a Party’s definition of forest,
it is good practice to also consider as non-forest any areas being cleared from trees by "linear deforestation
events", such as roads, transmission right-of-ways, or pipeline corridors. When such corridors have resulted fromcuts since 1990, they should be treated as deforestation events under Article 3.3.

971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980

For example, if a country selects 1 ha as the minimum area of forests, afforestation, reforestation, deforestation,or conversion of natural forests to planted forests events, and further specifies that these areas are square, then a
20 m wide corridor cut through a forest with 100% canopy closure, will reduce canopy closure to 80%. This ishigher than the range of canopy closures (10 – 30%) that could be selected by a Party. Therefore the residualarea is defined as forest, and even when this corridor through the forest is cut since 1990, it would not constitutea deforestation event. If this "only" 20 m wide corridor is part of a long corridor, which stretches for many
kilometers, such as a transmission right-of-way or a pipeline corridor, the total corridor area is much greater than
1 ha. Therefore the definitional criteria applied to specify the shape of the forests and of the areas subject toafforestation, reforestation, deforestation, or conversion of natural forests to planted forests events can have alarge impact on the amount of land reported under Article 3.3.

981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990

It is therefore good practice for countries to include, within their report on the choice of forest definitions, adescription of the definitional criteria which are used to identify forests and areas on which afforestation,
reforestation, deforestation, or conversion of natural forests to planted forests events occur. It is also goodpractice to apply these criteria consistently to the identification of deforestation, conversion of natural forests toplanted forests, afforestation or reforestation events that have occurred since 1990. For instance, these criteria
can simply be defined as the minimum width that will be accepted for a forest and an area subject to anafforestation, reforestation, deforestation or conversion of natural forests to planted forests event. Then theminimum length of the area follows from the combination of width and the chosen parameter for minimum area
which can constitute a forest. For example, if the size were defined as 1 ha, with a minimum width of 20 m, thena rectangle of minimum width has to be at least 500 m long to meet the 1 ha size requirement.

991
992
993
994
995

It is good practice to report the impacts of "linear deforestation events" narrower than the selected minimum
width criterion on carbon stock changes in the FM land category. Similarly, it is good practice to report the
carbon stock changes in shelterbelts that are narrower than the selected minimum width criterion and are
therefore not forest, if these shelterbelts are within lands subject to cropland management, grazing land
management, or revegetation activities, where the Party has elected the respective Article 3.4 activity.

996

2.2.6.2

997

S OURCES OF D ATA FOR I DENTIFYING L ANDS AND O THER
NEW R EPORTING R EQUIREMENTS

998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004

The needs for the reporting of lands subject to activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 and other reporting
requirements have been outlined in the previous sections. The data and information available to a country tomeet these needs will depend largely on national circumstances, including the investments made into theappropriate measurement, reporting and verification systems. These include the land and forest inventory
systems already in place and the additional measures a country chooses to implement to meet the reporting
requirements. The data and the acquisition methods must ensure that they are reliable, well documented
methodologically, at an appropriate scale, and from reputable sources.

1005
1006

In very general terms there are three major options and their combinations that can be taken to meet the
information needs:

1007



To use information from existing land-use and forest inventory systems.

1008
1009



To implement a monitoring and measurement system to obtain information on land-use conversions, forest
management, natural disturbances and other relevant activity data.

1010
1011
1012
1013



To implement a system by which land management activities are reported to government agencies, e.g. an
incentive program could be established that encourages land managers to report afforestation activities thatare difficult to detect through remote sensing. To ensure integrity, such a system should include verification
and auditing procedures.

1014
1015
1016
1017

It is likely that in most countries the existing land use and inventory systems are inadequate to meet all the land
reporting requirements of the Kyoto Protocol, and that, with varying degrees of incremental efforts, additional
information will need to be obtained through monitoring or in-country reporting systems. The optimum
approach to obtaining the required data may involve combinations of the three options. For example, national

2.18

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023

forest inventory systems with 5 to 10-year periodic remeasurement intervals may not be adequate to meet thereporting needs on annual area disturbed by wildfires, and the associated non-CO2 emissions. Data from firemonitoring systems could be used to augment the information obtained from forest inventories. Or a country
could determine that it would be most efficient to combine an activity reporting system to identify units of land
subject to afforestation/reforestation (which are difficult to detect using remote sensing), and a monitoring
system to identify units of land subject to deforestation (which are more readily detected).

1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029

With the rapid development of remote sensing technology and the, for certain sensors freely available data,
remotely sensed data are increasingly contributing to land-use and forest inventory systems, monitoring andmeasurement systems and activity reporting systems. Considerable efforts, infrastructure and expertise are
required to process the large volumes of remote sensing data and to derive estimates of carbon stock changes andnon-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions and removals from the remotely sensed data on land cover and land-use
changes.

1030
1031

[Consider expanding this section with references to literature such as GOFC-GOLD source book, GEO-FCTand GFOI, descriptions of models and other tools available to conduct such analyses].

1032
1033

USE OF EXISTING INVENTORIES

1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045

Countries that maintain detailed forest and other land-use inventories or collect annual or periodic spatial land
statistics may be able to identify lands affected by Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities since 1990 from their inventories.
This, however, will only be possible if the national inventory and data collection systems meet stringent
technical requirements. The systems must be able to define the land use and forest area in 1990, have an update
cycle that is sufficiently short to capture land-use change events between relevant periods (1990-2007, 20082012, and 2013-2020) and be of sufficient spatial resolution to identify events of the size of the minimum forest
area chosen by the country, i.e., 1 ha or smaller. Also, the sample plots within a “boundary” need to begeoreferenced and used repeatedly during future monitoring. If the latter is not possible, e.g., because monitoringprocedures were changed, it is good practice to develop computational procedures, which allow conversion ofdata between the sampling schemes or, at least to have a method, which allows to map the data from a previous
to a successor sampling scheme (see also Sections 2.4.1 Developing a consistent time series and 2.4.2
Recalculation).

1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070

If countries use Approach 3 to carry out inventories, with spatially explicit and complete geographicalinformation of land use and land-use change, the inventories will be sufficient to meet the reporting requirements
provided that the minimum grid or mapped polygon meets the area criterion selected to define forest. Forest
inventories in large countries often do not record polygons (i.e. the minimum mapping unit) less than, forexample, 3 ha in size. The requirement to identify afforestation, reforestation, deforestation or natural forests toplanted forests activities at a resolution of 0.05 to 1 hectares can be met, however, with additional statisticalanalyses to establish the area subject to afforestation, reforestation, deforestation or conversion of natural forests
to planted forests events that occurred in units less than 3 ha in size. One possible approach could be todetermine the size-class distributions of afforestation/reforestation and of deforestation events in the country,
using a statistical sampling approach. The proportion of the area of afforestation/reforestation and of
deforestation events that is between 0.05 – 1 ha and the minimum mapping unit in the inventory (in this example
3 ha) can then be applied to estimate the area of afforestation/reforestation and deforestation events from the 3ha resolution inventory. For example, if the 3-ha resolution inventory shows that there have been 1,000 ha ofafforestation/reforestation events in units of 3 ha or larger, and the sample-based size-class distribution ofafforestation/reforestation events shows that on average 5% of the afforestation/reforestation events is in areas ofsize between 0.05 – 1 ha and 3 ha, then the 1,000 ha represent 95% of the total afforestation/reforestation area
(and the total is estimated to be 1,000 • 100/95 = 1,052.6 ha). It is good practice to document the statistical
validity of the sample-based size-class distribution, and its regional and temporal variation. Note that thisapproach to augmenting existing inventory information also has implications for the determination of carbon
stock changes: since these 5% of the area are not geographically referenced, only statistical methods such as
regional averages can be used to determine their carbon stock changes and trace their fate, once they are included
under Article 3.3 or 3.4, over time. An alternative approach would be to collect the data regarding afforestation,
reforestation, deforestation or conversion of natural forests to planted forests in areas of size between 0.05 – 1 haand 3 ha through activity reporting but countries would need to ensure completeness and collect georeferenced
information (see below).

1071
1072
1073
1074

Additional monitoring and data compilation may be required to meet the reporting requirements for land-use
changes, conversion of natural forests to planted forests, wetland drainage and rewetting, and activities such as
salvage logging and land-use conversion of lands affected by natural disturbances for which the emissions were
not included in the accounting.

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.19

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080

Countries that choose an inventory-based approach for the identification of units of land subject toafforestation/reforestation activities can face the challenge that non-forest areas are not normally included in theforest inventory. In this case, countries must ensure that their inventory system detects land-use transitions fromnon-forest to forest and expands the forest inventory into the newly created forest area. Some countries monitorchanges from non-forest to forest by means of remote sensing of lands not previously covered by the forest
inventory or by maintaining inventory plots on non-forest land.

1081
1082

MONITORING AND MEASUREMENT OF ACTIVITIES

1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090

To meet the reporting requirements of Articles 3.3 and 3.4, countries may have to develop and implement amonitoring system for the identification and recording of land use and land-use change. Such a monitoring
system could combine a base map (or other sources of spatial information) on forest area and land use on 31
December 1989 with spatial data on land-use and forest area in subsequent years. Changes in land-use and forest
area can then be inferred from a time series of spatial data. This may require interpolation, for example where abase map has been derived from composite satellite images obtained over several years, as is often the casewhere cloud cover, sensor failures, or other technical reasons make it impossible to obtain complete national
coverage for a single point in time.

1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096

Some events, such as the conversion of natural forest to planted forest, or logging following natural disturbances,
are rarely spatially and temporally explicitly documented in inventories. The monitoring of these events isimportant, and the monitoring time interval should be short enough to capture relevant changes. Remote sensing
monitoring can be useful, especially in large or remote areas, due to its potentially high temporal resolution andcost-effectiveness. However, remote sensing data and their results need to be validated against in-situ data to
reduce uncertainties.

1097
1098
1099
1100
1101

In many countries repeated complete (wall-to-wall) coverage of the entire country is not feasible on an annual
basis. When implementing temporal and spatial sampling strategies, it is good practice to ensure that the
sampling methods are statistically sound, well-documented and transparent, and that estimates of uncertainty areprovided (Section 2.4.3 Uncertainty assessment). Appropriate pre-stratification of the country for which sample
estimates will be developed may reduce the uncertainty.

1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111

Recent advances, such as the release of the complete Landsat archives, developments of new image processing
algorithms, and vast increases in computing power may enable the production of annual land-cover change
products at national, continental and global scales. However, given that land-use change often occurs on only asmall fraction of the areas affected by land-cover change and that considerable additional efforts may be required
to ascertain whether a land-cover change represents a land-use change, monitoring land-use change to meet thereporting requirements of the Kyoto Protocol will require investments into appropriate monitoring programs.
Moreover, special requirements such as the reporting of conversion of natural forests to planted forests will
require additional in-situ data, for example to determine whether cover loss occurred in ‘natural forests’ andwhether the regenerated forest is the result of planting. These and other special requirements can be met throughactivity reporting (see below).

1112
1113
1114

Where the monitoring system generates georeferenced data for natural disturbance events, this information canalso be used to track subsequent events with reporting obligations, such as salvage logging of disturbed areas or
the conversion to non-forest land of disturbed areas for which emissions were not accounted.

1115
1116

ACTIVITY REPORTING

1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123

Identification of lands that are subject to activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 can be achieved through theimplementation of an activity reporting system. For example, since afforestation events are often difficult to
detect through remote sensing and often occur outside the area of existing forest inventories, a country may
choose to identify these lands through an activity reporting system that encourages land managers who afforested
non-forest land to report such activities to the appropriate national agency. Instead of trying to detect
afforestation events from inventory or monitoring systems, countries can request that those individuals oragencies that afforest or reforest areas report on their activities.

1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129

Activity reporting may also be most efficient where information about land use is required that may not bereadily determined from remote sensing, such as cropland management, or grazing land management. Activity
reporting may also be important for the attribution of the some land cover change, including revegetation, and to
identify where observed conversions to and from forest are linked through the provision of carbon equivalent
forest conversions. Reporting systems can usefully include spatial databases that facilitate the compilation of thepertinent activity information. It is good practice to include the location and the area of the activity, and2.20

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

1130
1131

information relevant to the estimation of carbon stock changes, such as site preparation methods, tree species
planted, and the actual as well as the expected volume growth function for the land.

1132
1133
1134
1135

Activity reporting may be necessary for the identification of afforestation, reforestation, deforestation orconversion of natural forests to planted forests in areas of size below the inventory minimum unit. Coupled withhigh resolution remote sensed images, activity reporting can provide geo-referenced information and detailed
description of land cover change for small areas and sample plots.

1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142

It is good practice for Parties that rely on activity reporting systems, to put into place methods for internal
auditing and verification to ensure that activities are neither over- nor underreported. Administrative information
on programmes or subsidies for afforestation activities alone may not include information on plantation
establishment success. Spatially explicit information, i.e., either the delineation of the units of land, or references
to a country’s national map grid coordinates (e.g., UTM, Universal Transverse Mercator) or legal description of
the units of land subject to an activity, are required for the domestic audit and verification procedures applied toa reporting system.

1143
1144

2.3

1145
1146

GENERIC METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES FOR
ESTIMATING CARBON STOCK CHANGES AND
NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

1147
1148
1149

Once the areas subject to activities under Articles 3.3, and 3.4 have been determined, the carbon stock changes
and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions on these areas must be estimated following the methods outlined in the2006 IPCC Guidelines, the 2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplement7 and this Supplementary Guidance.

1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159

Coverage of activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 requires an estimation of all carbon stock changes, andemissions and removals of non-CO2 greenhouse gases from all lands subject to the included activities and for all
pools with discretionary omission of those that are not a source of carbon, with higher-tier methods used for key
categories. The greenhouse gas fluxes will be estimated regardless of their cause, such as growth, harvest,
decomposition, natural disturbance, establishment of equivalent forest. In the case of natural disturbances, thefluxes need to be estimated and reported8 but countries can elect to exclude these emissions and subsequent
removals from the accounting in years where the emissions from disturbances are above the background levelplus the margin (See Section 2.3.9.6 for details). The carbon stock changes, and emissions and removals of nonCO2 greenhouse gases of lands considered as ‘carbon equivalent forest conversion’ need to be accounted andreported in forest management.

1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168

The methodology used to estimate carbon stock changes and greenhouse gas emissions and removals for any
particular year depends on the land use in the current and in prior years, because shifts in categories or land uses
can occur over time. Therefore the methodologies may vary between units of land or land within one Article 3.3
or Article 3.4 category.9 The methodology used to calculate greenhouse gas emissions or removals associatedwith a unit of land or land at a given year should correspond to the actual land use on that land in that year,
supplemented by additional methodologies to account for past land uses and changes in land use, whereappropriate. If the land use in the current year does not correspond to an Article 3.3 activity or an elected Article
3.4 activity, and if a reporting requirement was not established through land use or land-use change in prior years,
then the emissions and removals for that land are not reported under the Kyoto Protocol.

1169
1170

The generic methods of estimating the carbon stock changes, for all pools to be reported (see below), aredescribed in Chapter 2 of the 2006 IPCC guidelines. This section provides supplementary guidance applicable to7

The IPCC is currently preparing the 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories: Wetlands (the 2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplement) in parallel to this document. The 2013 IPCC Wetlands
Supplement provides guidance on estimating emissions and removals on lands with drained and rewetted organic soils in
Chapters 2, 3 and 4 and general issues on wetlands are addressed in Chapters 1 and 7. The guidance given here will be
updated to reflect the development of the 2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplement through its review by experts and governments
and its approval by the IPCC. The Government and Expert Review of the 2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplement will be held
between 11th February and 7th April, 2013 (see http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/home/wetlands.html).

8

Decision 2/CMP.7, Annex definition E paragraph 33

9

For example, two units of land may both be in the cropland management category. However, one of them may haveresulted from grassland conversion into cropland, the other from continuing cropland management, so that the greenhousegas assessment methods need to take account of differing values of soil carbon resulting from their different management
histories.

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.21

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
1171
1172

all activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4. Guidance for specific activities can be found in Sections 2.5 to 2.12.
Methodological updates for mineral and organic soils that are recently published [or forthcoming] include:

1173
1174

Mineral Soils

1175
1176
1177
1178
1179

The inventory calculations are based on land area and lands that are stratified by climate regions and default soils
types as shown in Table 2.3, Chapter 2, Volume 4, 2006 IPCC Guidelines. This table presents default reference(under native vegetation) soil organic C stocks for mineral soils (tonnes C ha-1 in 0-30 cm depth). Countries
following Tier 2 method may also refer to data provided in Batjes (2011). It is good practice whenever possible
to verify values by comparison with results from field measurements.

1180
1181

Organic soils

1182
1183
1184

The 2013 IPCC Wetlands supplement contains updated and new methodological guidance for greenhouse gas
emissions and removals from drained and rewetted peatlands, organic soils, as well as from specific human-inducedchanges in coastal, inland mineral soil, and constructed wetlands.

1185
1186

2.3.1

1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192

The 2006 IPCC Guidelines provide methodologies for the estimation of the carbon stocks and stock changes infive carbon pools: above and belowground biomass, dead wood, litter and soil organic carbon. (Table 1.1,
Chapter 1, Volume 4, 2006 IPCC Guidelines). Decision 2/CMP.7 introduced the additional requirement to reportand account for the storage of carbon in harvested wood products (see Section 2.3.8). Decreases in one pool may
be offset by increases in another pool, e.g., biomass pools decline after a disturbance but litter and dead woodpools can increase. Thus the change in a single pool can be greater than the net change in the sum of the pools.

1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203

Once the individual pools have been estimated and reported for a specific area, the sum of the carbon stockincreases or decreases in the five pools and HWP is calculated. Any net decrease in carbon stocks is converted tothe equivalent CO2 emission in the reporting tables (see Section 2.4.4) and any net increase is reported as theequivalent CO2 removal. Carbon stock changes are converted to CO2 emissions and removals by multiplying thenet carbon stock change by 44/12 (the stochiometric ratio of CO2 and C) and by converting the sign: a decreasein carbon stocks (negative sign) leads to an emission to the atmosphere (positive sign) and vice versa. Chapter 1
in Volume 4 in 2006 IPCC Guidelines provides clear definitions of carbon pools (see Table 1.1). If national
circumstances require modifications to those definitions, rationale and documentation should be provided forthese modifications and on the criteria used to distinguish between carbon pools. It is good practice to provide
such information on both the individual pools included in the reporting, and on the total carbon stock change ofthe five pools.

1204
1205
1206
1207

Decision 16/CMP.1 specifies that a Party may choose not to account for a given pool in a commitment period, if
transparent and verifiable information is provided that the pool is not a source.10 Good practice in providing
verifiable information, which demonstrates that excluded pools, if any, are not a net source of greenhouse gases,
can be achieved by:

1208
1209
1210



Representative and verifiable sampling and analysis to show that the pool has not decreased. It is goodpractice under this approach to measure the pool at enough sites, within regions, to provide statisticalconfidence, and to document the sampling and research methods;

1211
1212
1213
1214



Reasoning based on sound knowledge of likely system responses. For instance, if cropland is converted toforest land by afforestation or reforestation, the dead wood pool cannot decrease, because there is typicallyno deadwood in a cropland (if it does not contain trees, e.g., if it does not contain any shelterbelts, was no
orchard, and was no other agroforestry system);

1215
1216
1217



Surveys of peer-reviewed literature for the activity, ecosystem type, region and pool in question (forexample, showing that in the climatic situation and with the soil types of the region, afforestation or
reforestation of cropland leads to increases in soil organic carbon stocks); or

1218



Combined methods.

10

Pools to be reported

See paragraph 21 in the Annex to the decision 16/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry), contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3, p.3.

2.22

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

1219
1220

It is good practice to report, wherever it is applicable, levels of confidence in estimates that led to the exclusionof a pool, and how this level of confidence was established (see also Section 2.4.3 Uncertainty Assessment).

1221
1222
1223

[Check if relevant information in the discussion of FM reference levels on included pools should also be coveredin this section. Also still need to address issues arising from combination of pools and issues related to‘insignificant pools’.]1224

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.23

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
1225

1227

Years for which to estimate carbon stock changes andnon-CO 2 greenhouse gas emissions

1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233

CMP decisions specify that the carbon stock changes for each unit of land subject to an Article 3.3 activity, andfor lands subject to forest management and other elected activities under Article 3.4 be reported for each year of
the commitment period11, beginning with the start of the commitment period, or with the start of the activity,
whichever is later. Decision 2/CMP.7 also requires that each area that was subject to reported activities during
the first commitment period has to be reported during subsequent commitment periods and the associatedemissions and removals estimated, even if the area is no longer subject to any Article 3.3 or 3.4 activity.

1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240

This means that if the activity started in 2014, then the carbon stock changes and greenhouse gas emissions
should be reported for each of the remaining years of the commitment period. If the activity started after 1990
but before 1 January 2013, then reporting of the carbon stock changes and greenhouse gas emissions for thecommitment period should cover each year of the commitment period, 1 January 2013 to 31 December of thelast year of the commitment period. Where differences occur between the sum of the annual reports and thereport for the entire commitment period, these should be addressed and reconciled at the end of the commitment
period (see Sections 2.3.3, 2.4.1.1 and Chapter 5 of the GPG-LULUCF).

1241
1242

In summary, the area and associated carbon stocks changes and non-CO2 emissions to be reported by Parties,
each year, under each activity are:

1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248



1226

2.3.2

For afforestation/reforestation, deforestation and for forest management and wetland drainage and rewetting,when a “narrow” approach on the implementation of their definition is applied, the area to be reported under
the activity is the cumulative area of units of land and lands subject to the activity since 1990; although foreach unit of land and land carbon stocks changes and non-CO2 emissions have to be reported only since theyear of the onset of the activity or the start of the second commitment period - i.e. 1 January 2013 -,whichever comes later.

1249
1250

BOX 2.3.1
EXAMPLE

1251
1252

A Party had three deforestation events reported between 1990 and the last year of the second
commitment period:

1253
1254

• the first occurred in 2005, i.e. before the start of the first commitment period - and it was 1,000
ha large,

1255• the second in 2010, i.e. during the first commitment period, and it was 2,000 ha large,1256• the third in 2015, i.e. during the second commitment period, and it was 4,000 ha large.

1257

This Party will report during the second commitment period:

1258
1259
1260

• for the first two years, i.e. 2013 and 2014, the total area deforested until that date, i.e. 1,000 +
2,000 = 3,000 ha, and carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions that occurred on those unitsof land since the start of the second commitment period, i.e. 1 January 2013.

1261
1262
1263
1264

• for the remaining years of the second commitment period, the total area deforested until thatdate, i.e. 1,000 + 2,000 + 4,000 = 7,000 ha, and carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions that
occurred since the start of the second commitment period, i.e. 1 January 2013, on the 3,000 ha plus
carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions that occurred since 2015 on the 4,000 ha.

1265
1266
1267
1268
1269



For cropland management, grazing land management, revegetation and for forest management and wetland
drainage and rewetting, when a “broad” approach on the implementation of their definition is applied, thearea to be reported under the activity is the cumulative area of lands reported under the activity since thestart of the first commitment period i.e. 1 January 2008; although for each land carbon stock changes and11

See paragraph 5 in the Annex to the draft decision -/CMP.1 (Article 7), contained in document FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.3, p.
22.

2.24

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

1270
1271

non-CO2 emissions have to be reported only since the year of the onset of the activity or the start of thesecond commitment period,i.e. 1 January 2013, whichever comes later.

1272
1273

BOX 2.3.2
EXAMPLE

1274
1275
1276
1277
1278

A Party is reporting the entire national forest area as subject to FM. While there is no deforestation
the area subject to FM is continuously increasing during the three first years of the second
commitment period due to natural forest expansion, adding annually 1,000 ha year-1. The area
reported subject to FM activity at the beginning of the second commitment period, i.e. 1 January
2013, is equal to 1,000,000 ha.

1279
1280

This Party will report during each year of the second commitment period an additional 1,000 ha ofarea subject to FM, so that at the end of:

1281
1282

• 2013 the area reported will be equal to 1,001,000 ha and associated carbon stocks changes andnon-CO2 emissions, since the beginning of the year, will be reported;

1283
1284
1285
1286
1287

• 2014 the area reported will be equal to 1,002,000 ha: an initial area, 1,001,000 ha, subject to FM
since 2013 and 1,500 ha of new forest area subject to FM for the first time in this year. For the
initial area associated carbon stocks changes and non-CO2 emissions, since 2013, will be reported.
For the new area associated carbon stocks changes and non-CO2 emissions, since the beginning of
the year, will be reported;

1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294

• 2015 the area reported will be equal to 1,003,000 ha: an initial area, 1,001,000 ha, subject to FM
since 2013, an additional area of 1,000 ha subject to FM for the first time in 2014 and a new forest
area subject to FM for the first time in this year. For the initial area associated carbon stocks
changes and non-CO2 emissions, since 2013, will be reported. For the area added in 2014
associated carbon stocks changes and non-CO2 emissions, since 2014, will be reported. For the
new area associated carbon stocks changes and non-CO2 emissions, since the beginning of theyear, will be reported;

1295
1296

For each following year the Party will report lands and associated carbon stock changes and nonCO2 emissions since the year in which have been reported under FM for the first time.

1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303

According to the hierarchical order adopted, countries must avoid any double counting of units of land and lands,
and associated carbon stocks changes and non-CO2 emissions, consequently the area of units of land and lands
that during the first and/or the second commitment period experience a change of activity under which they haveto be reported has to be subtracted from the cumulative area of the activity under which they were reported
previously and added to the cumulative area of the activity to which they have been moved, and the associatedcarbon stocks changes and non-CO2 emissions will be accordingly reported under the new activity.

1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315

Each activity (afforestation, reforestation, deforestation, forest management, cropland management, grazing land
management, revegetation and wetland drainage and rewetting) may consist of a suite of practices and may begin
with one or several of these. For instance, an afforestation programme may begin with planning, land purchase,
producing propagation material etc. Operations like site preparation can also precede the planting or seeding (asa result of which the land actually becomes a “forest”). Some of these operations do not affect carbon stocks (e.g.
planning), while others like site preparation may result in significant carbon, nitrous oxide or methane emissions.
It is good practice to interpret the beginning of an activity as the start of in situ carbon stock change and/or nonCO2 emissions due to any of the suite of the operations. For example, if an afforestation activity includes site
preparation, then it is good practice to include carbon stock changes caused by site preparation. In order to dothat, one can either a) measure the carbon stocks on the site prior to the start of any operations related to theactivity (in case carbon stock changes are estimated using multiple stock measurements), or b) make sure that theestimate of the stock change includes an estimate of the emissions resulting from these initial operations.

1316

1318

Correct implementation of C stock change estimation
methods when areas are changing

1319
1320
1321

The carbon stock change method outlined by the GPG-LULUCF and the 2006 IPCC Guidelines requires that thearea for which carbon stock changes are estimated is constant over the assessment period. If the forest area ischanging, for example as a result of deforestation, afforestation, or both, then carbon stock changes can occur as

1317

2.3.3

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.25

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
1322
1323

a result of the transfer of land between UNFCCC or Kyoto Protocol reporting categories (see Figure 11 in Kurz
et al. 2009 for an example). Several possible approaches can be implemented to address this issue.

1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337

To ensure that actual carbon stock changes are reported, and not artefacts resulting from changes in area overtime, it is good practice to implement the calculations of annual carbon stock changes in the following sequence:for each activity, for each unit of land or land, the annual carbon stock change should first be calculated for theyear of interest, and these stock changes should then be summed for all areas subject to the activity. The inverse
sequence, i.e., first summing up the carbon stocks across all areas at times t1 and t2 and then calculating thedifference in carbon stocks, can result in errors if the total area at times t1 and t2 is not the same; it is therefore
good practice that area of each unit of land or land used in the calculation at times t1 and t2 is identical If the area
subject to an activity increases from the beginning to the end of the reported year then the reported carbon stocks
reflect the transfer of area (and the associated carbon stocks) into the land category; similary, carbon stocks will
decrease, if area is removed from a land category12. The issue is of particular concern when areas outside thereporting system enter into the reporting system, such as unmanaged land areas, or areas subject to activities notelected by a country. For example the C stock increase in AR lands afforested on a land category not included in
the reporting will yield an apparent increase in soil C stocks but this C was transferred from the other land
category and does not contribute to C removals from the atmosphere.

1338
1339
1340

It is therefore good practice to conduct all calculations of annual carbon stock changes and greenhouse gas
emissions for the area at the end of the inventory year - i.e. the area at time t2 in the equation 2.5 of Chapter 2,
Volume 4, 2006 IPCC Guidelines- and to use this approach consistently through time.

12

Because of the obligation to keep reporting any area subject to any Article 3.3 or Article 3.4 activity at any point in time
during commitment periods, a decrease of the area reported under an activity may only happen as a consequence of atransfer of area to another activity, e.g. decrease of area reported under forest management because of deforestation.

2.26

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

1341
1342

BOX 2.3.3
EXAMPLE

1343
1344

During a year of the commitment period the area of land reported under FM varies because newforest land is added to the FM area and because of deforestation activities:
At the start of the year

At the end of the year

area of forest lands that was subject to
FM in the previous year

1,000,000 ha

990,000 haarea of lands subject to FM converted
to non-forest land

0 ha

10,000 ha

area of new forest lands subject to FM

0 ha

10,000 ha

Total area subject to FM

1,000,000 ha

1,000,000 ha

1345
1346

The carbon stocks measured at times t1 and t2 in those lands are:At the beginning of theyear

At the end of the year

average per hectare
living biomass carbon stock of forest
lands subject to FM

100 tC ha-1

105 tC ha-1

average per hectare
living biomass carbon stock of newforest lands subject to FM

80 tC ha-1

84 tC ha-1

average per hectare
living biomass carbon stock indeforested lands

100 tC ha-1

20 tC ha-1

1347
1348

A correct procedure will calculate stock changes in the three land categories:1349- forest lands that were subject to FM since the beginning of the year,1350- forest lands were the FM activity started during the year,1351- forest lands subject to FM that were deforested and converted to cropland in the year.

1352
1353
1354

Then, the sum of stock changes calculated for the two types of lands subject to FM will be reported
under the FM activity, while the change in stock calculated for deforested land will be reported
under D (Article 3.3).
A. Total stock-change in area subject toFM that was subject to FM in theprevious year

990,000 ha * (105 – 100) tC ha-1 = 4,950,000
tC

B. Total stock-change in area subject to
FM for the first time in this year

10,000 ha * (84 – 80) tC ha-1 = 40,000 tC

C. Total stock-change in deforested
areas

10,000 ha * (20 – 100) tC ha-1 = -80,000 tC

Total stock-change in areas subject to FM(A+B)

4,950,000 + 40,000 = 4,990,000 tC

Stock change reported in FLCL under
UNFCCC and in D under Article 3.3 (C)-80,000 t C

1355
1356
1357
1358

It would be incorrect to calculate the total aboveground biomass carbon stock on total land subject
to FM at times t1 and t2 and then subtract C1 from C2 e.g.

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.27

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
1359
C1 Total stock in land subject to FM at the
beginning of the year

1,000,000 ha * 100 tC ha-1 = 100,000,000 tC

C2 Total stock in land subject to FM at the endof the year

990,000 ha * 105 tC ha-1 + 10,000 ha * 84
tC ha-1 = 103,950,000 + 840,000 =
104,790,000 tC

C2 - C1 – yields the incorrect result

104,790,000 – 100,000,000 = 4,790,000 tC

1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368

Countries that use the IPCC default method need to ensure that, when land-use change events occur, thesubsequent fluxes are reported in the new land-use category. Tier 3 models that carry the land-category as an
attribute for reporting categories need to ensure that the land-category attribute is updated to reflect thesubsequent land-use change prior to implementing any C stock impacts from the land-use change event (see Box
1 in Kurz et al. (2009) as an example of a Tier 3 modelling approach that implements the required land-use
change prior to simulating any carbon stock changes associated with land-use changes).

1369
1370

2.3.4

Reporting and measurement intervals

1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387

The CMP decisions specify that all emissions by sources and removals by sinks caused by Article 3.3, forest
management and elected Article 3.4 activities be reported annually.13 A number of methods are available toobtain annual estimates and the annual reporting requirement does not imply that annual field measurements arenecessary. This would be neither feasible nor cost-effective. In fact, although more frequent measurement will
generally decrease uncertainties, the opposite can also happen because of short-term variability, as discussed in
Section 2.3.9 (Interannual variability). Carbon stock changes for pools with high uncertainties, e.g., soil organiccarbon, are usually not detectable on an annual or short-term basis. Broadly speaking, when countries aredeveloping and selecting methods to meet their reporting requirements, they should seek a balance which isaffordable, make best use of data that are already available, allow stock changes to be verified consistently withthe approaches set out in Chapter 6, Volume 1, of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Section 6.10 Verification), and not
make inventories susceptible to the impacts of annual fluctuations in weather. Although Section 2.3.9 suggeststhat field data collection on a five-year cycle may represent a reasonable compromise, the re-measurement
interval also depends on the pool and the magnitude of the expected changes relative to the spatial variability inthe pool and the uncertainties involved in pool size assessments. For example, changes in soil carbon can often
only be detected over longer time periods. Data already available annually, such as planting or harvest statistics,
may be combined with measurements conducted over longer time periods – which are less affected by annual
fluctuations – or with data based on a five-year running mean.

1388
1389

2.3.5

1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398

The two primary sources of interannual variability in greenhouse gas emissions and removals in the LULUCF
sector are natural disturbances (such as fire, insects, windthrow, and ice storms) and climate variability (e.g.,temperature, precipitation, drought, and extreme events). Natural disturbances have large impacts per hectare in
the areas where they occur, while climate variability typically causes small changes per hectare but can affectlarge areas (Kurz 2010, Richards 2010). The second source of interannual variability is the rate of humanactivities, including forest harvesting, land use, and land-use change. The methodology used to calculatereported emissions and removals affects the extent to which these sources of variability are captured in thereporting. Moreover, the impacts of natural disturbances and climate variability can obscure trends in the impactsof human activities. The provision in decision 2/CMP.7 that enables countries to exclude from the accounting
13

Time Averaging of Interannual Variability

Note that although annual reporting is required, countries have the option to account either annually or over the entire
commitment period (cf. paragraph 8(d) in the Annex to draft decision -/CMP.1 (Modalities for the accounting of assigned
amounts), contained in document FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.2, p.59).

2.28

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

1399
1400

emissions from natural disturbances (see Section 2.3.9) removes some of the variability from indirect-human andnatural factors.

1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416

Higher Tier methods are more strongly affected by interannual variability in non-anthropogenic drivers ofgreenhouse gas emissions and removals. This is because IPCC default data (including those contained in the
Emissions Factor Database14) have been calculated by averaging data collected over time and space to estimate
representative global, regional, and ecological factors. By averaging out time and space variability Tier 1
methods that use these IPCC factors do not reflect interannual variability from natural and indirect-humaninduced factors. In contrast, Tier 3 methods that use process models to calculate net primary production (NPP)and heterotrophic respiration (Rh) as a function of environmental variability can report the highest interannual
variability in emissions and removals as a result of climate variability. Forest inventory-based modelling
approaches that implement the IPCC default approach (stock gain and loss) and that use empirical yield tables,
which are not affected by climate variability, report lower interannual variability in greenhouse gas emissions
and removals but are affected by interannual variability in natural disturbances and human activity. Estimates ofgreenhouse gas emissions and removals derived from the stock change method (calculating the difference in C
stocks estimated from forest inventories at two points in time) report the average annual net balance over theperiod between the first and second forest inventory. This approach averages interannual variability and also
without additional information is not able to attribute observed emissions and removals to the drivers such as
natural disturbances, environmental change or human activities.

1417
1418
1419
1420

It is good practice at Tier 3 to assess and document clearly the extent to which non-human factors influence thetime series of reported annual greenhouse gas emissions and removals in the LULUCF sector. Measures toreduce the reported impacts of environmental variability include time-averaging of weather data over 5 or 10year periods.

1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428

National reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and removals serves as the basis for assessing progress towards
reducing emissions and the associated dangerous anthropogenic interference with the global climate system.
However, because LULUCF inventories do not necessarily include all land areas which may include large tracts
of unmanaged land (forests, grasslands and wetlands) and may not represent environmental variation or longterm trends, it is generally understood that they are not necessarily an accurate representation of the contributionof national terrestrial systems to the atmosphere. Reducing interannual variability of natural and indirect-factors
improves the ability to assess the trends in emissions and removals from changes in human activities but reduces
the accuracy with which these inventories report actual annual emissions to the atmosphere.

1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438

Methods used to reduce interannual variability also can help isolate the impacts of changes in human activities
relative to a business-as-usual baseline. This can be achieved by calculating two time series of emissions andremoval in which only the rate of human activities differ. For example, using Tier 3 models that are responsive
to climate variability, two time series can be calculated ex post: first, the baseline emissions (with actual climate
data, actual natural disturbance rates and business-as-usual human land use and land-use change and forest
management data); and second the actual emissions (with actual climate data, actual natural disturbance rates but
actual human land use, land-use change and forestry data). The difference between these two time series reports
the impacts of changes in human activities because the impacts of interannual variability in climate and natural
disturbances are the same in both scenarios and cancel each other out when calculating the difference between
scenarios (Kurz 2010).

1439
1440
1441
1442

Reference levels and the provision to exclude emissions from natural disturbances introduced for Forest
Management in Decision 2/CMP.7 can affect the extent to which interannual variability is reflected in thereported estimates of greenhouse gas emissions and removals. Countries that elect to exclude emissions fromnatural disturbances will reduce the interannual variability in reported emissions.

1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451

The impact of the use of reference levels on interannual variability will depend on the methods used to caluclate
the reference level and the actual reported emissions. Countries could introduce large bias due to interannual
variability in reported emissions if they use a reference level that was calculated with methods that are notresponsive to environmental variability or with average climate parameters, but then calculate actual emissions
with methods that are responsive to environmental variability or with actual climate parameters,. It is therefore
good practice to use consistent methods to calculate both the reference level and the actual emissions. For
example, if a technical adjustment to the reference level calculations using Tier 3 methods used the sameinterannual variability in climate parameters that are used in the calculation of the actual emissions, then theimpacts of such interannual variability would cancel out in the difference between the two time series.

1452
1453

[Still need to check the above for consistency with the reference level discussion in the FM section, and need tofurther consolidate with Section 2.3.10]
14

Emissions Factor data base: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/EFDB/main.php

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.29

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
1454
1455

2.3.6

Choice of method

1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461

It is good practice to estimate carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions from Articles 3.3 or
Article 3.4 activities using the methods set out in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. For each unit of land
under Article 3.3 or land under Article 3.4, it is good practice to use the same tier or a higher tier for estimatingstock changes and greenhouse gas emissions as the one that was used for the corresponding land use in the
UNFCCC inventory, following the guidance on methodological choice and identification of key categories
included in Chapter 4, Volume 1, of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468

Whenever a category is identified as key in the UNFCCC inventory, the associated activity under the Kyoto
Protocol it is good practice to consider it as key in reporting under the Kyoto Protocol15. In the identification anddocumentation of key categories under the Kyoto Protocol it is also good practice to include a qualitative
assessment, because there is not always an unambiguous correspondence between the UNFCCC categories andKyoto Protocol activities. A country may also undertake Approach 2 (see Section 4.3.2 of Volume 1 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines) to identify the key categories of their inventory including the Kyoto Protocol activities. The
results of this assessment will in most circumstances result in fewer LULUCF key categories.

1469
1470

Table 2.3.1 can be used to establish the relationship between land categories and Kyoto Protocol activities forpurposes of identifying key categories under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol.

1471

15

This applies also when there only are partial overlaps with the UNFCCC inventory

2.30

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

1472
TABLE 2.3.1
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN KYOTO PROTOCOL ACTIVITIESAND IPCC LAND CATEGORIES FOR LULUCF
1

2

3

Land categories of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines

Kyoto Protocol activities

Key category if item in Column
1 was identified as key in theanalysis of the UNFCCC
inventorya

FOREST LAND
Forest land remaining forest land (managed)

FMLand converted to forest land (managed)

AR

CROPLAND
Cropland remaining cropland

CM, RV, WDR

Land converted into cropland

Db, RV, CM, WDR

GRASSLAND
Grassland remaining grassland (managed)

GM, RV, WDR

Land converted to grassland (managed)

Db, RV , GM, WDR

WETLANDS
Wetlands remaining wetlands (managed)

RV, WDR

Land converted to wetlands

Db, RV, WDR

SETTLEMENTS
Settlements remaining settlements

RVLand converted to settlements

Db, RVOTHER LANDa c
Other land remaining other land

WDR

Land converted to other land

Db, WDRa

Article 3.4 activities only when elected (except FM, which is mandatory)
D only if Forest Land was the original land categoryc
Theoretically revegetation can occur in both subcategories.
FM: forest management, AR: afforestation and reforestation, CM: cropland management, D: deforestation, RV:
revegetation,
GM: grazing land management, WDR: wetland drainage and rewetting
b

1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485

The left column lists the land categories of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines that may have been used in the key
category analysis of the UNFCCC inventory16. If any of these are identified as key, the Kyoto Protocol activities
in the corresponding right column should initially be considered key. However, as in some cases several Kyoto
Protocol activities potentially can be key, it is good practice to examine qualitatively which of the possible
activities actually are key and when doing the assessment indicate so in Column 3 of a copy of Table 2.3.1. For
example, if land converted to grassland was identified as key, this can involve deforestation, revegetation,
grassland management, wetland drainage and rewetting, or land-use changes not covered by the Kyoto Protocol.
The land area affected by revegetation or wetland drainage and rewetting may be much smaller than the landarea of the land category in which it occurs. If this is the case, and if revegetation is identified as potentially key
according to Table 2.3.1, then countries may separately assess the importance of greenhouse gas emissions andremovals in revegetation compared to the other category (or categories). It is good practice to explain anddocument which of the potential key categories are finally identified as key for Kyoto Protocol reporting.
16

If the analysis was based on the IPCC source/sink categories (1996) the transformation will be less precise. The mapping isshown in Chapter 3, Section 3.1. of GPG-LULUCF.

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.31

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
1486
1487

In addition, it is good practice to take into account the following considerations in the key category
determination for estimates prepared under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol:

1488
1489
1490
1491
1492



As shown in Table 2.3.1, several activities under the Kyoto Protocol can occur in more than one land
category of the UNFCCC inventory. In such cases, it is good practice to consider the total emissions andremovals from the activity for purposes of the key category analysis. When this approach is needed, an
activity is considered key if the emissions or removals from the sum are greater than the emissions from thesmallest category that is identified as key in the UNFCCC inventory (including LULUCF).

1493
1494
1495
1496



If, when using the quantitative methods, a category is not identified as key for the present year but it isanticipated to increase strongly in the future, it is good practice to identify it as key. This could, for example,
occur with a large- scale afforestation program producing only small sinks in initial years, but with the
expectation of larger yields later.

1497
1498
1499
1500



In some cases, it is possible that the emissions or removals from an activity under the Kyoto Protocol could
exceed the emissions or removals of the associated category in the UNFCCC inventory. In such a case it isgood practice to identify the Kyoto Protocol activity as key if its emissions/removals exceed the emissionsof the smallest category that is identified as key in the UNFCCC inventory (including LULUCF).

1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507

It is good practice to determine for each key category, where relevant (see Table 4.1 in Volume 1 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines), whether any subcategories are particularly significant. Usually, for this purpose, thesubcategories are ranked according to their contribution to the aggregate key category. Those subcategories that
contribute together more than 60 percent to the key category are considered particularly significant. For example,
if cropland management has been elected and is identified as key, it is good practice to identify which pools andsubcategories are significant. It may be appropriate to focus efforts towards methodological improvements ofthese most significant subcategories.

1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517

Tier 1 as elaborated in Chapter 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines assumes that the net change in the carbon stock
for litter (forest floor), dead wood and soil organic carbon pools is zero. However, paragraph 26 of 2/CMP.7
specifies that all changes be accounted in the following carbon pools: above-ground biomass, below-groundbiomass, litter, dead wood, soil organic carbon and harvested wood products. With the exception of harvested
wood products, a Party may choose not to account for a given pool in a commitment period, if transparent andverifiable information is provided that demonstrates that the pool is not a source. Therefore Tier 1 can only beapplied if the litter, dead wood and soil organic carbon pools can be shown not to be a source using the methods
outlined in Section 2.3.1. Tier 1 can also only be applied if forest management is not considered a key category,
which can only be the case if “forests remaining forests” in Chapter 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines are not a key
category.

1518

2.3.7

1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528

CMP decisions specify that information be provided whether or not anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions bysources and removals by sinks from activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 factor out removals from elevatedcarbon dioxide concentrations above pre-industrial levels, indirect nitrogen deposition, and the dynamic effects
of age structure resulting from activities prior to 1 January 1990. 17 In addition to the requirement to report
whether or not these effects are factored out, those Parties that choose factoring out should also report themethods they used. For the purpose of accounting under the Kyoto Protocol “factoring out” has been addressed
through a so-called net-net approach where net change in GHG emissions and removals are accounted bycomparing GHG emissions and removals during the commitment period with a benchmark under either a baseyear or a business-as-usual scenario, which could also be a scenario in which emissions and removals are
assumed to balance to zero.

Factoring out indirect, natural and pre-1990 effects

1529
1530

2.3.8

1531
1532
1533
1534

Decision 2/CMP.6 requests from each Annex I Party to submit information on Forest Management Reference
Levels (FMRLs) and provides guidelines for the submission and review of information on FMRLs. Technically
the FMRL is a level of greenhouse gases emissions and removals against which the net emissions and removals
reported for forest management during the second commitment period will be compared for accounting purposes.

17

Reference Levels

See paragraph 7 in the Annex to draft decision -/CMP.1 (Article 7), contained in document FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.3, p. 23.

2.32

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541

It is good practice to construct FMRLs taking into account historical data from greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory
submissions, age-class structure and the need to exclude removals from accounting in line with decision
16/CMP.1, paragraph 1. It is also good practice to take into account forest management activities which werealready undertaken, projected forest management activities under a ‘business as usual’ scenario, and continuity
with the treatment of forest management in the first commitment period where relevant. Finally, it is goodpractice to include pools and gases consistently in the construction of the FMRLs. Details of the methodology
for determining FMRLs can be found in Section 2.7.5 of this document.

1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551

Decision 2/CMP.7 paragraph 14 requests methodological consistency between the FMRL and reporting forforest management during the second commitment period when accounting for forest management. According toparagraph 15 of that decision a technical correction shall be applied if the reported data on forest management orforest land remaining forest land used to establish the reference level are subject to recalculations. The standard
method for ensuring consistency of time series is to recalculate the estimates using the same method for all
inventory years. Thus, to ensure methodological consistency of the accounting of forest management, a technicalcorrection may be needed to ensure that the same method and data are used for the construction of the FMRL
and the reporting during the commitment period, or at least to remove the impact of any methodologicalinconsistency when accounting. Section 2.7.6 of this document describes how to detect the need for a technicalcorrection, as well as when and how to apply a technical correction.

1552

2.3.9

1553
1554
1555
1556
1557

The effect of disturbances in terms of emissions and removals is included in the discussion of generic methods
set out in Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Examples of disturbance include fire, wind-throw,droughts, flooding, ice storms, geological events, pests and pathogens. Disturbances can be either natural, as in
the case of volcanic eruptions; or human-induced, as in the case of some types of fires. In many instances theproximate cause of the disturbance may be unknown.

1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563

Under the UNFCCC, and in the first commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, the effect of disturbances on
managed land is included in reporting, irrespective of whether the disturbances are natural or human-induced.
Emissions from disturbance on unmanaged lands are not included in reporting so long as these lands continue tobe unmanaged. Decision 2/CMP.7 introduced a modification to this approach by which under certain conditions
the effect of natural disturbances that occur on managed land may be excluded from accounting under the Kyoto
Protocol during the second commitment period. This section addresses the consequences of this.

1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570

The size, intensity and frequency of the natural disturbance may depend significantly on the type of disturbance.
While fire, wind and ice storms usually kill or directly damage vegetation, drought can reduce tree productivity(net primary production, or NPP) and CO2 removals, and increase the vulnerability to other types of disturbance.
For example, drought-related tree mortality increases forest flammability (for examples see Martin et al., 2010;
Perry et al., 2011; Xaio and Zhuang, 2007). Insect outbreaks, which may be the major agent of natural
disturbance in some regions, may be rather periodic, but the frequency and size is often erratic, and influenced
by multiple factors (Fleming et al., 2002; McCullough, 2000; Rouault et al., 2006).

1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578

The impacts of natural disturbances of interest here include those that cause direct releases of carbon and nonCO2 greenhouse gases to the atmosphere (e.g., from fires); those that redistribute carbon between ecosystemcarbon pools (e.g., live biomass transferred to dead wood and litter); those that result in post-disturbanceemissions (e.g., through the decay of residual biomass after a disturbance); and/or post-disturbance removals. In
addition, there are some types of natural disturbance that change the structure and dynamics of the ecosystem ina way that influences greenhouse gas dynamics of the different pools. For instance, decay dynamics and carbon
stock changes in both the soil and litter pools may change when mineral soil and litter are mixed as a result of a
disturbance (e.g., wind-throw).

1579

2.3.9.1

1580
1581

For reporting and accounting under the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, Decision 2/CMP.719
provides the following definition of natural disturbances:

1582
1583

“Natural Disturbances are non-anthropogenic events or non-anthropogenic circumstances. For the purposes ofthis decision, these events or circumstances are those that cause significant emissions in forests and are beyond

Disturbances18

D EFINITIONAL ISSUES

18

References in this section are to paragraphs of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7, unless indicated otherwise.

19

Paragraph 1 (a) in the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in the document FCCC/KP/CMP/10/2011/Add.1

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.33

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
1584
1585
1586

the control of, and not materially influenced by, a Party. These may include wildfires, insect and disease
infestations, extreme weather events and/or geological disturbances, beyond the control of, and not materiallyinfluenced by, a Party. These exclude harvesting and prescribed burning.”

1587

The list of examples provided in the Decision may be understood as follows:

1588
1589
1590
1591
1592



Wildfires: wildfires affect the ecological functioning of many forests. Wildfires can also have undesirable
environmental, social and economic impacts. Fire regimes can have significant impacts on forest carbon
stocks across considerable spatial and temporal scales (King et al. 2011). Recent studies on wildfires andforest include: Hirsch and Fuglem (2006); Williams and Bradstock (2008); Swetnam and Anderson (2008);
Girardin et al. (2010).

1593
1594
1595
1596
1597



Insect and disease infestations: diseases and pest insects can play a role in ecological processes andsubstantially affect large-scale regional greenhouse gas balances (Kurz et al. 2008, Hicke et al. 2012).
Outbreaks of forest diseases and pest insects can also have significant negative economic, social andenvironmental impacts on forested lands. Recent studies on insect and disease infestations on forest include:
Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (2012a, 2012b and 2012c); Raffa et al. (2008); Bentz et al. (2010).

1598
1599
1600
1601
1602



Extreme weather events: extreme weather events include droughts, floods, snow, avalanches, ice, andstrong winds. In some regions, extreme snow cover on forest canopies can damage forest stands due toheavy weights of wet snow accumulated on evergreen conifer tree canopies (Kato 2008). Other recent
studies on extreme weather events and forests include: Linder et al. (2010); Yamashita et al. (2002); Allen etal. (2010); Kramer et al. (2008); Bebi et al. (2009); Phillips et al. (2009).

1603
1604



Geological disturbances: geological disturbances include, volcanic eruptions, landslides, and earthquakes.
Recent studies on geological disturbances and forest include: Kamijo and Hashiba (2003).

1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610

Decision 2/CMP.7 requires Annex I Parties intending to apply the provisions for natural disturbance to forest
management under Article 3 paragraph 4, and/or to afforestation and reforestation under Article 3 paragraph 3 ofthe Kyoto Protocol to provide transparent information on, inter alia, “that the occurrences were beyond thecontrol of, and not materially influenced by, the Party in the commitment period, by demonstrating practicableefforts to prevent, manage or control the occurrences that led to the application of the provisions contained inparagraph 33” of the Decision.

1611

The demonstration of practicable efforts could include, but will not necessarily be limited to:

1612
1613
1614
1615



Minimise the probability of the disturbance occurring, by modifying factors related to the occurrence orpropagation of the disturbance. Actions taken in this regard may develop their full function only after an
initial impact, e.g. thinning to increase stand stability against storm damages, prescriptive burning to reduce
the amount of combustible material, introduction of firebreaks to make the spread of fire less likely;

1616
1617



Manage the disturbance during its occurrence. This may be facilitated by the implementation of monitoring
programs and early warning systems, integrated coordination with the fire squads, etc.

1618
1619

Depending on national circumstances, examples of transparent and verifiable information that demonstrates
these efforts could include but will not necessarily be limited to:

1620
1621
1622



A national level policy statement, such as a national forest policy or fire management policy, which definesa national strategy for managing the types of natural disturbance which led the party to apply the provision
for natural disturbance20;

1623
1624
1625



Information which shows that the Party took practicable efforts to manage or control the individual
disturbances included under the natural disturbance provision (for example, expenditure on the fire
suppression effort and/or the incident management plans for the disturbance);

1626
1627



Sub-national management plans or policy statements, which define a management strategy for managing thetypes of natural disturbance, which led the party to apply the provision for natural disturbance.

1628
1629

It is good practice to demonstrate that the implementation of the strategy has occurred or is in the process of
being implemented when a country indicates its intention to apply the disturbance provision.

1630
1631
1632

The disturbance provision recognizes that in some instances it may not be practicable to prevent, manage orcontrol the disturbance. For example, it is unlikely that practicable efforts could be taken to prevent, manage orcontrol volcanic eruptions that impact upon forests. Where such events or circumstances are included by a Party

20

Paragraph 33 in the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in the document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/Add.1

2.34

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

1633
1634

under the natural disturbance provision, it is good practice to provide transparent and verifiable information thatno practical action could be taken to prevent, manage or control the occurrences of the event or circumstance.

1635

2.3.9.2

C HOICE OF METHODS FOR IDENTIFYING LAND SUBJECT TO
NATURAL DISTURBANCE

1636
1637
1638

Annex I Parties that choose to apply the natural disturbance provision outlined in Decision 2/CMP.7 need to beable to meet requirements set out in paragraph 34, (a) to (f) of the Annex to the Decision.

1639
1640
1641
1642
1643

This includes “showing that all lands subject to paragraphs 33(a) and 33(b) are identified, including theirgeoreferenced location, year and types of disturbances” (paragraph 34 (a)), and subsequent monitoring to
identify any subsequent salvage logging or land-use change following a disturbance event or circumstance(paragraphs 34 (c) and (f)), and to be able to reflect the treatment of emissions and removals on these lands in
LULUCF accounting for subsequent commitment periods (paragraph 36 of the Annex to the Decision).

1644
1645
1646

This section provides guidance and provides examples to help Parties in their choice of approach for identifying
lands subject to natural disturbance. It has linkages with Section 2.2 that addresses the area identification,
stratification and reporting.

1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657

For lands subject to Articles 3.3 and 3.4, Section 2.2.2 outlines Reporting Method 1 and Reporting Method 2(RM1 and RM2 respectively). These are reporting methods, and as discussed in Section 2.2.4 are not the same as
the underlying methods used to identify land areas for greenhouse gas inventory purposes, though there arelinkages between them. RM1 entails delineating areas that include multiple land units, assessing the respective
contribution of relevant activities to the total emissions from these lands, and is often associated with theapplication of statistical sampling approaches to land identification. RM2 is based on the spatially explicit andcomplete geographical identification of all units of land subject to a single activity (or condition) and entails
wall-to-wall mapping. Similarly, identification of lands subject to natural disturbance can be undertaken withstatistical sampling approaches or via wall-to-wall mapping, which is frequently associated with the applicationof remote sensing techniques. Combinations of different sampling approaches may also be used in support ofeither reporting method.

1658

Estimation of area requires that the:

1659
1660

i.

1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666

ii. Final determination of methods and algorithms used for disturbance and disturbance type detection aresuitable for the identification and capture of disturbances affecting the minimum area as used in the Parties’e.g. forest definition as used in reporting under the Kyoto Protocol and that the respective area or areas ofland can be identified in subsequent years. General guidance on this topic is provided in Chapter 3, Volume
4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and Fuller et al. (2003) discuss possible problems commonly occurring inthis field.

1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674

Statistical sampling schemes do not delineate disturbed areas directly, but assess total disturbed area by way of
the representativeness of affected sample plots (see general guidance on sampling and area estimation in Chapter
3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines). Localisation of disturbance events is performed on a per-plot basis.
Such sampling networks may be based e.g. on National Forest Inventory sampling grids, but capturing theeffects of natural disturbances may require intensifications in space and/or time in comparison to the regularinventories, so that the uncertainty with which disturbance related emissions and removals can be estimated,
expressed in percentage terms, is comparable with the uncertainty in estimating Art 3.3 and 3.4 forest related
emissions overall.

1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687

When using remotely sensed data to detect changes in land use/land cover triggered by the occurrence of natural
disturbances, a Party needs to identify the appropriate temporal, spatial, and spectral resolution of the data and toassess the need for complementary ancillary and/or ground data. The identification and assessment are specificto types of individual natural disturbance events or circumstances a country intends to consider. In addition, thetiming of the analysis of the data is also relevant to, and may influence the uncertainty of the estimates. For
instance, if the analysis of the data occurs shortly after the occurrence of a discrete disturbance event or
circumstance, the estimate of the change on the ground is likely to have a reasonably high degree of certainty.
Otherwise, the data may be confounded with land-use change, with annual phenological and climatic differences,and other factors that differ between the pre- and post-disturbance. It is therefore good practice to define thebaseline conditions prior to the change that is captured, for instance, the variability in some types of remotelysensed data in the spectral response during wet and dry years so as to identify real changes due to natural
disturbances and not to seasonal events. Other factors that need to be considered when using remotely sensed
data relate to the magnitude of the change and the type of disturbance. Some types of disturbance may not be

Proportion of area affected by a disturbance is assessed accurately if RM1 is used and that each area affectedby disturbances can be identified as being disturbed when RM2 is used, andDraft 2013 KP Supplement

2.35

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
1688
1689

identified with data of moderate spatial resolution, e.g., identification of areas affected by pest infestation, which
may be related to the per cent cover of the damaged crowns.

1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697

Wall-to-wall mapping and statistical sampling schemes both have advantages and challenges. For example, wallto-wall approaches based on remote sensing may not be able to distinguish clear-cut harvest from salvage
logging, while systematic sampling grids of existing forest inventories may not have an acceptable sample sizeand sampling error or return interval in order to identify the affected area with an acceptable level of uncertainty
or assign the year of disturbance. For both wall-to-wall mapping and statistical sampling techniques existing
national approaches for land identification may need amendments and improvements in order to fulfil therequirement for identification of lands subject to natural disturbance including their georeferenced location, year
and types of disturbances.

1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706

The choice of approach for land identification applied by a Party will depend on national conditions in land
under forest management and/or A/R, the inventories already in place, and the type and magnitude of the
disturbance(s) to be assessed (see Box 2.3.4 for further examples). It is therefore good practice for Parties topresent information justifying the suitability of the inventory technique used to identify lands due to natural
disturbance and on how the provisions concerning salvage logging and land-use change following such
disturbances are monitored. It may also be possible to achieve the desired outcomes by other means, e.g. by
amending an existing inventory scheme tailored to detect deforestation events in a way that it also assesses
whether land-use change has occurred on previously disturbed lands, or by incorporating the detection of salvage
logging in harvest records.

2.36

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

1707
1708

BOX 2.3.4
EXAMPLES OF APPROACHES FOR IDENTIFYING LANDS AFFECTED BY NATURAL DISTURBANCE

1709

It is assumed that the wall-to-wall technique uses remote sensing.

1710

Example 1: Repeated point-based inventory system

1711
1712

A Party conducts a forest inventory with permanent sample plots in a regular design and estimatesboth emissions and land-use changes based on the sample plots.

1713
1714
1715

Inventory system requirements: design-based inference based on a permanent sample plot
inventory with regular measurement intervals. Measurements must be able to allow the estimationof the parameters of interest such as disturbance type and year of occurrence.

1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721

Estimation method: the area affected by a disturbance and the respective emissions are estimatedas the number of affected plots multiplied by the area and the area-specific emissions represented
by a plot. The error associated with the estimate can be calculated by applying standard sampling
theory (provided inChapter 2, Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines). In case the area-specificemissions vary then the estimation can be done by establishing strata of different emission
intensities within which the emission intensity is about the same.

1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731

The potential challenges: the potential challenges of this approach include a large percentage
sampling error associated with rare disturbance events unless the sampling grid is intensified. Ifthese affect only small areas they may not meet the criteria for exclusion. For larger rare events(rare in time, not necessarily rare in space), where the sampling error needs to be reduced in order
to meet the criteria for exclusion, additional sampling points may be established in the areas ofconcern. When the regular inventory return interval is not sufficient to assign a year (e.g. for windthrow), additional field visits or other data/methods may be required. Similarly, field visits may beneeded in order to monitor the absence of subsequent land-use changes or salvage logging (within
a single commitment period) on sites where the emissions and removals are excluded fromaccounting.

1732
1733

Example 2: Direct estimation of land areas (wall-to-wall mapping based system)

1734
1735

Example: A Party uses remote sensing data or a complete cadastral land register for land use andland-use change estimation.

1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743

Requirements: This approach requires full coverage remotely sensed data with an appropriate
resolution combined with appropriate classification algorithms and estimators or a completecadastral land register containing land-use information. Classification algorithms and estimators
have to be developed and validated by field observations in case remotely sensed data are used or asystem to track changes in land-use or the conditions on each cadastral land unit has to be
implemented. For fire monitoring, an alternate approach is to use a two-stage process: first detect
and record hot spots (using coarse resolution satellites), and second use higher resolution remotesensing products from satellites or aircraft to map the extent of the burned area.

1744
1745
1746

Estimation method: The total area affected by a disturbance is the sum of areas classified asaffected by the respective disturbance or disturbance type. Emissions from a disturbance type arealso added up for the total area concerned.

1747
1748
1749
1750
1751

The potential challenges: All classification and mapping algorithms based on remote sensing data
will have an associated error. For some disturbance types this error is low (e.g. forest fires), while
for others it may be high, e.g. disturbances that cause dispersed single tree mortality over large
areas, such as Ash dieback21. Another challenge is the validation of algorithms and the decision on
acceptable levels of errors.

1752
1753

Example 3: Repeated point-based inventory system combined with remote sensing

1754
1755

Example: a Party conducts a forest inventory with permanent sample plots in a regular design anduses remote sensing data for stratification (or a similar small-area estimation method).

21

Chalara fraxinea, a fungus affecting ash trees in Europe

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.37

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
1756
1757
1758

Inventory system requirements: design-based inference based on permanent sample plot
inventory with regular measurement intervals and full coverage by remotely sensed data with anappropriate resolution combined with appropriate classification algorithms.

1759
1760
1761
1762
1763

Estimation method: The area affected by a disturbance is estimated on the basis of remotesensing-based strata, while the actual affected area is a stratified estimate based on the sample
plots that fall within the disturbance strata from the remote sensing data. The strength of thismethod is that it potentially allows for an accurate estimation of both emission and affected areas
with lower levels of errors than in either example 1 or 2 above.

1764
1765
1766

The potential challenges: The potential challenge of this approach is that it requires very
extensive and cost intensive systems that require both thorough remote sensing and ground-based
inventory systems.

1767
1768

Example 4: Remote sensing and additional field inventory

1769
1770

Example: A Party uses remote sensing data for land use and land-use change estimation andadditional measurements for some disturbances, e.g. identification of defoliator-caused tree death.

1771
1772
1773
1774

Requirements: This approach requires full coverage by remotely sensed data with an appropriate
resolution combined with appropriate classification algorithms and estimators. Classification
algorithms and estimators will need to be validated with field observations. Field inventories mustbe suitable to capture the information needed on the disturbance type in question.

1775
1776

Estimation method: The total area affected by a disturbance is the sum of areas classified asaffected by the disturbance. Total emissions are calculated in a similar fashion.

1777
1778
1779
1780

The potential challenges: All classification and mapping algorithms based on remote sensing data
will have an associated error. For some disturbance types these errors are low (e.g. forest fires)
while for others it may be high. Another challenge is the validation of the algorithms and decisionon acceptable levels of errors.

1781

2.3.9.3

G ENERAL GUIDANCE ON ESTIMATION OF CARBON STOCKCHANGES FROM NATURAL DISTURBANCES

1782
1783
1784
1785

The methods to estimate carbon stock changes in the relevant pools under the Kyoto Protocol are given in the2006 IPCC Guidelines and are elaborated in Chapter 4, Volume 4 for above and below-ground biomass, deadwood, litter, and soil organic matter.

1786
1787
1788

With respect to natural disturbance, projected reference level accounting rules are applied as stated in Decision
2/CMP.7, therefore, information on carbon stock changes due to natural disturbances may be required forconstructing a background level (see Section 2.3.9.7 below).

1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794

Land subject to natural disturbance is land that has already been identified as land under forest management orafforestation and reforestation. The estimation of carbon stock changes due to natural disturbance should
therefore be consistent with or complement the Tier level and method applied for each of the pools under therespective activities. There are particular considerations in relation to the estimation of carbon stock changes
where a country applies the provision for natural disturbance and also for the selection of Tier levels for forest
management and afforestation and reforestation:

1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801



Under Tier 1, the assumption is that the net carbon stock change in dead wood and litter is zero. Decision
2/CMP.7 specifies that the carbon stock change in all pools must be accounted for unless the pool can beshown to not be a source. Although lands affected by disturbance may be excluded from accounting in thesecond commitment period, they need to be reflected in the accounting of subsequent commitment periods
and as natural disturbances may transfer significant amounts of carbon to the dead wood and litter pool,which will then decay, it becomes less likely that a Party could subsequently show that these pools are not asource;

1802
1803
1804



Countries experiencing significant changes in disturbance regimes in their forests (which would be the caseif major disturbance events occur) are encouraged to develop domestic data to quantify the impacts fromthese changes using Tier 2 or 3 methodologies (Section 2.2.1, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines);

1805
1806



It is good practice to apply Tier 2 or 3 to estimate carbon stock changes from natural disturbance for forest
management where the ‘Forest land remaining Forest land’ category under the UNFCCC is a key category

2.38

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

1807
1808

and similarly for afforestation and reforestation if the ‘Land converted to Forest land’ category under the
UNFCCC is a key category (Chapter 4, Volume 1of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines);

1809
1810
1811
1812
1813



For natural disturbances that occur during the commitment period, reporting (and potential exclusion) ofunits of land as being subject to natural disturbances should begin at the beginning of the year in which thenatural disturbance commences. Carbon stock changes during the commitment period associated with the
disturbance and post disturbance carbon stock changes are subsequently included under land subject tonatural disturbances, provided all the conditionalities are met;

1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819



Where salvage logging occurs on land subject to natural disturbance, the carbon stock change due to salvage
logging must be separately reported (cf. paragraph 34 (f) of Decision 2/CMP.7). For the purposes of thenatural disturbance provision, the carbon stock changes due to salvage logging are those that occur as wood
removals. The carbon stock change due to wood removals is treated as a loss of carbon from the land in theyear the salvage logging occurs, subject to the harvested wood provisions on Decision 2/CMP.7 where wood
derived from salvage logging can be shown to enter HWP pools;

1820
1821
1822
1823
1824



Management activities that are similar to and thus can be confused with natural disturbances (e.g. prescribedburning can be similar to areas affected by wildfire, and clear-cuts can be difficult to distinguish from winddamaged areas after salvage logging) have to be differentiated in the accounting from natural disturbances.
Emissions from such management activities should not be accounted under natural disturbances and double
accounting has to be avoided.

1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836

Consistent with Tier 2 and 3 methods, it is good practice to reflect the effect of different natural disturbances oncarbon stocks under the respective conditions. Methodologies should represent the effect of the particular natural
disturbance event or circumstance on the carbon stocks on the land affected by natural disturbance. The effects
which should be considered include: direct release of carbon and non-CO2 greenhouse gases to the atmosphere(e.g., during wildfires); the transfer of carbon between pools (e.g., transfer of living biomass to the dead woodand litter pools due to wind-throw); particular post-disturbance emissions dynamics (e.g., through the decay ofdead wood and litter post disturbance, and changes in post disturbance decay rates); changes in post disturbancestand dynamics that affect the growth rate of the forest (e.g., early rapid growth in young trees that regenerate
after a stand replacing fire). These effects will require appropriate stratification to adequately represent the
disturbance types, ecosystems and affected parts of ecosystems, and land use history; and appropriate estimationof emission factors, decomposition rates and other factors and functions involved that are representative of the
disturbance event.

1837
1838
1839
1840
1841

It is good practice to provide transparent information on how the emissions from natural disturbances have been
estimated during the commitment period. This includes but is not limited to the use of disturbance matrices22(Section 2.3.1.1, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines). For each disturbance type, disturbance matrices define
the impact of the event on the proportion of each carbon pool that is transferred to another pool, released to theatmosphere, or removed from forest in salvage logging and entering the carbon pool of harvested wood products.

1842

REMOVALS

1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850

Removals on lands previously disturbed can be estimated using the methodologies for forest land, reforestation
or regeneration, taking account of the conditions found following the disturbance. For example, if a disturbanceresults in the loss of all old, large trees but leaves younger age classes intact, estimation methodology for forest
management may well be appropriate. In case a disturbance results in bare ground without vegetation cover left
and without seed-bank (e.g. after landslides or extreme flooding), it is good practice to apply methods oriented
towards revegetation assessments rather than to use methods oriented towards reforestation or forest
management that are less suited to capture the specific situations of a disturbed site. In cases like this, it is also
good practice to show how the lands still fulfils the forest land definition set by the Party.

1851
1852

GUIDANCE ON MONITORING LANDS AFFECTED BY NATURALDISTURBANCE

1853
1854
1855

Forest lands that have been designated as affected by natural disturbance should be monitored over thecommitment period using methods consistent with those used for identifying emissions from these areas. This
will be done to:

1856



estimate changes in carbon stocks including the effect of rehabilitation;

1857
1858



provide data to input to national statistics on disturbance over time to include the local disturbance type,area, strength etc. and ensure continuity and consistency;

22

A description of disturbance matrices and their use in greenhouse gas accounting can be found Kurz, et al (2009).

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.39

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
1859



estimate changes in the vegetation health/density after the disturbance;

1860
1861



identify lands where the land-use is changed after a natural disturbance from forest to any other land-use
and that are therefore to be considered “deforestation” lands;

1862



identify lands where salvage logging has occurred, and its extent

1863

2.3.9.4

S PECIFIC GUIDANCE ON ESTIMATION OF CARBON STOCKCHANGES FROM NATURAL DISTURBANCES

1864
1865

Estimation of the effects of natural disturbances requires the consideration of specifics such as:

1866
1867



Attribution to individual years, (natural disturbances may be extended over several successive years or one
disturbance after another);

1868



The legacy effects that can continue over several years;

1869
1870



Effects that can be very variable over space and time, making it hard to distinguish natural disturbancesfrom other events.

1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877

It is good practice to estimate carbon stock changes from natural disturbance in a manner consistent with theother forest management and afforestation and reforestation estimates for reporting under the Kyoto Protocol,
and in a way that legacy effects and spatial incidence from natural disturbances can be identified and integrated
into estimates for future years, so that accounting can reflect them correctly. This can be achieved by ensuringthat the stratification, activity data, the emissions and removals factors and other parameters used for estimatesof carbon stock changes in years beyond the date of occurrence reflect the spatial and time incidence of thenatural disturbance.

1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883

The incidence of natural disturbances varies both spatially and temporally. Spatial variability refers to the
distribution, intensity and the size of the areas affected by disturbances: the impact of a disturbance (e.g., astrong wind and/or insect attack) could be concentrated in a large and continuous forest area; or spread acrosssmall-discontinued areas; with either homogeneous or heterogeneous intensity. It is good practice to stratify the
impacted forest area in terms of disturbances types and damaged intensity, and account for carbon stock changes
for different strata.

1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895

Temporal variability refers to the occurrence of natural disturbances over time and the extension of postdisturbance effects over time. Direct releases of carbon to the atmosphere (e.g., during fires) or transfers ofcarbon out of the ecosystem (e.g., during harvest or landslides) are assumed to occur and be accounted for in theyear of the disturbance. However, when natural disturbances redistribute all or a part of carbon among carbon
pools, it is good practice to estimate these legacy emissions, while avoiding double counting. For example, if alarge amount of live biomass damaged during disturbances is transferred to dead wood and litter (i.e. the deadorganic matter, or DOM pool), post-disturbance emissions from DOM through the decay process will extend
over a period of time, and need to be accounted for and attributed to individual years following the natural
disturbances. In case of disturbances lasting more than one year, it is good practice to account for both the direct
carbon emissions in the year they occur and legacy emissions in the subsequent years. Parties are encouraged touse higher Tier methods and country-specific factors (as discussed in Section 2.3.2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines) for this purpose.

1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905

Disturbances types such as forest fire, windfall and floods in most cases can be clearly attributed to individualyears because the disturbing event or circumstance occurs during a short period of time. Other natural
disturbances such as droughts, insect infestations and diseases can lead to a continuous decline in vitality andcomplicate the determination of the year of disturbance. Affected areas that progressively increase over time canalso be difficult to attribute to individual years. Examples are wind-throw areas where the initial impact has left
stands susceptible to further wind-throw or outbreaks of insect infestations. It is, therefore, good practice to use
the onset of transfers of carbon from the living biomass to DOM pools as onset of emission release, and to regard
the respective year as the year of a specific event. It is also possible to represent an insect infestation as a seriesof annual disturbance events, for example repeated annual defoliation of forests will lead to cumulative impacts
on growth reduction, mortality and subsequent emissions (e.g. Dymond et al. 2010).

1906
1907
1908
1909

Remote sensing or ground-based assessments that focus on the disturbance event can be helpful for addressing
spatial variability and attributing carbon stock changes due to natural disturbance to individual years. Since theseassessments are resource intensive, and other relevant statistics that record, for example, the salvage cuttings onan annual basis may also be relevant.

1910
1911

Emissions from salvage logging are to be associated in reporting with the disturbance event to assure proper
attribution of the emissions associated with the disturbance. Therefore, it is good practice to assign harvests to

2.40

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

1912
1913
1914
1915

the year when they take place in case that harvests are a part of forest health measures to prevent the spread ofinsect or disease infestations, or a part of measures to improve rehabilitation following a disturbance event.
Similarly, fellings to create fire breaks during a forest fire should be attributed to the fire disturbance and theyear when it occurred.

1916

2.3.9.5

1917
1918

G ENERALGUIDANCE
GREENHOUSEGASDISTURBANCESON ESTIMATION OF
EMISSIONSFROMNON -CO 2
NATURAL

1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924

As Section 2.3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines specifies, losses in carbon stocks or pools may inparticular cases imply emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases like CO, CH4, N2O and NOx. Typically,
emissions of these gases occur due to fires, for which the estimation methodology is provided in Section 2.4,
Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Here, guidance for both CO2 and non-CO2 greenhouse gases is given,
which should be applied together with land-use specific enhancements in Chapter 4 (Forest Land), Volume 4 ofthe 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

1925
1926
1927
1928

Note that the non-CO2 greenhouse gases include methane and carbon monoxide whose emissions may also occur
due to natural disturbances and that contain carbon. In order to avoid omissions or double counting of theamount of carbon, it is good practice to check for complete coverage of CO2 and non-CO2 greenhouse gas
emissions due to losses in carbon stocks or pools.

1929
1930
1931
1932

Non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions are estimated e.g. for all fire situations. If fire in forests contributes
significantly to net greenhouse gas emissions, it is good practice to apply higher Tiers and that countries develop
a more complete and country-specific methodology which includes the dynamics of dead organic matter andimproves the estimates of direct and post-fire emissions.

1933

2.3.9.6

G UIDANCE ON THE EXCLUSION OF EMISSIONS DUE TO
NATURAL DISTURBANCES FROM ACCOUNTING

1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941

If a Party intends to exclude from accounting emissions from natural disturbances that in any single year exceed
the forest management background level plus margin if needed, it may do so by excluding the appropriate
amount of emissions resulting from one or more natural disturbance types on geo-referenced land, depending on
the type of the method used to develop the background level (see Section 2.3.9.7). The amount excluded can be
simply a certain portion of all emissions due to natural disturbances, or total emissions from a subset of all
events due to natural disturbances in the inventory year on geo-referenced lands subject to one or more natural
disturbance types.

1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949

Subject to the conditionalities discussed below, a Party may exclude from the accounting for forest management,
either annually or at the end of the second commitment period, emissions from natural disturbances that in any
single year exceed a level of emissions called the forest management background level, plus a margin where
needed (see below in Section 2.3.9.7) 23 . Parallel provisions apply to afforestation and reforestation, taken
together. A Party may choose to exclude natural disturbances in forests subject to forest management under
Article 3.4, or in forests resulting from afforestation and reforestation under Article 3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol, or
both. A prerequisite for developing the background levels and the margin, if needed, is that their application
should avoid the expectation of net credits or net debits.

1950
1951
1952
1953
1954

A Party is required to indicate in time in its national inventory greenhouse gas report for 2015 whether it intends
to apply the disturbance provision for forest management, and/or for afforestation and reforestation. It is goodpractice for Parties to report in time for its inventory report for 2015 one or more specific types or combined
types of natural disturbances it intends to be able to exclude from accounting of emissions from natural
disturbances and the combined background level associated with these disturbances.

1955
1956
1957
1958
1959

In developing the amount of emissions to exclude, and in identifying years when emissions can be excluded, it isgood practice to estimate and report, for all land under forest management and for all land under afforestation
and reforestation, emissions from each chosen type or combined types of natural disturbances on all areas
affected (estimated and reported separately by areas of land for forest management and units of land forafforestation and reforestation) in the inventory years.

23

Paragraph 33 (a)Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.41

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
1960
1961
1962
1963

It is good practice to provide transparent and verifiable information on how the emissions exceeding thebackground level and the margin, if needed, have been estimated for each chosen type or combined types ofdisturbance concerned, how estimating emissions from different types or combined types of disturbances has
been achieved, and how this is considered in subsequent years of the commitment period.

1964

CONDITIONALITIES RESTRICTING POSSIBLE EXCLUSION

1965
1966
1967

Even if the background level (plus a margin if needed) are exceeded, emissions from natural disturbances may
only be excluded from accounting provided paragraphs 33 (a) and 33 (b) in Decision 2/CMP.7 are met for whichcountry specific information should be provided on:

1968
1969



How the background level for each chosen type or combined types of disturbances has been estimated, andhow the margin has been established24, if a margin is needed; or

1970
1971



If the background and margin if needed has not been used, what other methodologies have been applied to
avoid the expectation of net credits or net debits during the commitment period.

1972

Furthermore, prior to exclusion from accounting, country specific information should be provided on:

1973
1974



1975

And in addition information should be provided demonstrating that:

1976
1977



The occurrences were beyond the control of, and not materially influenced by, the Party in the commitment
period26;

1978
1979



Efforts have been taken to rehabilitate, where practicable, the land for which emissions are intended to be
excluded27;

1980
1981



How annual emissions resulting from disturbances and the subsequent removals in those areas have been
estimated28;

1982



No land-use change has occurred on lands where the Party intends to exclude emissions29;

1983
1984



The Party has explained the methods and criteria for identifying any future land-use changes on those land
areas during the commitment period30;

1985
1986



Emissions associated with salvage logging from areas subject to natural disturbance are estimated and not
excluded from accounting31.

1987
1988

It is good practice to report how all of the above criteria are met, based on the guidance in this chapter and any
additional reporting guidance to be developed.

1989

2.3.9.7

All lands subject to paragraph 33(a) and (b) of the Decision 2/CMP.7 should be identified, including theirgeo-referenced location, year and types of disturbances25;

G UIDANCE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BACKGROUNDLEVEL AND MARGIN

1990
1991

INTRODUCTION TO THE BACKGROUND LEVEL

1992
1993
1994
1995
1996

The background level, and where needed a margin, are used in order to be able to exclude from accounting
emissions associated with natural disturbances above the background level plus the margin, where a margin isneeded. In developing the background level the main aim is to avoid expectation of net credits or net debits
during the commitment period from applying the disturbance provision. Hence, it is good practice to ensure
consistent treatment of emissions associated with natural disturbance and the forest management reference level
24

Paragraphs 33 (a), 33 (b), and also footnote 8 to paragraph 33(a)25Paragraph 34(a)26Paragraph 34(d)27Paragraph 34(e)28Paragraph 34(b)29Paragraph 34(c)30Paragraph 34(c)31Paragraph 34(f)2.42

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

1997
1998

(FMRL). For this, it is good practice to establish and report whether emissions from natural disturbances (bydisturbance type) are implicitly included in the FMRL or not.

1999
2000
2001
2002
2003

If a Party intends to apply the natural disturbance provision in accordance with Decision 2/CMP.7, countryspecific information on a background level of emissions associated with natural disturbance is to be provided in
the national greenhouse gas inventory report for 2015. The background level and the margin, where a margin isneeded, should be separately developed for forest management, and for afforestation and reforestation (AR),taken together.

2004
2005
2006
2007

Decision 2/CMP.7 allows for different methods to establish the background level. The default method is an
iterative process first to exclude statistical outliers from the historical time series of emissions associated withnatural disturbances, and then to calculate the mean of the remaining emissions data. Alternative methods
involve country-specific approaches.

2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

For both the default and alternative methods, Decision 2/CMP.7 requires that the background levels areconstructed using consistent and initially complete time series. For the default method, this series should contain
1990–2009 emissions associated with natural disturbances, whereas for the alternative methods, a consistent andinitially complete time series of data including, but not limited to, the period 1990–2009 is required 32 . As
Decision 2/CMP.7 requires development of separate background levels for FM and AR, there may be separate
time series for FM and for AR.

2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019

If a Party does not have a time series of emissions from the disturbance types that it wishes to exclude, if they are
not implicitly included in the forest management reference level, then the background level and the margin are
zero. If they are implicitly included, for example because a certain level of emissions from fire, wind-throw or
pest damage is implicitly estimated in establishing the FMRL then it is good practice to establish what thebackground level is that is implicitly included. The implicit background level needs to be established for acertain type of disturbance, or shown to be zero, for a type of disturbance to be excluded.

2020
2021
2022

The approach for developing the background level and the associated documentation will depend on national
circumstances. Guidance on the development of the background level and the margin, if needed, is given bymeans of the stepwise procedure (Step 1-5) outlined below.

2023

STEPWISE GUIDANCE ON DEVELOPING THE BACKGROUND LEVEL

2024
2025
2026
2027
2028

Step 1: Define the type of disturbances that the country plans to exclude fromaccounting

2029
2030
2031
2032
2033

Step 2: Establish a consistent and initially complete time series of data
including the period 1990–2009

2034
2035

If emission data are missing for one or several years for a disturbance type, it is good practice to apply one of themethods described below to fill gaps.

2036
2037
2038
2039



If the historical time series contains data for most but not every year during the period 1990-2009, data froma number of other years equivalent to the number of years where no data are available, for which
information on all disturbance types is available before or after the calibration period and closest to it should
be used to fill in gap(s).

2040
2041
2042



In case the country has data for most but not all years within the period 1990 to 2009, and there are no data
available from before or after this period, it is good practice to use all data available, and to apply proxy dataor additional information, including expert judgment, to develop data for the missing years.

2043
2044
2045
2046
2047



If the country has data only for a few years for the period of 1990-2009 (e.g. only for the second part of theperiod), or if there are no historical estimates of emissions and removals associated with natural disturbances,the country may still be able to construct a time series if reliable information, or proxy data, are available, inan appropriate and consistent historical time series that are related to the impacts of natural disturbances on
the forest. This information may include defoliation rates, or mortality rates associated with a specific pest

It is good practice for Parties to define the disturbances that they plan to exclude and are explicitly or implicitly
included in the background level. These types of disturbances can be one or more (for example fires, fires andpest outbreaks).

Having defined the relevant disturbance types in Step 1, it is good practice to sum the emissions from all of these
disturbances in each year of the historical time series in the period 1990 to 2009, and to construct the backgroundlevel and the margin, if needed, using this combined time series.

32

Footnote 7 to paragraph 33(a)Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.43

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
2048
2049
2050
2051

(possibly by age classes) etc. In such cases, an appropriate and transparently demonstrated model is also
necessary to develop the level of emissions associated with the occurrence of such defoliations or pests. It
may also be possible to use modelling approaches to derive the estimates of historic emissions associatedwith natural disturbances.

2052
2053

Step 3: Establish whether the disturbances for potential exclusion are included
explicitly or implicitly in the background level

2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060



2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072

Decision 2/CMP.7 requires separate time series for forest management, and for afforestation and reforestation
taken together. If the required historic time series of emissions associated with natural disturbances is notavailable for one of the above activities, country-specific methods can be applied using emissions from natural
disturbances on land under the other activity as a proxy to estimate the missing information provided that it istransparently demonstrated how the emissions in the activities forest management, and afforestation andreforestation are related, and that the method avoids estimating emissions that may not be characteristic of that
activity. For example, a country may not have estimates on emissions from natural disturbances on land underafforestation and reforestation and wants to relate them to emissions from natural disturbances on forest
management land. In this case, it should be demonstrated for each disturbance type that the emission rates onforest management land are age-independent, or are otherwise independent from the differences in species, size,
density etc. that may occur between the forests on afforestation and reforestation land and those on forest
management land.

2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078

If the land area is significantly changed between the calibration period and the reference period, the historic timeseries of emissions related to natural disturbances for forest management land and/or afforestation andreforestation land may not represent the same area as in the commitment period. This is most likely for
afforestation and reforestation land where area can continuously and substantially increase after 1990. If the areachanges, it is good practice to correct the background level according to the guidance given under Step 4. An
example of an approach for adjusting for changes in land area is illustrated in Box 2.3.5.

It is good practice for steps 1) and 2) to be undertaken by, or coordinated with, the experts and institutions
responsible for developing the forest management reference level. In general if the background level of
disturbances relevant to a country is not explicitly included in the FMRL it can be assumed to have been
implicitly included because otherwise the FMRL will not be representative. The ability of models used toconstruct FMRLs to reproduce historical forest management emissions and removals, which is a requirement
discussed in the Section 2.7.5, is therefore evidence of implicit inclusion in cases where background levelsof disturbance have not been explicitly included.

2.44

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

2079
2080

BOX 2.3.5:
APPROACH FOR ADJUSTING FOR A CHANGE IN AREA BETWEEN COMMITMENT PERIOD AND HISTORIC DATA

2081
2082
2083
2084

An adjustment for a significantly changed area between the historic time series and thecommitment period may be required. The adjustment for each year in the historical time series isdone by dividing the annual emission by the area in that year and multiplying the result by the areain the last year of the calibration period:
Ei,aEi ⁄Ai ∙ Al

2085

where:

2086

Ei,a = adjusted emission for year i

2087

Ei = unadjusted emission for year i

2088

Ai = area of land in the category for year i

2089

Al = area of land in the category for the last year of the historical dataset

2090

i = 1990 to 2009, or other years for which emissions data are available.

2091
2092
2093

Similar adjustment may be needed during the commitment period if the area under the respective
activities considerably changes relative to the area of land in the category in the last year of thehistorical dataset (see Step 4).

2094
2095
2096
2097
2098

Note that the above approach assumes that the probability of natural disturbances to occur in thevarious above areas is the same. However, if this is not the case (e.g. if an area highly prone tonatural disturbances has been disturbed and excluded, and the remaining areas are not so prone tonatural disturbances), the country may apply a different but transparent method to adjust for thedifferent areas.

2099
2100
2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108

Emissions from salvage logging and emissions from land subject to land use change following a disturbance are
to be accounted for33. These emissions are estimated in the commitment period in order to apply the provisionbut may not be known for the calibration period 34 , either because they have not been estimated (no data
concerning disturbance-related emissions have been collected) or because they have not been identified andemissions e. g. from salvage logging have been included in FM reporting. In this case, the time series ofemissions that can be used to develop the background level may thus include emissions from these sources.
Correct accounting can be achieved by (1) separately estimating and including these emissions in both thebackground level and the actual emissions in the commitment period, and (2) adding emission from salvage
logging and emissions from land subject to land use change to the other emissions and removals of FM and AR,
respectively, so that they are also accounted for.

2109

In all cases, it is good practice to report on how the country has estimated the emission data in the time series.

2110
2111
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117

Step 4: Develop the background level by applying the default or an alternative
method

2118
2119
2120
2121
2122

The method to develop the background level and the margin may have a significant effect on the frequency of
the years when emissions may be excluded. If the sum of the background level and the margin is high, years
when emissions are higher than this sum will be rare, whereas when this sum is low, years with emissions fromnatural disturbances higher than this sum will occur frequently. Note that in years when emissions are excluded
by a Party, the Party must identify land where natural disturbances have occurred, calculate all emissions andOnce the appropriate historic time series has been obtained, the Party can apply the default or an alternative
method (see description below) in order to obtain the background level. It is good practice that a Party reports
whether it applies the default method or an alternative method, and in the second case whether a margin isrequired. In choosing the method, it is good practice that the resulting natural disturbances background level isconsistent with the one included (inherently or explicitly) in the forest management reference level alreadyreported, and corrected if necessary as discussed below.

33

Para 33(c) and (d), respectively

34This is due to the high variability of these emissions and the fact that these emissions may be de-linked from the total
emissions from natural disturbances.

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.45

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
2123
2124

removals subject to the provisions on natural disturbances, and provide transparent information on a number ofother issues related to these emissions as detailed above35.

2125
2126

The default method

2127(1) Calculate the arithmetic mean of the annual emissions for the calibration period.

2128
2129
2130

(2) Calculate the standard deviation (SD) of the mean for the calibration period. As the size of the historicaltime series is usually small (the number of data points, N, is less than 30), it is good practice to apply thefollowing formula:

2131
2132

EQUATION 2.3.1
CALCULATION OF THE STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE MEAN FOR THE CALIBRATION PERIOD

The default method involves the application of the following steps:

SD

x

X

N

1

2133

where

2134
2135

xi = the emission or removal estimate for year i, i= 1, 2…, N where N is the number of data points (years
in the calibration period).

2136

X = the average of all xi.

2137
2138
2139

(3) Check whether any data points are greater than the mean plus twice the SD, or smaller than the mean minus
twice the SD. In case there is one or more such data points (“outliers”), remove them from the dataset andthe subsequent calculations, and go back to step (1) above using the reduced dataset.

2140
2141

1.

2142

An example of the application of the default method is found in Box 2.3.6, Example 1.

2143
2144
2145
2146

Alternative methods

2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154

Alternative methods include those that apply different approaches to exclude outliers, and that set thebackground level that is not equal to the average of the dataset (excluding outliers) during the calibration period.
Such levels can e.g. be the lowest historical annual emission, a value between this and the average of thehistorical dataset (excluding outliers), or a background level of zero. These approaches may require a margin ofzero. Setting the background level at a low level (relative to the average of the dataset, excluding outliers) can
also be achieved e.g. using a method that is similar to the default method except that outliers are excluded above
or below a smaller limit, e.g. when the SD is multiplied by a number that is smaller, or much smaller than thevalue of 2 as applied in the default method.

2155
2156
2157
2158

It is good practice that alternative methods yield a background level and a margin, if needed, that can be used to
identify years when excluding emissions related to natural disturbance is possible. It is also good practicetransparently to describe the method that includes the explanation of the assumptions applied, why a margin isneeded or not, and how the margin is developed.

2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165
2166
2167

Step 5: Ensuring that the method applied does not lead to expectation of net
credits or net debits

In case there are no (or no more) outliers, the background level is equal to the mean calculated in the laststep, and the margin is equal twice the SD calculated in the last step.

Possible alternative methods are country-specific. It is good practice that these methods are based on a consistentand initially complete time series of data including the period 1990–2009 (Step 2 above) and that the applicationof these methods will avoid the expectation of net credits or net debits.

In the case of the default method, the margin is twice the standard deviation of the data around the mean.
Alternative methods should demonstrate transparently that the applied methodology does not lead to net credits
or net debits for either land under FM or land under AR. To do this, it is good practice to analyze under what
conditions the application of the background level and margin, if needed, are going to yield net zero credits ordebits for the country during the commitment period, whether these conditions will be met during thecommitment period or not, and modify the background level and the margin if necessary to avoid the expectationof net credit or net debit.
35

Para 34

2.46

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

2168
2169
2170

In case an area change occurs, it is good practice to correct the background level and the margin, if needed, atthe end of the commitment period so that they both relate to the mean area during the commitment period (using
a methodology consistently with the one discussed in Step 2 above).

2171
2172
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177

In case a Party observes a trend in the historic time series of emissions related to natural disturbance on a unit
area basis (i.e. the trend is not due to the trend in the total area but due to other factors), and this trend continues
into the commitment period, it is good practice to correct the background level at the end of the commitment
period to reflect this trend if the trend would lead to a net credit or net debit. This can be the case with the default
method. In this case, the average of the emissions during the commitment period will statistically be different
from the background level, which is also an average. The trend means that the average changes over time, andthis change is what has to be removed.

2178
2179
2180

The expectation of net credits or net debits can be removed for the default method by taking the difference
between the background level (corrected, if needed) and the mean of the emissions due to natural disturbances
during the commitment period.

2181
2182
2183
2184

With the alternative methods, an expectation of undue net credits or net debits can e.g. be avoided if the
background level is set to value that is lower than the mean emissions from natural disturbances during thecalibration period or if the background level is set to zero. However, it is good practice to demonstrate in thesecases that an expectation of net credits and net debits is avoided.

2185

An example of the application of an alternative method is found in Box 2.3.6, Example 2.

2186
2187
2188

Step 6: Considerations when the FMRL is set to an historical level, or zero

2189
2190
2191
2192

If emissions from a single historical year or period are used as a forest management reference level, thebackground level is equal to the level of disturbances in the year, or the average level of disturbances for theyears in the period, and the margin is equal to two standard deviations estimated using the formula applied withthe default method.

2193

If the FMRL is zero then the background level and margin are zero.

For Parties that use a projected reference level (see Section 2.7.5) the application of both the default andalternative methods for the establishment of the background level are possible as set out above.

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.47

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
2194
2195

BOX 2.3.6:
EXAMPLES OF APPROACHES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BACKGROUND LEVEL

2196

Example 1: Application of the default method

2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
2203
2204

Based on the iterative process described above, the outliers in the time series (i.e. the red bars in
Figure a) are identified and removed. The background level is estimated as the mean (i.e. the lightgreen horizontal line in Figure b) of the remaining observations (i.e. the green bars), and themargin is twice the standard deviation of these observations (shown by a line above and anotherbelow the background level). In a year during the commitment period when the total emissions
from natural disturbances (the red bar in Figure b) exceed the background level plus the margin,emissions above the background level (in yellow) may be excluded, provided that all the otherrequirements of the exclusion are met.

2205

a)

2206
b)

2207

2208

2.48

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

2209
2210
2211

Example 2: An alternative method: minimum level of historical time series will be set as the
background level

2212
2213
2214
2215
2216
2217
2218
2219
2220
2221
2222

An alternative method which minimises the risk of overestimating the emissions from natural
disturbances during the commitment period to exclude is to identify the minimum expected
emissions from natural disturbance for any year in the commitment period. This may be done byidentifying the minimum emissions from natural disturbances during the calibration period andsetting it as the background level. Because emissions are expected to exceed this level in every
year of the commitment period, the margin required to determine the level of emissions at whichemissions may be excluded under Decision 2/CMP.7 is equal to zero. When applying such abackground level and margin (for a year during the commitment period, for which there is one
example year in 2016), emissions during the commitment period may be excluded when theyexceed the background level, and the amount that may be excluded (provided that all the otherrequirements of the exclusion are met) is the emission above the background level (in yellow).

2223
2224

2.3.9.8

G UIDANCE ON THE EXCLUSION OF REMOVALS ON LANDSAFFECTED BY THE NATURAL DISTURBANCE PROVISION

2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234

In case a Party excludes from accounting emissions from natural disturbances that in any single year exceed thebackground level plus margin, where a margin is needed, it should also exclude from accounting any subsequent
removals during the commitment period on the affected land. This requires the assessment of the removals(using the guidance given above in Section 2.3.9.3) occurring on lands affected by the disturbance(s) causing theemissions that were excluded from accounting, without regard whether they originate from the re-establishmentof young forest vegetation by rehabilitation measures or natural re-growth of vegetation, and to ensure theirsubsequent exclusion from accounting. Special care has to be taken that the removals are not captured by anotherassessment system, if for example complementary assessments on the natural disturbance areas are conducted inaddition to a national forest inventory.

2235

2.3.9.9

2236
2237
2238
2239

I NFORMATION ON EFFORTS TAKEN TO REHABILITATE THE
LAND SUBJECT TO NATURAL DISTURBANCES

Once a natural disturbance has occurred, the Party may implement actions to rehabilitate the forest cover in orderto restore or secure forest functions and to prevent degradation of forests. Although rehabilitation is different
from restoration and revegetation in terms of greenhouse gas reporting, the techniques used may include theDraft 2013 KP Supplement

2.49

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252

same as used for reforestation and revegetation, e. g. planting, seeding and/or the human-induced promotion ofnatural seed sources. The rehabilitation effort will depend on the severity of the impact, the likelihood ofregeneration and cost-benefit analysis. Common examples of rehabilitation are wind-throw and forest fires.
Following wind-throw, usable timber may be removed (salvage logging, see Section 2.3.9.3), the affected areas
are cleared by e.g. banking of debris (which affects dead biomass and soil pools) or preparation of planting sites
in places, and subsequent planting of crop tree species or seed-bed preparation is conducted, if seed trees are stillavailable on the lands. If seed trees or natural regeneration are available (if the disturbance mainly affected
higher age-classes and led to a shift in the age-class distribution), rehabilitation can be restricted to activities that
ensure the site is accessible for further management activities following e.g. salvage logging. In case of forest
fires, species within ecosystems can respond to fire and fire regimes in different ways (Gill, 1975). For example,
some forest species are resilient to even the most severe fires and respond through epicormic resprouting post
fire. In such instances efforts to rehabilitate may not be required and it is good practice, in these cases, todemonstrate that no other direct human intervention is necessary for rehabilitation.

2253
2254

If efforts have been taken and/or are planned to rehabilitate the areas subject to natural disturbances, it is goodpractice to provide transparent information on:

2255



Area rehabilitated, or planned to be;

2256
2257
2258



Time frame for the rehabilitation, i.e. duration of the management activity undertaken if this is notcompleted in the year of reporting, or time until a specified state (‘result’, see below) is expected to bereached;

2259
2260



Description of the efforts taken and/or planned, including where no action is to be taken because the forest
ecosystem rehabilitates without human intervention;

2261
2262
2263



Expected results, these may be e.g. recovering of carbon stocks, tree crown cover, or tree species structureand growth patterns, and ecosystem health conditions, and also any changes in efforts to avoid further
disturbances.

2264
2265
2266
2267
2268

If efforts have not been taken and/or are not planned to rehabilitate the areas subject to natural disturbances, it isgood practice to provide transparent information on the reasons why the rehabilitation is not intended and / or
impracticable. Because disturbed lands may be confused with deforested lands or may be subject to subtle landuse change, it is also good practice to demonstrate how the attribution of previously disturbed lands is conducted
so that deforested areas are distinguished from disturbed lands and that land-use change is detected, if it occurs.

2269

2.3.9.10

G UIDANCE

2272

ON THE TREATMENT OF EMISSIONS ANDREMOVALS THAT OCCUR ON THE LANDS SUBJECT TO
NATURAL DISTURBANCES IN SUBSEQUENT COMMITMENTPERIODS

2273
2274
2275
2276
2277

Emissions and removals from afforestation and reforestation under Article 3.3 or forest management under
Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol over the third and subsequent commitment periods are likely to depend on
legacy affects associated with natural disturbances that occurred in the earlier commitment periods. For example
an event or circumstances may affect the age structure of forests, the carbon stock increases or decreases of deadorganic pools and hence emissions and removals associated with them.

2278
2279

It is good practice that the annual emissions and removals estimates for years beyond the end of the second
commitment period take account of these potential legacy effects.

2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286

Therefore, it is good practice that these emissions and removals are estimated in a manner consistent with theother forestry estimates in the greenhouse gas inventory, and in a way that legacy effects from natural
disturbances can be identified and integrated into estimates for future years, so that accounting in the third andsubsequent commitment periods can reflect them. This can be achieved by ensuring that the frequency of datacollection, stratification, activity data, the emissions and removals factors and other parameters used forinventory estimates in years beyond the end of the second commitment period reflect the legacy effects ofnatural disturbance that occurred during the second commitment period.

2270
2271

2287

2.50

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

2288

2.3.10Interannual variability

2289
2290
2291
2292
2293

Associated with human’s activities in the LULUCF sector, the annual rate of net carbon emissions or removals
in an ecosystem is strongly influenced by climate variability, management practices, natural disturbance andother factors that alter growth and decomposition rates (e.g., in Griffis et al.,2003 ; Li et al., 2011; Yasuda et al.,2012). Consequently, the rate of net greenhouse gas emissions or removals in a given area may vary from year toyear, and can shift between a net source and a net sink in successive years.

2294
2295
2296
2297
2298
2299

There are two aspects to interannual variability, and they need to be addressed independently. First, the national
statistics on the variation between years in harvest rates, land-use change, or natural disturbances such as the areaburned, are usually available, and it is good practice to include these in the calculation of carbon stock changes
and greenhouse gas emissions and removals in the annual inventory report. Second, the variations in growth anddecomposition rates due to seasonal and annual variations in environmental conditions, such as moisture regimes,
temperature, or growing season length are much more difficult to quantify.

2300
2301
2302
2303
2304
2305
2306
2307

Because of interannual variability in environmental conditions, extrapolation of from a single year may result inincorrect conclusions about long-term trends. Conversely, interpolation of long-term trends in, e.g. forest growth
rates may result in under- or overestimation of the actual growth in a single year. Forest growth functions andyield tables used in countries with forest management planning systems are based on measurements of periodic
growth (e.g., over 5 or 10-year re-measurement intervals) and therefore incorporate and average the impacts ofpast interannual variability of environmental conditions. One approach that meets good practice is to use suchgrowth functions to estimate biomass growth rates, because they represent the average growth rates and are
therefore influenced little by short-term fluctuations in environmental conditions.

2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315

Where empirical growth and yield functions are used to estimate stand growth, it is good practice to evaluate thepotential influences of interannual variability in environmental conditions, for example through comparisons ofpredicted and actual growth on a set of regionally distributed permanent sample plots. Where the periodic (e.g.,5-year) increment is consistently under- or over-predicted, the growth estimates should be adjusted accordingly,
and the new data considered for incorporation in updated empirical functions. Countries that use process-basedmodels to simulate annual variability in stand growth and other stock changes need to also evaluate thesepredictions against measurements of periodic stock changes on permanent sample plots and adjust thepredictions, and underlying models where necessary.

2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2326

In addition to greenhouse gas emissions and removals during the commitment period, Decision 15/CP.17 also
requires estimation and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and removals during the base year (1990 in mostcases) for those elected activities for which net-net accounting applies (Table 1.1). The impact of this estimate
for a single year could be large because it will be compared against the estimates for each year in thecommitment period in which this activity occurred. The effects of interannual variability on the base year
estimates could therefore be large. The direction and magnitude of the impact depends on how the year 1990
deviated from the long-term climatic averages. Moreover, it may be difficult to confirm the estimate for the baseyear using direct measurements, unless these were already taken in 1990. Where environmental conditions in thebase year (e.g., 1990) caused major deviations in greenhouse gas emissions and removals from their longer-term(e.g., 5-year) averages, it is good practice to use longer-term averages of environmental conditions to represent
the base year.

2327
2328
2329
2330
2331
2332
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339

The effect of interannual variability may decrease as the geographical area considered increases. For example,
the effects of local weather patterns may partially offset each other across a large country, but may be more
pronounced in a small country or within a small region of a country. There are, however, climatic processes thatcan synchronize variations in weather over large regions, such as global climate change or El Niño Southern
Oscillation (ENSO) events which typically occur on time scales of 3 to 7 years. Within limits, the longer themeasurement or estimation interval the more likely it is that the results will capture the true long-term averagevalue but averages can mask trends. One way of dealing with this issue is not to measure all sampling units
annually or periodically but instead measure a subset of plots and to use a sampling technique called samplingwith partial replacement to estimate changes in carbon stocks. This method allows the calculation of sampling
errors with reduced costs of data collection (Ware and Cunia, 1962; Bokalo et al., 1996). Where non-linear
processes are involved, e.g., the sigmoidal accumulation of forest biomass over age, simple linear interpolation
for intermediate years will become increasingly unreliable with longer time periods. In general, an averaging
period of about five years is likely to reduce the impacts of interannual variation.

2340
2341
2342
2343

The signal of the impact of direct human-induced emissions and removals, or the impact of mitigation measures,
may not be discernible when confounded by large interannual variability originating from natural or indirecthuman causes. The ability to discern the signal of the mitigation from the noise of the inter-annual variability isimportant when inventory estimates are used for monitoring the impacts of mitigation measures (IPCC, 2010).

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.51

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
2344
2345
2346

It is good practice to document whether the methods selected for the estimation of greenhouse gas emissions andremovals are sensitive to interannual variability of environmental conditions during the commitment period, andto report how interannual variation was addressed in the inventory calculations

2347

2.4

OTHER GENERIC METHODOLOGICALISSUES

2350

2.4.1

Developing a consistent time series

2351
2352
2353
2354
2355
2356
2357
2358
2359

The units of land and lands subject to Article 3.3 or elected Article 3.4 activities and the management thereon
need to be tracked continuously through time, to ensure that all emissions and removals are reported throughout
subsequent commitment periods and with no gap between periods. Moreover, the continuity of management
greatly influences GHG emissions and removals, and changes in management or land use are often the periods
associated with the greatest changes in carbon stocks. For example, it is not sufficient merely to state that 10% of
a cropland management area has been under no-till for a specified period. The rate of carbon stock change forthe total area depends on whether the same 10% of land has remained under no-till or whether the 10% of no-till
occurred on a different portion of the area in different years. It is therefore good practice to follow continuously
the management of land subject to Article 3.3, FM and elected 3.4 activities. (See also Box 2.4.1)

2360
2361
2362
2363
2364
2365

Assessment of the continuity of management on land could be achieved either by continuously tracking units ofland and lands subject to an Article 3.3, FM or an elected Article 3.4 activity from 1990 until the end of thecommitment period (see Section 2.7.2 Choice of methods for identifying lands subject to forest management), orby developing statistical sampling techniques that can determine the transition of different types of management
on land subject to Article 3.3 or elected 3.4 activities (see Section 5.3 of the GPG-LULUCF). An example of
how such a scheme could operate is given in Box 2.4.1.

2366
2367
2368
2369

A supplementary condition for developing a consistent time series is to use the same methods for estimating
carbon stock change and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions during the whole period and for setting thebenchmark value to be used in accounting i.e. either the reference level or the base year value, or to ensure
consistency between different methods.

2370
2371

Time series consistency is discussed further in Chapter 5, Volume 1, (Time series consistency and recalculations)of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

2348
2349

2.52

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

2372
2373

BOX 2.4.1
AN EXAMPLE OF CONSISTENCY IN ESTIMATING THE EFFECT OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

2374
2375
2376
2377
2378

To estimate changes in soil carbon stocks, whether by Tier 1, 2 or 3 methods, management
practices on applicable lands need to be followed continuously over time. Ideally, the managementof each land would be tracked explicitly. But such data may not always be available. An
alternative approach may be to estimate the average history of lands now under a given
management. Consider the following example.

2379

Example: Cropland management

2380
2381
2382
2383
2384
2385
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390

Suppose there was a cropland region of 10,000 ha, of which 5,000 are in no-till (NT) in the year
2000, up from 2,000 ha in 1990. The remainder, in each year, is under conventional tillage (CT). In
order to simplify this example, suppose also that the land management in the year 1990 was
unchanged for a long period before (more than 20 years). The estimated soil carbon stock change
is based on a matrix of coefficients; say 0.3 Mg C/ha/yr for land shifting from CT to NT, -0.3 Mg
C/ha/yr for a shift from NT to CT. (The carbon stock change is calculated by the amount of soil
carbon, the relative carbon stock change36 factor, over 20 years, for the management activity, andthe length of the period, one year. See Chapter 3.3.1.2, and Tables 3.3.3 and 3.3.4 of the GPGLULUCF. Unfortunately, there has been no tracking of management on individual land. However,based on a statistical analysis (e.g., a survey), it is possible to estimate, with reasonable confidence,
the following shifts:

2391

CT



NT

3,500 ha

2392

CT



CT

4,500 ha

2393

NT



CT

500 ha

2394

NT



NT

1,500 ha2395

The total carbon gain is therefore:

2396(3,500 • 0.3 + 4,500 • 0 + 500 • (-0.3) + 1,500 • 0) Mg C/yr = 900 Mg C/yr.

2397
2398

2.4.2

Recalculation of Time Series

2399
2400
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406

This section deals with recalculation of time series, excluding implications for the technical correction ofreference levels; which is dealt in section 2.7.6. As inventory capacity and data availability improve, the methods
and data used to calculate estimates are updated and refined. Recalculation of historic emissions and removals isgood practice when new methods are introduced or existing ones refined, when new sources and sinks categories
are included, or when data are updated (for example through new measurements during the commitment period
or the availability of new information on verification). Recalculations may also be needed if lands arereclassified at a later time (e.g., for lands that have lost forest cover but where a classification as deforested lands
was pending and has been resolved, see Section 2.6.1).

2407
2408
2409
2410
2411
2412

The CMP decisions make provisions for recalculation37, consistent with the UNFCCC reporting guidelines, andmention that previous estimates should be recalculated using the new methods for all years in the time series.
Annual greenhouse gas emissions and removals reported for a given year during the commitment period can berecalculated in subsequent reporting years (up to the final year of the commitment period). When recalculating
emissions and/or removals, time series consistency must be checked and ensured. It is also good practice toreport why the new estimates are regarded as more accurate or less uncertain.

2413
2414
2415

One potential problem in recalculating previous estimates is that certain data sets may not be available for theearlier years. There are several ways of overcoming this limitation and they are explained in detail in Chapter 5,
Volume 1, of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

2416

36

“Carbon stock change factor” is in use to refer to carbon emission/removal factors.

37

See paragraphs 4, 12 (notably 12(d) and12(e)), 13 and 14(e) in the Annex to draft decision -/CMP.1 (Article 5.1),
contained in document FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.3, pp. 5-8.

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.53

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
2417

2.4.3

Uncertainty assessment

2418
2419
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
2425
2426
2427
2428
2429
2430
2431
2432

Uncertainties should be quantified and all information on anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources
and removals by sinks which result from mandatory and elective activities have to be within levels of confidence
as elaborated by any IPCC good practice guidance adopted by the CMP.38 Because of the importance for many
countries of well-designed sampling programmes to reduce uncertainties when preparing LULUCF inventories,
specific information on the design of sampling programmes for land areas and biomass stock, as well as theassessment of associated uncertainties should be provided. Generally, the approaches provided in Chapter 3(2006 IPCC Guidelines) and the estimation of sampling error related to the sampling design used for datacollection, can be used for assessing uncertainties associated with estimates reported under the UNFCCC andunder the Kyoto Protocol LULUCF activities. However, some issues and terms which are specific to the Kyoto
Protocol require additional uncertainty assessment, for example the estimation of the areas under LULUCF
activities or the need to track activities since 1990. For Kyoto Protocol reporting, uncertainty assessment isparticularly important in order to support verification requirements. In addition, to be consistent with goodpractice, the uncertainties in inventory estimates should be reduced as far as practicable. Moreover, while
selecting a particular tier to estimate changes in carbon stocks and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions, it is goodpractice to consider the implications of this choice for the management of uncertainties.

2433
2434

2.4.3.1

I DENTIFYING U NCERTAINTIES2435

In the context of the Kyoto Protocol the following sources of uncertainties are likely to be significant:

2436
2437
2438



Definitional errors, such as bias and inconsistencies resulting from the interpretation and implementation of
the various definitions in the Kyoto Protocol (including the potential mismatch between data available toParties and their interpretation of the definitions);

2439
2440



Classification errors, such as land use and land transition classification errors (e.g., forest vs. non-forestclassification with possible errors regarding temporarily unstocked forest lands);

2441
2442



Activity data errors (e.g., distinction between the harvesting-regeneration cycle vs. deforestation or humaninducement of afforestation and reforestation);

2443
2444
2445
2446



Estimation errors, such as errors in area estimates (e.g., due to incorrect classification of change events i.e.,
both omission and commission errors in remote sensing (see below for details), or due to differing scales
used to identify lands subject to the various activities, e.g., afforestation/reforestation vs. deforestation, or
modifications made to the sampling procedures and/or densities during the course of time);

2447
2448
2449



Identification errors arising while defining the geographical boundaries of areas encompassing lands andunits of lands subject to LULUCF activities (although this may not have a direct impact on the uncertaintyof the carbon stock change estimates for a given activity);

2450
2451
2452
2453
2454



Model errors occur whenever models or allometric equations are used to estimate carbon stock changes or
non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions and removals, which is likely to be the case at higher tiers. It can be very
cumbersome to trace the propagation of errors through complex models chained to each other. In general,
this may introduce additional uncertainties, except for those cases where simpler models can be used toestimate typical uncertainty ranges that can be combined with central estimates from complex models.

2455
2456
2457
2458
2459
2460



Sampling errors associated with the number of samples (number and location) within a “geographicalboundary”. In this case samples do not sufficiently cover the temporal and spatial variability of theestimated parameters. This is particularly critical when reporting land areas that include multiple land units
by using legal, administrative, or ecosystem boundaries. This stratification is based on sampling techniques,administrative data, or grids on images produced by remote sensing techniques and the identified geographic
boundaries are georeferenced.

38

This refers to paragraph 6 (d) including footnote 5, and paragraph 9 including footnote 7 in the Annex to Decision
15/CMP.1 (Article 7).

2461

2.54

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

2462
2463

SOME NOTES ON FACTORS AFFECTING UNCERTAINTY

2464
2465
2466
2467
2468
2469
2470
2471
2472
2473
2474

Natural Variability
Natural variability is a result of variations in natural controlling variables, such as annual climate variability, andvariability within units of land that are assumed to be homogenous, e.g., the spatial variability of e.g., forest soils
within a given unit of land. When sufficient experimental data are available, good practice should permit
determination of the resulting combined plot-level and up-scaling uncertainties using standard statistical methods
such as Generalized Linear Models (e.g., Tate et al., 2003). In some cases, especially for inter-annual or
periodical variability, considerable impacts may change the sign of the reported net emissions and removals ofan entire country or region. In inventory calculations uncertainty due to natural variability can be reduced byusing time average coefficients and by averaging direct measurements over a time period sufficiently long toassess the variability, as discussed in Section 2.3.9 above.

2475
2476
2477
2478
2479
2480
2481
2482
2483
2484
2485

Lack of activity data
In addition to uncertainties in default carbon emission and removal factors, there are often uncertainties
associated with missing activity data. Determining retrospectively the inventory for the base year, in most cases
1990, may pose a particular challenge for cropland management, grazing land management, revegetation andwetland drainage and rewetting. It may be possible to establish base year emissions by extrapolating a consistenttime series of emissions and removals established for a period over which activity data are available.
Alternatively a country-specific methodology may be used if this can be shown to be more reliable in estimatingbase year carbon stock change. It is good practice to verify that this methodology does not over- or
underestimate emissions/removals in the base year. It is good practice to also use in the estimation of base year
emissions historical data on management practices prior to 1990, if available.

2486
2487
2488
2489
2490
2491
2492
2493

Resolution of remote sensing and ground truth

2494
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499

Positional errors occur where (a) the geometric correction is not done, incomplete or false, (b) the pixel locationand location of ground truth plot do not coincide, and (c) there is insufficient accuracy in the definition of theborderlines. For example, when detecting land-use changes by a time series of remotely sensed images, thespatial displacement of pixels from one sampled image to the next will introduce errors. In the case of detectionof a transition from forest to non-forest or vice versa, the associated uncertainties will be larger when forests are
fragmented.

2500
2501
2502

Classification errors arise from an incorrect identification of the real land cover class. They comprise omission
errors, i.e., a population element from a given category is omitted and put erroneously into another class, andcommission errors, i.e., classifying wrong categories into a given ground truth category.

2503
2504

The use of remote sensing is discussed further in Vol 4, Chapter 3 of the 2006 Guidelines, especially section
3A.2.4.

2505

2.4.3.2

2506
2507
2508

Uncertainties associated with carbon stock changes and emissions estimation are to be quantified according tostandard statistical methods. Uncertainties can originate from several sources and be combined into an overall
uncertainty.

2509
2510

It is good practice to derive confidence intervals by applying a quantitative method to existing data. Confidence
intervals at given confidence levels provide a minimum basis for a simple quantitative estimate of uncertainty.

2511
2512

Uncertainties for the activities covered by the Kyoto Protocol can be treated in the same way as other uncertainty
estimates taking into account that:

The objective of using satellite imagery for land cover assessments is often to obtain, for an inventory region,
total area estimates, percentages of land-cover classes, or geographical boundaries. Remote sensing isparticularly well suited to produce a complete identification of lands and units of land. A source of uncertainty is
the selection of imagery of inadequate resolution. In order to capture changes in areas as small as one hectare,
the resolution of the imagery must be finer than one hectare. In addition, improper or insufficient ground truthing
can result in classification errors.

Q UANTIFYING U NCERTAINTIES

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.55

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
2513
2514
2515
2516
2517



The “since 1990” clause and the use of definitions specific to the Kyoto Protocol are likely to cause
systematic errors related to the estimation of the required activity data. The potential for differences between
the managed forest area and the area subject to forest management, and also between grassland area and area
subject to grazing land management implies that the areas whose uncertainties are being assessed may differ
between the Kyoto Protocol activities and the corresponding categories of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

2518
2519
2520
2521



Activity data can also relate to individual practices or ownership structures, e.g., the fraction of cropland
farmers using a given amendment on a particular soil. If the fraction is estimated by survey, the survey
design should incorporate an uncertainty estimate depending on the level of inventory data disaggregation,otherwise the uncertainty will have to come from expert judgement.

2522
2523
2524
2525
2526
2527
2528
2529
2530
2531
2532
2533
2534
2535
2536
2537
2538
2539



For cropland management, grazing land management, wetlands drainage and rewetting and/or revegetation(if elected) uncertainty estimates are needed also for the base year. These are likely to be higher than for
estimates in the commitment period, because this information may often be derived only by backward
extrapolations or models, rather than by actual inventories in or near the base year. In addition,
determination of activities in the base year, where required, may pose difficulties if pre-base year surveys ofland use are not available. Where reliable data are not available for 1970 to 1990 (or other applicable time
periods), countries can use a country-specific methodology, shown to be reliable, to estimate base year
carbon stock change in 1990. It is good practice to verify that this methodology does not over- or
underestimate emissions/removals in the base year. In most cases, these methods also require historical dataon management practices prior to 1990. The associated uncertainties could, in principle, be assessed byformal statistical methods, but more likely by expert judgement which is based on the feasible ranges ofbackward extrapolation of time trends. If surrogate data (i.e., alternative datasets that can be used as a proxyfor missing data) are available, they can be a useful guide for extrapolating the trend in periodic data andsubsequently interpolating the same data following the next data collection cycle. If there are no available
surrogates or other information, then the only technique available is to extrapolate, with a recalculated
interpolation of the estimates when the new observations are available. Thus, it is good practice to attempt tofind reliable surrogate data to guide extrapolation and interpolation when the fundamental data used for theinventory estimates are not available annually.

2540
2541
2542
2543
2544
2545
2546
2547
2548
2549
2550
2551
2552
2553



When remote sensing is employed for classification of land use and detection of land-use change including
units of land, the uncertainties could be quantified by verifying classified lands with adequate actual groundtruth data or higher resolution imagery. In order to estimate the accuracy of land-use/land-cover maps on acategory-by-category basis, a number of sample points on the map and their corresponding real world
categories are used to create an error matrix as proposed by Lilles and et al. (2008). The diagonal of thismatrix shows the probability of correct identification and the off-diagonal elements show the relative
probability of misclassification of a land category into one of the other possible categories. The error matrix
expresses not only the accuracy of the map but it is also possible to determine which categories are easily
confounded with each other. Based on the error matrix, a number of accuracy indices can be derived(Congalton and Green, 2009). It is good practice to present an estimate of the accuracy of the land-use/covermap category-by-category and a error matrix may be employed for this purpose where remote sensing isused. Multi-temporal analysis (analysis of images taken at different times to determine the stability of landuse classification) can also be used to improve classification accuracy, particularly in cases where groundtruth data are limited.

2554
2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
2560

Separate annual uncertainty estimates need to be made for each of the mandatory and elective activities, for eachreported carbon pool, each greenhouse gas and geographical location. Estimates should be reported using tables
generated following the model of Tables 2.4.5 -2.4.8 in Section 2.4.3 (Reporting and Documentation). Separate
tables should be reported for the base year in case Cropland Management, Grassland Management, Revegetation
or Wetland Drainage and Rewetting are elected. Estimates should be expressed as percent of the area and of theemissions by sources or removals by sinks (or changes in stocks) reported in Tables 2.4.5 – 2.4.8.

2561
2562
2563
2564
2565
2566

Uncertainty associated with areas of lands and units of land need to be estimated. When using Reporting Method
1, it is good practice to report a separate estimate of uncertainty for each of the mandatory activities, and each of
the elective activities within a given geographical boundary. Under Reporting Method 2, each geographicalboundary is subject to a single activity. Therefore there will only be one uncertainty estimate needed for eachgeographical boundary. However, because Reporting Method 2 can contain very large numbers of polygons it isgood practice to also provide uncertainty estimates for the summary statistics.

2567
2568
2569
2570

Where uncertainties are difficult to derive, default values for uncertainties are to be used. Guidance on selecting
default carbon emission or removal factors for cropland management can be found in Annex 4A.1, Tool for
Estimation of Changes in Soil Carbon Stocks associated with Management Changes in Croplands and Grazing
Lands based on IPCC Default Data. Since these factors are taken from the IPCC Guidelines, no true uncertainty

2.56

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

2571
2572
2573
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580

ranges can be assigned. However, using expert judgement, default uncertainty ranges corresponding to asampling error of 50% can be assigned, based on an analysis of no-till long-term experiments in Europe inwhich the 95% confidence interval of the mean annual emission or removal estimate was found to be around±50% of that mean (Smith et al., 1998). For revegetation and wetland drainage and rewetting, default uncertainty
ranges cannot be specified at present. It is good practice for a Party electing these activities to provide its own
estimates of the uncertainty associated with emissions and removals from all pools for the affected lands.
Estimates of uncertainties have to be based on national sources or expert judgment reflecting national
circumstances. Inventory agencies may also apply national methods for estimating the overall uncertainty, e.g.,
error propagation methods that avoid the simplifying approximations and in this case, it is good practice clearly
to document such methods.

2581
2582
2583
2584
2585
2586
2587
2588

Problems may arise when activity data are lacking or are not well-documented. Activity data necessary to apply
scaling factors (i.e., data on agricultural practices and organic amendments) may not be available in current
databases/statistics. Estimates of the fraction of farmers using a particular practice or amendment should then be
based on expert judgement, and so should the range in the estimated fraction. As a default value for theuncertainty in the fraction estimate, ±0.2 is proposed (e.g., the fraction of farmers using organic amendment
estimated at 0.4, the uncertainty range being 0.2–0.6). As practical consideration it is assumed that uncertainties
of the various input data estimates, either as default values, expert judgement or estimates based of soundstatistical sampling can be combined for an overall uncertainty estimates.

2589
2590

2.4.3.3

REDUCING U NCERTAINTIES

2591
2592
2593
2594
2595
2596
2597
2598

Estimating uncertainties in a quantitative manner helps to identify major sources of uncertainties and to pin-point
areas of potential improvements in order to reduce uncertainties in future assessments. In particular, for reporting
under the Kyoto Protocol it is recommended to make efforts to convey the overall uncertainty estimates to allagencies and/or firms involved in order to encourage improvement, i.e., reduced uncertainties in estimates of
future reports. It is also good practice to establish institutional means and procedures that are likely to contributetowards reducing uncertainties. For instance, a country may choose on purpose to estimate uncertainties by morethan one procedure. This will produce complementary results for the same country and data category, prompting
further research on potential sources of inconsistency and ultimately enhancing the robustness of estimates.

2599
2600
2601

Often, uncertainties can be reduced if areas subject to land-use change are estimated directly as a class bythemselves within a stratification scheme, rather than as a difference between two overall estimates of land-use
areas.

2602
2603

The extra effort required for area identification should help to reduce uncertainties in the assessment of areas
subject to Kyoto Protocol activities.

2604
2605
2606

Uncertainties are likely to be reduced by implementing means to make the design, procedure and frequency ofdata collection more systematic, for example by establishing – whenever possible – long-term, statistically soundmonitoring programmes.

2607

2.4.4

2608

2.4.4.1

2609
2610
2611
2612
2613
2614
2615
2616

The anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks from land use, land-use change
and forestry activities, estimated using the methods described before and in the activity-specific Sections 2.5 –
2.12, must be reported as outlined in relevant decisions39 of the Conference of the Parties serving as Meeting of
the Parties (CMP) of the Kyoto Protocol. Some information on definitions and elected activities must be reported
once by the end of 20XX, whereas supplementary information must be reported annually during the second
commitment period. The information to be reported is summarised in Tables 2.4.1, but excludes information
associated with removal unit (RMU) accounting. It is good practice to report all information requested in thesetables.

2617
2618

Annual reports under the Kyoto Protocol must include estimates of areas of land subject to activities under
Article 3.3, Article 3.4 forest management and any other elected Article 3.4 activities, of emissions by sources

Reporting and documentation
R EPORTING

39 CMP decisions relevant for LULUCF accounting for the second commitment period: decision 2/CMP6, decision 2/CMP.7.

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.57

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
2619
2620
2621

and removals by sinks on these areas of land, and the associated uncertainties, using Tables 2.4.5 through 2.4.8.
It is good practice to include in these reports additional information on methods and approaches used to identify
lands and to estimate the emissions and removals.

2622
TABLE 2.4.1
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION TO BE REPORTED FOR THE ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY DURING THE SECONDCOMMITMENT PERIOD ACCORDING TO RELEVANT DECISIONS OF THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES SERVING AS MEETING
OF THE PARTIES (CMP) OF THE KYOTO PROTOCOL. TEXT IN ITALICS INDICATES A DIRECT QUOTE FROM THE RELEVANT
PARAGRAPHS IN THE CMP DECISIONS TEXT
Information to bereported

Reference in
CMPdecisions40

Detailed information

Land related information
Approach for
geographical locationand identification ofunits of land andlands

The geographical location of the boundaries of the areas that encompass:(i) Units of land subject to activities under Article 3, paragraph 3;(ii) Units of land subject to activities under Article 3, paragraph 3, which
would otherwise be included in land subject to elected activities under
Article 3, paragraph 4, […];
(iii) Land subject to elected activities under Article 3, paragraph 4.
(iv) Land subject to forest management(v) Land subject to forest management which would otherwise be included
in units of land subject to activities under Article 3, paragraph 3,(vi) Lands and unit of lands affected by disturbances whose associatedemissions, and following removals, have been excluded from accounting

6 (b)Spatial assessment
unit

The spatial assessment unit used for determining the area of accounting forafforestation, reforestation, deforestation and forest management

6 (c)Information on methods and approaches to estimate emissions and removals

40

Entries in this column refer to relevant paragraphs in the Annex to CMP decisions -/CMP.1 (Article 7), contained in
document FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.3, pp.21-29. The table does not necessarily refer to all relevant legal texts.

2.58

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

Description of
methodologies used
including methods
used for calculating
the reference level
and the associatedbackground level ofemissions

The emissions and removals should be estimated using methodologies given in
the IPCC Guidelines as elaborated by this report, and using the principles aslaid out in the decision 16/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry).
The methodologies used should be reported with information on the reporting
method for lands subject to Articles 3.3 and 3.4 (Reporting Method 1, 2 or a
combination thereof), the approach(es) used for land identification, and the tierlevel(s) for estimating the emissions and removals. National approaches,models, parameters and other related information should be describedtransparently indicating how they improve the accuracy of the reporting. The
assumptions and methodologies used for an inventory should be clearly
explained to facilitate replication and assessment of the inventory by users of
the report and taking into account the principles in paragraph 1, items (a), (b),(d), (g), (h) in the decision 16/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change andforestry).

see 6 (a)Paragraph 4of decision
2/CMP.6
Paragraph 33
of Annex todecision
2/CMP.7

Justification whenomitting any carbon
pool

Information on which, if any, of the following pools: below-ground biomass,
litter, dead wood and/or soil organic carbon were not accounted for, together
with verifiable information that demonstrates that these unaccounted pools
were not a net source of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The aboveground biomass pool cannot be excluded from the reporting.

6 (e)Information on
indirect factors on
greenhouse gas
emissions andremovals

Information should also be provided which indicates whether or notanthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks
from land use, land-use change and forestry activities under Article 3
paragraph 3, forest management and elected activities under Article 3
paragraph 4 factor out removals from:(a) Elevated carbon dioxide concentrations above pre-industrial levels;(b) Indirect nitrogen deposition; and(c) The dynamic effects of age structure resulting from activities prior to 1
January 1990
(See Section 2.3.7)

7

Changes in data andmethods

Any changes in data or methodology:- since the report of the previous year, e.g., in the choice of methods, activity
data collection method, activity data, difficulties of detection (e.g., distinction
between harvesting and deforestation when estimating the D area), parameters
used in the calculations should be reported in a transparent manner. The
reporting should include information on whether these changes have been
applied also to reporting on previous inventory years to ensure consistency of
the time series;- compared to data and methods applied for calculating the reference level andthe associated background level of emissions. The reporting should include
information on whether these changes have resulted in inconsistencies
between reported emissions and removals and the reference level; and in thelatter case information on the technical correction applied to minimize or
eliminate methodological differences between reference level calculations andemissions reporting.

10

2623
2624

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.59

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
2625
TABLE 2.4.1 (CONTINUED)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION TO BE REPORTED FOR THE ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY DURING THE FIRSTCOMMITMENT PERIOD ACCORDING TO RELEVANT DECISIONS OF THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES SERVING AS MEETING
OF THE PARTIES (CMP) OF THE KYOTO PROTOCOL. TEXT IN ITALICS INDICATES A DIRECT QUOTE FROM THE RELEVANT
PARAGRAPHS IN THE DECISIONS TEXT

Information to bereported
Other genericmethodological issues

Reference in
CMPdecisions41

Detailed information

Any additional relevant information on methodological issues, such asmeasurement intervals, interannual variability (see Section 2.3)

Specific information for activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4
Specific information
on Article 3.3
activities and Forest
Management

Information that demonstrates that activities under Article 3, paragraph 3, andforest management began on or after 1 January 1990 and before 31 Decemberof the last year of the commitment period, and are directly human-induced;
Information on how harvesting or forest disturbance that is followed by the reestablishment of a forest is distinguished from deforestation;
Information on how forest plantations are distinguished from natural forests
Information on areas that have been converted to forest land to compensate
conversion of forest plantations to non-forest land. Needed informationconsists of identification, including the georeferenced location and year of
conversion, of areas and the quantification of expected carbon stocks at the endof harvesting cycle and of actual carbon stocks
It is good practice to provide information on the size and geographical locationof forest areas that have lost forest cover but which cannot be classifed as
deforested (and will therefore remain classified as forest with a re-assessmentin the next inventory).

Article 3.3 activities
and forest
management specificinformation on
safeguards whenexcluding fromaccounting emissions
associated with
disturbances

Each Party shall provide transparent information:(a) Showing that all lands subject to disturbances whose associated emissions
have been excluded from accounting, are identified, including theirgeoreferenced location, year and types of disturbances;(b) Showing how annual emissions resulting from disturbances and thesubsequent removals in those disturbed areas are estimated; and showing that
subsequent removals have been excluded from accounting;(c) Showing that no land-use change has occurred on those lands andexplaining the methods and criteria for identifying any future land-use changes
on those land areas during the commitment period;(d) That demonstrates that disturbances, for which emissions have been
excluded from accounting, were beyond the control of, and not materiallyinfluenced by, the Party in the commitment period, by demonstrating
practicable efforts to prevent, manage or control those occurrences;(e) That demonstrates efforts taken to rehabilitate, where practicable, thoselands;(f) Showing that emissions associated with salvage logging were not excluded
from accounting.

Elected Article 3.4
activities specificinformation

A demonstration that elected activities under Article 3, paragraph 4, haveoccurred since 1 January 1990 and are human induced

8 (a)

8 (b)
Paragraphs
37-39 of theAnnex todecision
2/CMP.7

Paragraph 34
of Annex todecision
2/CMP.79 (a)Information related to the estimates of emissions by sources and removals by sinks(for reporting data, see Tables 2.5-2.6)

41

Entries in this column refer to relevant paragraphs in the Annex to Decision 15/CMP.1 (Article 7). The table does notnecessarily refer to all relevant legal texts.

2.60

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

Estimates forgreenhouse gas
emissions by sources
and removals by sinks

Estimates of greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks forhuman-induced activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3, and forest
management and, if any, elected activities under Article 3, paragraph 4, and for
all geographical locations reported in the current and previous years, since thebeginning of the commitment period or the onset of the activity, whichevercomes later. In the latter case the year of the onset of the activity must also be
included.

see 6 (d)[…] Estimates for Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, shall be clearly distinguishedfrom anthropogenic emissions from the sources listed in Annex A to the Kyoto
Protocol.[…]5

Afforestation/
reforestation,
deforestation andforest management

Area of natural forests that have been converted to forest plantation
Area of forest plantations subject to forest management that have been
converted to non-forest land and area of non-forest land converted to forest
land to compensate the forest conversion
Carbon stocks of forest plantations subject to forest management that havebeen converted to non-forest land and expected and actual carbon stocks ofarea of land converted to forest land to compensate the forest conversion

xxx

Forest management

Reference level;
Background level of emissions associated with natural disturbances;
Margin, where needed, to avoid that the exclusion of emissions fromdisturbances results in the expectation of net credits or net debits during thecommitment period;
Amount of emissions associated with disturbances;
Amount of removals from lands whose emissions from disturbances have been
excluded from accounting;
Demonstration that emission are reported for salvage logging on lands whose
emissions from disturbances have been excluded from accounting;xxx

Harvested Wood
Products

Information whether the Party has included emissions from harvested wood
products originating from forests prior to the start of the second commitment
period; andinformation demonstrating that, where already accounted, emissions fromharvested wood products originating from forests during the first commitment
period have been excluded.

xxx

Croplandmanagement, grazing
land management,
revegetation andwetland drainage andrewetting

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks foreach year of the commitment period and for the base year for each of theelected activities on the geographical locations identified, excluding emissions
reported under the Agriculture sector of the IPCC Guidelines.

9 (b), andparagraph 9of the annex
to draftdecision-/CMP.1(LULUCF),FCCC/CP/20
01/13/Add.1,
p.59

Absence of overlap
between 3.3 and 3.4
activities

Information that demonstrates that emissions by sources and removals by sinks
resulting from elected Article 3, paragraph 4, activities are not accounted forunder forest management or activities under Article 3, paragraph 3.

9 (c)Uncertainty ofemission and removal
estimates

Estimates of emissions and removals shall be within levels of confidence aselaborated by any IPCC good practice guidance adopted by the CMP and inaccordance with relevant decisions of the CMP on land use, land-use change
and forestry.

6(d), footnote
5

2626
2627
2628
2629
2630
2631
2632
2633
2634

It is good practice to use coordinates as set out in Sections 2.5 to 2.7 below for the reporting of the geographicallocation of the boundaries that encompass the units of land subject to activities under Article 3.3 and the lands
subject to forest management and elected activities under Article 3.4. This information can be summarised on a
map for visual presentation and data sharing. It is also good practice to report the land transition matrix below(Table 2.4.3) to demonstrate that the Party has accounted for all areas where afforestation, reforestation,
deforestation and forest management and, if elected, Article 3.4 activities have occurred. The diagonal cells of
the table indicate the area of lands remaining in the same category (e.g., FM land remaining FM land), whileother cells indicate the areas of lands converted to other categories (e.g., cropland converted to afforested land).

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.61

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
2635
2636

It is good practice that the total area reported in consecutive inventories is constant and that any change in area isdocumented and explained.

2637
2638
2639
2640
2641
2642

It is good practice to use Tables 2.4.5 – 2.4.8, or future versions of these tables as decided by CMP, to submit
annual estimates. For Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities (Tables 2.4.5 to 2.4.8), data must be provided by geographicallocations. The CMP decisions also require that, in addition to the data for the actual inventory year, a Party also
reports this information for the base year for cropland management, grazing land management, revegetation andwetland drainage and rewetting. No reporting is necessary for those Article 3.4 activities that were not elected by
the Party.

2643
2644
2645
2646
2647
2648
2649
2650

When filling in these tables, care should be taken to insert carbon stock changes for each pool with proper signs.
Carbon stock changes are to be reported in units of carbon as positive when the carbon stock has increased, andas negative when the carbon stock has decreased. All changes are totalled for each geographic location, and thetotal values are then multiplied by 44/12 to convert carbon stock changes to CO2 emissions or removals. This
conversion also involves sign change to switch from the ecosystem to the atmospheric perspective: stockchanges refer to ecosystem carbon stocks (where increases have a positive sign) while fluxes of CO2 and nonCO2 greenhouse gasses refer to exchanges with the atmosphere where emissions are additions to the atmosphereand therefore have a positive sign.

2651
2652
2653
2654

Table 2.4.9 is a summary table of carbon stock changes resulting from activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 forthe inventory year. It is good practice to use the table also for the base year for each Article 3.4 elected activity.
This table summarises data of the compilation tables by activity across all carbon pools and across all strata
within a country.

2655
2656
2657
2658
2659

In addition to the data in the Tables 2.4.5 through 2.4.9, it is good practice to report the underlying assumptions
and factors used for the calculation of the carbon stock changes and emissions of CH4 and N2O, as well as for the
calculation of the uncertainties. Such information can be obtained using the worksheets in Chapter 3 of the
GPG-LULUCF or from equivalent information supporting the estimates obtained using higher tiers or othermethods.

2660
2661
2662
2663
2664
2665
2666
2667
2668

Decision 2/CMP.7 contains a clause for afforestation/reforestation and forest management activities that carbon
stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions resulting from natural disturbances may be excluded fromaccounting (see Table X.X.X – not included in First Order Draft). If this provision is to be used then the areas
where such disturbances occurred have to be identified and monitored for subsequent land-use change.42 If such
units of land and/or lands exist for the inventory year, it is good practice to distinguish them from otherafforestation/reforestation units of land and/or forest management lands and to report them (and the associatedcarbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions, distinguishing emissions from subsequent
removals) separately in Tables 2.4.5 to 2.4.8. Although this is an issue related to accounting, it is mentioned here
because inventory data are likely to be needed to implement the provision.

2669
2670
2671
2672
2673
2674
2675

Decision 2/CMP.7 contains a clause that Parties can elect to report carbon stock changes and non-CO2
greenhouse gas emissions resulting from conversion of forest plantation to non-forest land under forest
management together with carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions resulting fromconversion of at least an equivalent area of non-forest land converted to forest land (see Table X.X.X – notincluded in First Order Draft). If this provision is to be used, then all areas subject to this provision have to be
identified and their georeferenced locations reported. 43 Although this is an issue related to accounting, it ismentioned here because inventory data are likely to be needed to implement the provision.

2676
2677
2678
2679
2680
2681

Finally, separate annual uncertainty estimates should be reported for each activity under Articles 3.3 and 3.4, foreach carbon pool, each greenhouse gas and geographical location. Estimates should be reported using tables
generated following the model of Tables 2.4.5 to 2.4.8. Separate tables should be reported for the base year
when CM, GM RV and/or WDR are elected. Uncertainty estimates are to be made at the 95% confidence limits
expressed as percent of the emissions by sources or removals by sinks (or changes in stocks) reported in Tables
2.4.5 to 2.4.8.

2682
2683

Additional text describing the tables is still required here.

42

Paragraphs 33, 34 and 35 in the Annex to decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry)

43

Paragraphs 33, 34 and 35 in the Annex to decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry)

2.62

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Table 2.4.2a
Summary Table

Activity coverage and other information relating to activities under Article 3.3, forest management and elected activities under Article 3.4
INVENTORY YEAR:
Change in carbon pool reported(1)Activity
Article3.3
activities
Article3.4
activities

Above-groundbiomass

Below-groundbiomass

LitterDead wood

HWP

Soil

Afforestation and Reforestation
Deforestation
Forest Management
Cropland Management
Grazing Land Management
Wetland Drainage and Rewetting
Revegetation
Greenhouse gas sources reported(2)Activity

Article3.3
activities
Article3.4
activities

Fertilization(3)

Drainage ofsoils under
forestmanagemen

Disturbanceassociatedwithland-use

LimingBiomass burning(4)

N2O

N2O

N2O

CO2

CO2

CH4

N2O

Net CO2emissions/removals(5)(6)

CH4

(7)

N2O

(8)

Net CO2
equivalentemissions/removals(Gg)

Afforestation and Reforestation
Deforestation
Forest Management
Cropland Management
Grazing Land Management
Wetland Drainage and Rewetting
Revegetation

2684
2685

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.63

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft

2686
TABLE 2.4.2B
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: SELECTION OF PARAMETERS FOR DEFINING "FOREST"UNDER THE KYOTO PROTOCOLParameter

Range

Selected value

Minimum land area
Minimum crown cover
Minimum height

2687
TABLE 2.4.2C
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: BACKGROUND LEVEL OF EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH NATURAL DISTURBANCES AND ITS MARGIN
Activity

Background level

MarginAfforestation and Reforestation
Forest Managtement
Minimum height

2688
TABLE 2.4.2D
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: FOREST MANAGEMENT REFERENCE LEVEL
Methodology applied(9)Draft 2013 KP Supplement

Value inscribed indecision 2/CMP.7

Technical correction to be applied, as calculated in the reporting year
2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2.64

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

Note

2689

1

Indicate R (reported), NR (not reported), IE (included elsewhere) or NO (not occurring), for each relevant activity under Article 3.3 or forest management or elected activity under Article 3.4. If changes in a carbon
pool are not reported, it must be demonstrated in the NIR that this pool is not a source of greenhouse gases. Indicate NA (not applicable) for each activity that is not elected under Article 3.4. Explanation about theuse of notation keys should be provided in the text.

2

Indicate R (reported), NE (not estimated), IE (included elsewhere) or NO (not occurring) for greenhouse gas sources reported, for each relevant activity under Article 3.3 or forest management or elected activity under
Article 3.4. Indicate NA (not applicable) for each activity that is not elected under Article 3.4. Explanation about the use of notation keys should be provided in the text.

3

N2O emissions from fertilization for Cropland Management, Grazing Land Management, Revegetation and Wetland Drainage should be reported in the Agriculture sector. If a Party is not able to separate fertilizer
applied to Forest Land from Agriculture, it may report all N2O emissions from fertilization in the Agriculture sector.

4

If CO2 emissions from biomass burning are not already included under changes in carbon stocks, they should be reported under biomass burning; this also includes the carbon component of CH4. Parties that include
CO2 emissions from biomass burning in their carbon stock change estimates should report IE (included elsewhere).

5

According to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, for the purposes of reporting, the signs for removals are always negative (-) and for emissions positive (+). Net changes in carbon stocks are converted to CO2 by multiplying C
by 44/12 and by changing the sign for net CO2 removals to be negative (-) and net CO2 emissions to be positive (+).

6

CO2 emissions from liming, biomass burning and drained organic soils, where applicable, are included in this column.

7

CH4 emissions reported here for Cropland Management, Grazing Land Management, Revegetation and Wetland Drainage and Rewetting, if elected, include emissions from biomass burning (with the exception ofsavannah burning and agricultural residue burning which are reported in the Agriculture sector) and Drainage and Rewetting of organic soils (with the exception of rice cultivation which is reported in the Agriculture
sector). Any other CH4 emissions from Agriculture should be reported in the Agriculture sector.

8

N2O emissions reported here for Cropland Management, if elected, include only emissions from biomass burning (with the exception of savannah burning and agricultural residue burning which are reported in the
Agriculture sector) and N2O emissions from mineral soils from conversion to Cropland of lands other than Forest Land. Any other N2O emissions from Agriculture should be reported in the Agriculture sector.

9

2690
2691

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.65

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
2692
TABLE 2.4.3A
LAND TRANSITION MATRIXAreas and changes in areas between the previous and the current inventory year (1), (2), (3)INVENTORY YEAR:
To current inventory year
Article 3.3 activities
Afforestation
andReforestation

Deforestation

Article 3.4 activities
ForestManagement

CroplandManagement(if elected)

Grazing
Land
Management(if elected)

Revegetation(if elected)

Wetland
Drainage andRewetting(if elected)

Other(5)Total area atthe beginningof the current
inventory
year(6)

Afforestation and
Reforestation
Deforestation
Forest Management

Article 3.4 activities

From previous inventory year

Article3.vities(kha)

CroplandManagement(4)(if elected)
Grazing Land
Management (4)(if elected)
Revegetation(4)(if elected)
Wetland Drainage andRewetting
Other(5)Total area at the end of
the current inventory
year

2693
2694
Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.66

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

2695
TABLE 2.4.3B
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: AREA OF NATURAL FOREST CONVERTED TO FOREST PLANTATIONS IN THE CURRENT INVENTORY YEARGEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION (3)Identification code

Area of natural forest converted to forest plantations

Area of drained organic soils(7)

(kha)

(kha)

Total

Note
1

This table should be used to report land area and changes in land area subject to the various activities in the inventory year. For each activity it should be used to report area change between the previous year and thecurrent inventory year. For example, the total area of land subject to Forest Management in the year preceding the inventory year, and which was deforested in the inventory year, should be reported in the cell incolumn of Deforestation and in the row of Forest Management..

2

Some of the transitions in the matrix are not possible and the cells concerned have been shaded.

3

In accordance with section 4.2.3.2 of the IPCC good practice guidance for LULUCF, the value of the reported area subject to the various activities under Article 3.3 and 3.4 for the inventory year should be that on 31
December of that year.

4

Lands subject to Cropland Management, Grazing Land Management, Revegetation or Wetland Drainage and Rewetting which, after 2008, are subject to activities other than those under Article 3.3 and 3.4, shouldstill be tracked and reported under Cropland Management, Grazing Land Management, Revegetation or Wetland Drainage and Rewetting, respectively.

5“Other” includes the total area of the country that has not been reported under an Article 3.3 or an elected Article 3.4 activity.

6

The value in the cell of row “Total area at the end of the current inventory year” corresponds to the total land area of a country and is constant for all years.

7

2696

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.67

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
2697
TABLE 2.4.4
SUMMARY OVERVIEW FOR KEY CATEGORIES FOR LAND USE, LAND-USE CHANGE AND FORESTRY ACTIVITIES UNDER THE KYOTO PROTOCOL
Criteria used for key category identification
Key categories of emissions andremovals

Gas

Associated category in
UNFCCC inventory(1) is key(indicate which category)Category contribution isgreater than the smallest
category considered key in
the UNFCCC inventory (1), (3)(including LULUCF)

Other

Comments(2)Specify key categories according to thenational level of disaggregation used(1)Note1

See section XXX of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and section XXX of this report2

Describe the criteria identifying the category as key.

3

If the emissions or removals of the category exceed the emissions of the smallest category identified as key in the UNFCCC inventory (including LULUCF), Parties should indicate YES. If not, Parties should indicate
NO.

2698
2699

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.68

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

2700
Table 2.4.5
Article 3.3 activities: Afforestation and Reforestation(1), (2)INVENTORY YEAR:GEOGRAPHICALLOCATION (3)Identification code

ACTIVITY DATA
Subdivision(4)Year of conversion

lands impacted by natural disturbances(12)Year(13)

Area subject to the activity

Area of drained organic soils(8)

(kha)

(kha)

Total for activity AR

Total
Total

2013

Total

…

2701
2702

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.69

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
2703
Table 2.4.5 (Continued)
Article 3.3 activities: Afforestation and Reforestation (1), (2)INVENTORY YEAR:GEOGRAPHICALLOCATION (3)CHANGE IN CARBON STOCK (7)Carbon stock change inabove-ground biomass(5), (6)Identification code

Gains

LossesNetchangeCarbon stock change inbelow-ground biomass(5), (6)Gains

LossesNetchangeNet carbon
stock change
in litter (5)(Gg C)Net carbon
stock change
in deadwood(5)

Net carbon
stock change
in HWP(11)Net carbon stockchange in soils(5)Mineralsoils

Organic
soils(10)Net CO2emissions/removals(9)(Gg CO2)

Total for activity AR

Total
Total

Total

…

2704
2705

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.70

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

2706
INFORMATION ITEMUNITS OF LAND OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO FOREST MANAGEMENT(14)GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION (3)ACTIVITY DATA
Area subject to the activity(kha)

Subdivision(4)Identification code
Total for activity AR

2707
INFORMATION ITEMEMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH NATURAL DISTURBANCES(15)GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION (16)
Identification code

ACTIVITY DATA
(4)

Subdivision

Area subject to theactivity(kha)

EMISSIONSType of natural
disturbances(17)

CO2

CH4

N2O

Total CO2
equivalent(18)(Gg)

Total for activity AR

2708
Documentation box
Parties should provide detailed explanation on the land use, land-use change and forestry sector in the relevant annex of the NIR: Supplementary information on LULUCF activities under the
Kyoto Protocol. Use this documentation box to provide references to relevant sections of the NIR if any additional details are needed to understand the content of this table.

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.71

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft

Note
1

Report here information on anthropogenic change in carbon stock for the inventory year for all geographical locations that encompass units of land subject to Afforestation and Reforestation under Article 3.3.

2

As both Afforestation and Reforestation under Article 3.3 are subject to the same provisions specified in the annex to decision 16/CMP.1, they can be reported together.

3

Geographical location refers to the boundaries of the areas that encompass units of land subject to Afforestation and Reforestation.

4

Activity data may be further subdivided according to climate zone, management system, soil type, vegetation type, tree species, ecological zone, national land classification or other criteria. Complete one row for eachsubdivision.

5

The signs for estimates of gains in carbon stocks are positive (+) and of losses in carbon stocks are negative (-).

6

Carbon stock gains and losses should be listed separately except in cases where, due to the methods used, it is technically impossible to separate information on gains and losses. In that case, net gains should bereported in the “Gains” column and net losses should be reported in the “Losses” column. The notation key IE should be filled in, in the other column.
7
Note that net change corresponds to increase/decrease of carbon stock (see table 4.2.6a of the IPCC good practice guidance for LULUCF).
8
This information is needed for the calculation of the net carbon stock changes in soils per area.
9
According to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, for the purposes of reporting, the signs for removals are always negative (-) and for emissions positive (+). Net changes in carbon stocks are converted to CO2 by multiplying C
by 44/12 and changing the sign for net CO2 removals to be negative (-) and for net CO2 emissions to be positive (+).
10
The value reported here could be an emission and not a carbon stock change.
11
If the Party reports HWP applying instantaneous oxidation. In this column the notation key IE should be filled in.
12
Report here information, if applicable, on changes in carbon stocks for the inventory year for all geographical locations that encompass units of land subject to Afforestation and Reforestation under Article 3.3 where
natural disturbances occurred in a year of the commitment period and whose associated emissions that exceeded the background level have been excluded from accounting.
13
Report here information on changes in carbon stocks for the inventory year for all geographical locations that encompass units of land subject to Afforestation and Reforestation under Article 3.3 where natural
disturbances occurred in the single year of the commitment period and whose associated emissions that exceeded the background level have been excluded from accounting.
14
Units of land subject to Afforestation/Reforestation under Article 3.3 otherwise subject to Forest Management. They are implicitly reported under AR. They are reported here for transparency and to fulfil therequirement of paragraph 2 (b) (ii) of the annex II to decision 2/CMP.8.
15This table sum up all emissions associated with natural disturbances in the reported year
16
Geographical location refers to the boundaries of the areas that encompass afforested/reforested units of land that have been subject to natural disturbances.
17
Here the type of natural disturbances that caused the emissions has to be listed; including, but not limited to, wildfires, insect and disease infestations, extreme weather events and/or geological disturbances.
18
Here sum all GHG emissions as converted in tons of CO2 equivalent.

2709
2710

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.72

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

2711
Table 2.4.6
Article 3.3 activities: Deforestation(1)INVENTORY YEAR:GEOGRAPHICALLOCATION(2)ACTIVITY DATA
Subdivision(3)Identification code

Year of conversion

Area subject to the activity

Area of drained organic soils(7)

(kha)

(kha)

Total for activity D

GEOGRAPHICALLOCATION (3)CHANGE IN CARBON STOCK (6)Carbon stock change inabove-ground biomass(4), (5)Identification code

Gains

LossesNetchangeCarbon stock change inbelow-ground biomass(4), (5)Gains

LossesNetchangeNet carbon
stock change
in litter (4)(Gg C)Net carbon
stock change
in deadwood(4)

Net carbon
stock change
in HWP(11)Net carbon stock insoils(4)Mineralsoils

Organic
soils(9)Net CO2emissions/removals(8)(Gg CO2)

Total for activity D

2712
2713

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.73

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
2714
INFORMATION ITEMUNITS OF LAND OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO FOREST MANAGEMENT(10)GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION (3)Identification code

ACTIVITY DATA
Subdivision(4)Area subject to the activity(kha)

Total for activity FM

2715
Documentation box
Parties should provide detailed explanation on the land use, land-use change and forestry sector in the relevant annex of the NIR: Supplementary information on LULUCF activities under the
Kyoto Protocol. Use this documentation box to provide references to relevant sections of the NIR if any additional details are needed to understand the content of this table.

2716
Note
1

Report here information on anthropogenic change in carbon stock for the inventory year for all geographical locations that encompass units of land subject to Deforestation under Article 3.3.

2

Geographical location refers to the boundaries of the areas that encompass units of land subject to Deforestation.

3

Activity data may be further subdivided according to climate zone, management system, soil type, vegetation type, tree species, ecological zone, national land classification or other criteria. Complete one row foreach subdivision.

4

The signs for estimates of gains in carbon stocks are positive (+) and of losses in carbon stocks are negative (-).

5

Carbon stock gains and losses should be listed separately except in cases where, due to the methods used, it is technically impossible to separate information on gains and losses. In that case, net gains should bereported in the “Gains” column and net losses should be reported in the “Losses” column. The notation key IE should be filled in, in the other column.

6

Note that net change corresponds to increase / decrease of carbon stock (see table 4.2.6a of the IPCC good practice guidance for LULUCF).
This information is needed for the calculation of the net carbon stock changes in soils per area.
8
According to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, for the purposes of reporting, the signs for removals are always negative (-) and for emissions positive (+). Net changes in carbon stocks are converted to CO2 by multiplying
C by 44/12 and changing the sign for net CO2 removals to be negative (-) and for net CO2 emissions to be positive (+).
9
The value reported here could be an emission and not a carbon stock change.
7

10

Units of land subject to Deforestation under Article 3.3 otherwise subject to elected activities under Article 3.4. They are implicitly reported under D. They are reported here for transparency and to fulfil therequirement of paragraph 2 (b) (ii) of the annex II to decision 2/CMP.8.

2717
2718

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.74

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

2719
Table 2.4.7
Article 3.4 activities: Forest Management(1)INVENTORY YEAR:GEOGRAPHICALLOCATION (2)Identification code

ACTIVITY DATA
Subdivision(3)Yearafforested/reforested lands under CEFC(11)

Year(12)2013

Area subject to the activity

Area of drained organic soils(7)

(kha)

(kha)

Total for activity FM

Total
Total

Total

Total
Total

…

deforested lands under CEFC(13)

Total

Total
Total

Total

Year(14)2013…

lands impacted by natural disturbances(15)Year(16)
2013

…

2720
2721

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.75

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
2722
Table 2.4.7 (Continued)
Article 3.4 activities: Forest Management(1)INVENTORY YEAR:GEOGRAPHICALLOCATION (3)CHANGE IN CARBON STOCK (7)Carbon stock change inabove-ground biomass(4), (5)Identification code

Gains

LossesNetchangeCarbon stock change inbelow-ground biomass(4), (5)Gains

LossesNetchangeNet carbon
stock change
in litter (4)(Gg C)Net carbon
stock change
in deadwood(4)

Net carbon
stock change
in HWP(10)Net carbon stockchange in soils(4)Mineralsoils

Organic
soils(9)Net CO2emissions/removals(8)(Gg CO2)

Total for activity FM

Total
Total

Total

Total
Total

Total

Total
Total

Total

2723
Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.76

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

2724
INFORMATION ITEMCARBON EQUIVALENT FOREST CONVERSION(17)GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION (18)

TOTAL CARBON STOCKS(19)ACTIVITY DATA
Subdivision(4)Identification code

Area converted(kha)losses(20)net gains(21)level to be achieved(22)(Gg C)

Total for forest plantation converted to non-forest cover
Total for equivalent lands converted to forest

2725
INFORMATION ITEMEMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH NATURAL DISTURBANCES(22)GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION (23)

Identification code

ACTIVITY DATA
(4)

Subdivision

Area subject to natural
disturbances(kha)

EMISSIONSType of natural
disturbances(24)

CO2

CH4

N 2O

Total CO2
equivalent(25)(Gg)

Total for activity AR
Total for activity FM

2726
Documentation box
Parties should provide detailed explanation on the land use, land-use change and forestry sector in the relevant annex of the NIR: Supplementary information on LULUCF activities under the
Kyoto Protocol. Use this documentation box to provide references to relevant sections of the NIR if any additional details are needed to understand the content of this table.

2727

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.77

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
Note
1

Here information on anthropogenic carbon stock change for the inventory year for all geographical locations that encompass land subject to Forest Management under Article 3.4.

2

Geographical location refers to the boundaries of the areas that encompass land subject to Forest Management.

3

Activity data may be further subdivided according to climate zone, management system, soil type, vegetation type, tree species, ecological zone, national land classification or other criteria. Complete one row for eachsubdivision.

4

The signs for estimates of gains in carbon stocks are positive (+) and of losses in carbon stocks are negative (-).

5

Carbon stock gains and losses should be listed separately except in cases where, due to the methods used, it is technically impossible to separate information on gains and losses. In that case, net gains should bereported in the “Gains” column and net losses should be reported in the “Losses” column. The notation key IE should be filled in, in the other column.

6

Note that net change corresponds to increase / decrease of carbon stock (see table 4.2.6a of the IPCC good practice guidance for LULUCF).
This information is needed for the calculation of the net carbon stock changes in soils per area.
8
According to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, for the purposes of reporting, the signs for removals are always negative (-) and for emissions positive (+). Net changes in carbon stocks are converted to CO2 by multiplying C
by 44/12 and changing the sign for net CO2 removals to be negative (-) and for net CO2 emissions to be positive (+).
9
The value reported here could be an emission and not a carbon stock change.
10
If the Party reports HWP applying instantaneous oxidation. In this column the notation key IE should be filled in.
11
Report here information, if applicable, on changes in carbon stocks for the inventory year for all geographical locations that encompass lands subject to Forest Management under Article 3.4 that have been converted
in a year of the commitment period to a "Carbon Equivalent Forest" (see paragraphs 37-39 of the annex to decision 2/CMP.7).
12
Report here information on changes in carbon stocks for the inventory year for all geographical locations that encompass lands subject to Forest Management under Article 3.4 that have been converted in the single
year of the commitment period to a "Carbon Equivalent Forest" (see paragraphs 37-39 of the annex to decision 2/CMP.7
13
Report here information, if applicable, on changes in carbon stocks for the inventory year for all geographical locations that encompass lands subject to Forest Management under Article 3.4 which forest cover has
been harvested in a year of the commitment period and for which, in the same year, another land has been converted to a "Carbon Equivalent Forest" (see paragraphs 37-39 of the annex to decision 2/CMP.7
14
Report here information on changes in carbon stocks for the inventory year for all geographical locations that encompass lands subject to Forest Management under Article 3.4 which forest cover has been harvested in
the single year of the commitment period and for which, in the same year, another land has been converted to a "Carbon Equivalent Forest" (see paragraphs 37-39 of the annex to decision 2/CMP.7
15
Report here information, if applicable, on changes in carbon stocks for the inventory year for all geographical locations that encompass lands subject to Forest Management under Article 3.4 where natural
disturbances occurred in a year of the commitment period and whose associated emissions that exceeded the background level have been excluded from accounting.
16
Report here information on changes in carbon stocks for the inventory year for all geographical locations that encompass lands subject to Forest Management under Article 3.4 where natural disturbances occurred in
the single year of the commitment period and whose associated emissions that exceeded the background level have been excluded from accounting.
17
Report here information on carbon stocks for the inventory year for all geographical locations that encompass lands subject to the "Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion" provisions, within Forest Management under
Article 3.4 (see paragraphs 37-39 of the annex to decision 2/CMP.7), since the beginning of the second commitment period.
18
Geographical location refers to the boundaries of the areas that encompass lands subject to the "Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion" within Forest Manageemnt under Article 3.4 (see paragraphs 37-39 of the annex
to decision 2/CMP.7).
19
Carbon stocks reported under "losses", "net gains" and "level to be achieved" have to be calculated on same carbon pools applying for each carbon pool the same methodological tier.
20
Report here the total carbon stock losses caused by the forest-cover loss. Net carbon stock losses means the algebric addition of all changes estimated to occur in all reported carbon pools because of the forest-cover
removal.
21
Report here the current total net carbon stocks gains since the forest plantation. Net carbon stock gains means the algebric addition of all carbon stock changes changes occurred in all reported carbon pools since theestablishment of the forest.
22
This table sum up all emissions associated with natural disturbances in the reported year
23
Geographical location refers to the boundaries of the areas that encompass lands under Forest Management that have been subject to natural disturbances.
24
Here the type of natural disturbances that caused the emissions has to be listed; including, but not limited to, wildfires, insect and disease infestations, extreme weather events and/or geological disturbances.
25
Here sum all GHG emissions as converted in tons of CO2 equivalent.
72728
Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.78

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

2729
Table 2.4.8
Elected Article 3.4 activities(1), (2), (3), (4), (5)INVENTORY YEAR:GEOGRAPHICALLOCATION(6)ACTIVITY DATA
Activity(7)Identification code

Subdivision(8)Area subject to the activity

Area of drained organic soils(13)

(kha)

(kha)

Total for activity…

GEOGRAPHICALLOCATION (3)Identification code

CHANGE IN CARBON STOCK (11)

Carbon stock change inabove-ground biomass(9),Carbon stock change inbelow-ground biomass(9),

Gains

Gains

(10)

LossesNetchange(10)

LossesNet carbon
stock change
in litter(9)Netchange(Gg C)Net carbon
stock change
in deadwood(9)Net carbon
stock change
in HWP(15)Net carbon stock insoils(9)Mineralsoils

Organic
soils(12)Net CO2emissions/removals(14)(Gg CO2)

Total for activity

…

2730
2731

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.79

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
2732
Documentation box
Parties should provide detailed explanation on the land use, land-use change and forestry sector in the relevant annex of the NIR: Supplementary information on LULUCF activities under the
Kyoto Protocol. Use this documentation box to provide references to relevant sections of the NIR if any additional details are needed to understand the content of this table.

2733
Note
1

For each elected activity, this table and all relevant CRF tables should also be reported for the base year.

2

If Cropland Management has been elected, report here information on anthropogenic carbon stock change for the inventory year for all geographical locations that encompass land subject to Cropland Management
under Article 3.4.

3

If Grazing land Management has been elected, report here information on anthropogenic carbon stock change for the inventory year for all geographical locations that encompass land subject to Grazing landManagement under Article 3.4.

4

If Revegetation has been elected, this table and all relevant CRF tables should also be reported for the base year for Revegetation.

5

If Wetland Drainage and Rewetting has been elected, report here information on anthropogenic carbon stock change for the inventory year for all geographical locations that encompass land subject to Wetland
Drainage and Rewetting under Article 3.4.

6

Geographical location refers to the boundaries of the areas that encompass land subject to the activity.
Put here the identification acronym of the elected activity i.e. CM for Cropland Management, GM for Grazing land Management, R for Revegetation, WDR for Wetland Drainage and Rewetting
8
Activity data may be further subdivided according to climate zone, management system, soil type, vegetation type, tree species, ecological zone, national land classification or other criteria. Complete one row for eachsubdivision.
9
The signs for estimates of gains in carbon stocks are positive (+) and of losses in carbon stocks are negative (-).
10
Carbon stock gains and losses should be listed separately except in cases where, due to the methods used, it is technically impossible to separate information on gains and losses. In that case, net gains should bereported in the “Gains” column and net losses should be reported in the “Losses” column. The notation key IE should be filled in, in the other column.
11
Note that net change corresponds to increase / decrease of carbon stock (see table 4.2.6b of the IPCC good practice guidance for LULUCF).
12
The value reported here could be an emission and not a carbon stock change.
13
This information is needed for the calculation of the net carbon stock changes in soils per area.
14
According to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, for the purposes of reporting, the signs for removals are always negative (-) and for emissions positive (+). Net changes in carbon stocks are converted to CO2 by multiplying
C by 44/12 and changing the sign for net CO2 removals to be negative (-) and for net CO2 emissions to be positive (+).
15
If the Party reports HWP applying instantaneous oxidation. In this column the notation key IE should be filled in.
72734

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.80

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

Table 2.4.9
Direct N2O emissions from N fertilization(1), (2) and N2O emissions from disturbance associated with land-use conversion
to cropland(1), (2)Inventory year:

Identification code of geographical location

ACTIVITY DATAEMISSIONS

Total amount of fertilizer applied

N2O(Gg N/year)

(Gg)

(3)

A.1 Afforestation/Reforestation

B.1. Forest Management(4)Land area converted (kha)(7), (8)A.2. Deforestation

B.2. Cropland Management (if elected)(9), (10)2735Documentation box
Parties should provide detailed explanation on the land use, land-use change and forestry sector in the relevant annex of
the NIR: Supplementary information on LULUCF activities under the Kyoto Protocol. Use this documentation box toprovide references to relevant sections of the NIR if any additional details are needed to understand the content of thistable.

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.81

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
Note
1

N2O emissions from fertilization for Cropland Management, Grazing Land Management, Revegetation and Wetland Drainage andRewetting should be reported in the Agriculture sector. If a Party is not able to separate fertilizer applied to Forest Land from
Agriculture, it may report all N2O emissions from fertilization in the Agriculture sector. This should be explicitly indicated in the
documentation box.

2

Direct N2O emissions from fertilization are estimated following section 3.2.1.4.1 of the IPCC good practice guidance for LULUCF
based on the amount of fertilizer applied to land under Forest Management. The indirect N2O emissions from Afforestation and
Reforestation and land under Forest Management are estimated as part of the total indirect emissions in the Agriculture sector based on
the total amount of fertilizer used in the country. Parties should show that double counting of N2O emissions from fertilization with
Agriculture sector estimates has been avoided.

3

Methodologies for N2O emissions from disturbance associated with land-use conversion to Croplands are found in section 3.3.2.3.1.1 ofthe IPCC good practice guidance for LULUCF. N2O emissions from fertilization in the preceding land use and new land use should not
be reported here. Parties should avoid double counting with N2O emissions from drainage and from cultivation of organic soils reported
in the Agriculture sector under Cultivation of Histosols.

4

According to the IPCC good practice guidance for LULUCF N2O emissions from disturbance of soils are only relevant for land
conversions to Cropland. N2O emissions associated with Wetland Drainage are reported in table 9. only.

5

Geographical location refers to the boundaries of the areas that encompass units of land subject to Afforestation and Reforestation.

6

Geographical location refers to the boundaries of the areas that encompass land subject to Forest Management.
Geographical location refers to the boundaries of the areas that encompass units of land subject to Deforestation.
8
N2O emissions associated with Deforestation followed by the establishment of Cropland shall be reported under Deforestation even if
Cropland Management is not elected under Article 3.4.
9
Geographical location refers to the boundaries of the areas that encompass land subject to Cropland Management, if elected.
10This includes N2O emissions in land subject to Cropland Management from disturbance of mineral soils due to the conversion to
Cropland of lands other than Forest Lands. N2O emissions in land subject to Cropland Management from disturbance of organic soils
are included in the Agriculture sector under Cultivation of Histosols
7

2736
2737

2.82

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

2738
Table 2.4.10
CH4 and N2O emissions from drainage and rewetting of soils(1)Inventory year:
ACTIVITY DATA
(4)

Identification code of geographical location

Area of soils(kha)

EMISSIONS

N2O

CH4
(Gg)

Total drainage
Forest Management(organic soils)

B.5 Wetland Drainage (if WDR elected)(2)Total for organic soils
Total for mineral soils
Organic soils
Mineral soils
Organic soils
Mineral soils
Organic soils
Mineral soils
Total Rewetting (if WDR elected)(3)

Total for organic soils
Total for mineral soils
Organic soils
Mineral soils
Organic soils
Mineral soils
Organic soils
Mineral soils

2739
2740

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.83

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
2741
Documentation box
Parties should provide detailed explanation on the land use, land-use change and forestry sector in the relevant annex of
the NIR: Supplementary information on LULUCF activities under the Kyoto Protocol. Use this documentation box toprovide references to relevant sections of the NIR if any additional details are needed to understand the content of thistable.

Note1

Methodologies for estimating CH4 and N2O emissions from drainage and rewetting of soils are addressed in XXX

2

N2O emissions from drainage of soils do not include Cropland and Grassland soils since those are covered in the Agriculture sector
under Cultivation of Histosols.

3

CH4 and N2O emissions from Rewetting of soils do not include Rice Cultivation soils since those are covered in the Agriculture sector.

4Geographical location refers to the boundaries of the areas that encompass land subject to Forest Management or Wetland Drainage (ifelected).

2742
2743

2.84

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

2744
Table 2.4.11
Carbon emissions from lime application(1)Inventory year:
Identification code of geographical location

ACTIVITY DATAEMISSIONS

Total amount of lime
appliedCarbon

(kha)

(Gg)

(2), (9), (10)A.1 Afforestation/Reforestation

Total for limestone
Total for dolomite
Limestone (CaCO3)
Dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2)
Limestone (CaCO3)
Dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2)A.2. Deforestation(3), (9), (10)Total for limestone
Total for dolomite
Limestone (CaCO3)
Dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2)
Limestone (CaCO3)
Dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2)
B.1. Forest Management(4), (9), (10)Total for limestone
Total for dolomite
Limestone (CaCO3)
Dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2)
Limestone (CaCO3)
Dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2)B.2. Cropland Management (if elected)(5), (9), (10)Total for limestone
Total for dolomite
Limestone (CaCO3)
Dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2)
Limestone (CaCO3)
Dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2)B.3. Grazing Land Management (if elected) (6), (9), (10)Total for limestone
Total for dolomite
Limestone (CaCO3)
Dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2)
Limestone (CaCO3)
Dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2)

2745
2746

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.85

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
2747
Table 2.4.11 (Continued)
Carbon emissions from lime application(1)Inventory year:
Identification code of geographical location

ACTIVITY DATAEMISSIONS

Total amount of lime
appliedCarbon

(kha)

(Gg)

(6), (9), (10)B.4. Revegetation (if elected)

Total for limestone
Total for dolomite
Limestone (CaCO3)
Dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2)
Limestone (CaCO3)
Dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2)
B.5. Wetland Drainage and Rewetting (if elected) (8), (9), (10)Total for limestone
Total for dolomite
Limestone (CaCO3)
Dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2)
Limestone (CaCO3)
Dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2)

2748
Documentation box
Parties should provide detailed explanation on the land use, land-use change and forestry sector in the relevant annex of
the NIR: Supplementary information on LULUCF activities under the Kyoto Protocol. Use this documentation box toprovide references to relevant sections of the NIR if any additional details are needed to understand the content of thistable.

2749
Note
1

Carbon emissions from agricultural lime application are addressed in sections 3.3.1.2.1.1 and 3.3.2.2.1.1 of the IPCC good practiceguidance for LULUCF.

2

Geographical location refers to the boundaries of the areas that encompass units of land subject to Afforestation and Reforestation.

3

Geographical location refers to the boundaries of the areas that encompass units of land subject to Deforestation.

4

Geographical location refers to the boundaries of the areas that encompass land subject to Forest Management.

5

Geographical location refers to the boundaries of the areas that encompass land subject to Cropland Management, if elected.

6Geographical location refers to the boundaries of the areas that encompass land subject to Grazing Land Management, if elected.

789Geographical location refers to the boundaries of the areas that encompass land subject to Revegetation, if elected.
Geographical location refers to the boundaries of the areas that encompass land subject to Wetland Drainage and Rewetting, if elected.
If Parties are not able to separate lime application for different geographical locations, they should include liming for all geographicallocations in the total.

10

2750

A Party may report aggregate estimates for total lime applications when data are not available for limestone and dolomite.

2751

2.86

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

2752
2753
Table 2.4.12
GHG emissions from biomass burning
Inventory year:
ACTIVITY DATA
Identification code ofgeographical location(8)

Description

Unit

Area (AB) or
biomassburned (BB)ha or kg
dm

EMISSIONS
CO2 (9)
ValuesCH4 (9)N2O(Gg)

A.1 Afforestation/Reforestation
Total for controlled burning
Total for wildfires
Controlled burning
Wildfires
Controlled burning
Wildfires
A.2. Deforestation(2), (10)Total for controlled burning
Total for wildfires
Controlled burning
Wildfires
Controlled burning
Wildfires
B.1. Forest Management(3), (10)Total for controlled burning
Total for wildfires
Controlled burning
Wildfires
Controlled burning
Wildfires
B.2. Cropland Management(if elected)(4), (10), (11)Total for controlled burning
Total for wildfires
Controlled burning
Wildfires
Controlled burning
Wildfires
B.3. Grazing Land Management(if elected) (5), (10), (12)Total for controlled burning
Total for wildfires
Controlled burning
Wildfires
Controlled burning
Wildfires

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.87

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
2754
Table 2.4.12 (Continued)
GHG emissions from biomass burning
Inventory year:
ACTIVITY DATA
Identification code ofgeographical location(8)

Description

Unit

Area (AB) or
biomassburned (BB)ha or kg
dm

EMISSIONS
CO2 (9)
ValuesCH4 (9)N2O(Gg)

B.4. Revegetation (if elected) (6), (10),(11), (12)Total for controlled burning
Total for wildfires
Controlled burning
Wildfires
Controlled burning
Wildfires
B.5. Wetland Drainage andRewetting (if elected)(7), (10), (11)Total for controlled burning
Total for wildfires
Controlled burning
Wildfires
Controlled burning
Wildfires

2755
Documentation box
Parties should provide detailed explanation on the land use, land-use change and forestry sector in the relevant annex of
the NIR: Supplementary information on LULUCF activities under the Kyoto Protocol. Use this documentation box toprovide references to relevant sections of the NIR if any additional details are needed to understand the content of thistable.

2756
Note
1

Geographical location refers to the boundaries of the areas that encompass units of land subject to Deforestation.

3

Geographical location refers to the boundaries of the areas that encompass land subject to Forest Management, if elected

4

Geographical location refers to the boundaries of the areas that encompass land subject to Cropland Management, if elected

5

Geographical location refers to the boundaries of the areas that encompass land subject to Grazing Land Management, if elected

6

Geographical location refers to the boundaries of the areas that encompass land subject to Revegetation, if elected

7
8

9

2757

Geographical locations refers to the boundaries of the areas that encompass units of land subject to Afforestation and Reforestation.

2

Geographical location refers to the boundaries of the areas that encompass land subject to Wetland Drainage and Rewetting, if elected.
For each activity, activity data should be selected between area burned (AB) or biomass burned (BB). Units will be ha for area burned,
and kg dm for biomass burned. The implied emission factor will refer to the selected activity data with an automatic change in the units.
If CO2 emissions from biomass burning are not already included in Tables 4, 5, 6 and 7, they should be reported here. This also includes
the carbon component of CH4. This should be clearly documented in the documentation box and in the NIR. Parties that include all
carbon stock changes in the carbon stock Tables 4, 5, 6 and 7, should report IE (included elsewhere) in the CO2 column.

10Parties should report controlled/prescribed burning and wildfires emissions separately, where appropriate.

11

Burning of agricultural residues is included in the Agriculture sector.

12Greenhouse gas emissions from prescribed savannah burning are reported in the Agriculture sector.

2.88

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

2758
2759

2.4.4.2

D OCUMENTATION

2760
2761
2762
2763

Documentation requirements under the Kyoto Protocol are outlined in the relevant decisions of UNFCCC as partof the description of the requirements for inventory management 62 . The information required includes all
disaggregated emission factors, activity data, and documentation about how these factors and data have been
generated and aggregated for the preparation of the inventory.

2764
2765
2766
2767
2768
2769

It is good practice to document and archive the underlying data and description of, or reference to, methods,
assumptions and parameters used, which are used to produce estimates of emissions by sources and removals bysinks of greenhouse gases that would allow independent reviewers to follow the process of developing thereported estimates. Documented data and explanation of methods, and the rational for their selection should be
provided for both steps: the identification of land and the assessment of carbon stock changes and the emissionsof non-CO2 greenhouse gases.

2770
2771
2772
2773

Documentation should also include information about uncertainty assessment (see also Section 2.4.3 Uncertainty
Assessment), QA/QC procedures, external and internal reviews, verification activities and key category
identification and planned improvements (see 2006 IPCC Guidelines Volume 1, General Guidance andReporting).

2774
2775

ACTIVITIES DEFINITION AND IDENTIFICATION

2776
2777
2778
2779
2780
2781
2782

It is good practice to explain how the definitions of Forest Management and of the elected Article 3.4 activities
have been interpreted according to national circumstances. For instance, if only a part of the managed forests
reported in the UNFCCC greenhouse gas inventory is included under forest management in the Kyoto Protocol
reporting, the criteria that are used to distinguish forests under “forest management” from “managed forests”
should be provided. Differences between croplands (or grasslands) in the UNFCCC greenhouse gas inventory
and lands undergoing cropland management (or grazing land management), as well as the difference between thewetland and other organic land under Kyoto Protocol reporting should also be documented.

2783
2784

DATA DOCUMENTATION

2785
2786
2787
2788
2789
2790
2791

When using Reporting Method 1, the areas encompassed by the geographical boundaries resulting from thestratification of a country, should be identified by unique serial numbers in the tables. These serial numbers areto be cross-referenced to a database or other archive (the LULUCF Archive) specifying the locations in terms ofestablished legal or administrative boundaries, or by means of an existing coordinate system, for example anestablished national grid system, the UTM (Universal Transverse Mercator) grid or latitude and longitude. Whenusing Reporting Method 2, land-area identification should be possible through the databases associated with theuse of this reporting method.

2792
2793

It is good practice to ensure that the documentation of estimates of greenhouse gas emissions and removals
include:

2794
2795



The sources of all data used in the calculations (i.e., complete citations for the statistical database(s) fromwhich data were collected);

2796
2797
2798



The information, rationale and assumptions that were used to develop reported data and results, in cases they
were not directly available from databases (for instance if interpolation or extrapolation methods have been
applied) and a comparison to other published emission factors and explanation of any significant differences

2799



The frequency of data collection; and

2800
2801



Estimates of the associated uncertainties together with a description of the major sources of theuncertainties.

2802

62

Paragraph 16 (a) in the Annex to the draft decision19/CMP.1 (Article 5.1), contained in FCCC/KP/2005/8/Add.3, p.19.

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.89

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
2803
2804

DESCRIPTION OF THE METHODS USED IN LAND IDENTIFICATION AND
ESTIMATION OF EMISSIONS AND REMOVALS

2805

It is good practice to document the methods with the following information:

2806
2807



Choice of reporting methods for lands subject to Articles 3.3 and 3.4 (Reporting Method 1 or 2) or adescription of the reporting method, if a combination of the two is used;

2808
2809



Description of the approach used for geographical location and identification of the geographicalboundaries, lands, and units of land; references of maps used, if any;

2810



Choice of tier(s) used for estimating greenhouse gas emissions and removals;

2811
2812



Methods used for estimating carbon stock changes, non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions and magnitudes of
the corresponding uncertainties;

2813



Choice of activity data;

2814



Identification of key categories

2815



If Tier 1 is used: all values of default parameters and emission/removal factors used;

2816
2817



If Tier 2 is used: all values and references of default and national parameters and emission/removal factors
used;

2818
2819
2820
2821
2822
2823



If Tier 3 is used: Parties should, as applicable, report information on: basis and type of model, application
and adaptation of the model, main equations/processes, key assumptions, domain of application, how themodel parameters were estimated, description of key inputs and outputs, details of calibration and model
evaluation, uncertainty and sensitivity analysis, QA/QC procedures adopted and references to peer-reviewed
literature, description of the process by which carbon stock changes and emissions or removals are
estimated;

2824



In case of Tier 2 or 3 the documentation should justify the use of specific parameters, factors or models;

2825
2826



Transparent and verifiable information that demonstrates that the pools not included in the reporting are notsources.

2827
2828

ANALYSIS OF FLUCTUATIONS

2829
2830
2831
2832
2833

It is good practice to explain significant fluctuations in reported emissions or removals between years. The
reasons for any changes in activity levels and in parameter values from year to year should be documented. If thereason for the changes is an improvement in methods, it is good practice to recalculate results for the preceding
years by using the new methods, new activity and/or new parameter values (see Chapter 5, Section 5.6 of the
GPG-LULUCF ‘Time series consistency and recalculations’)

2834
2835

2.4.5

2836
2837
2838
2839
2840
2841

It is good practice to implement quality control checks as outlined in Volume 1, Chapter 6 (Quality Assurance
and Quality Control) of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines on category-specific QC Procedures, and expert review of theemission estimates. Additional quality control checks and quality assurance procedures may also be applicable,
particularly if higher-tier methods are used to estimate carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas
emissions. A detailed treatment of inventory QA/QC for field measurement is described in Appendix 4A.3 of the
GPG-LULUCF.

2842

Some important issues are highlighted and summarised below.

2843
2844
2845

When compiling data, it is good practice to cross-check estimates of emissions and removals of greenhousegases against independent estimates. The inventory agency should ensure that estimates undergo quality control
by:

2846
2847



Cross-referencing aggregated production data (e.g., crop yield, tree growth) and reported area statistics withnational totals or other sources of national data (e.g., agriculture / forestry statistics);

2848



Back-calculating national emission/removal factors from aggregated emissions and other data;

2849



Comparing reported national totals with default values and data from other countries.

2.90

Quality assurance and quality control

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

2850
2851
2852

It is also good practice to verify that the sum of the disaggregated areas used to estimate the various
emissions/removals equals the total area under the activity, reported as per guidance in Volume 1, Chapter 6 of2006 IPCC Guidelines (using the LU/LUC matrix).

2853
2854

2.4.6

Verification

2855
2856

Good practice guidance for verification is given in Chapter 5, Section 5.7 of the GPG-LULUCF (Verification)
and Chapter 4, Section 4.3.2.3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Choice of Activity Data).

2857[Consider adding an example for specific LULUCF issues here]

2858

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.91

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
2859

2.5

AFFORESTATION AND REFORESTATION

2860
2861

This section addresses specific methods applicable to afforestation and reforestation activities and should be readin conjunction with the general discussion in Sections 2.2 to 2.4.

2862
2863

2.5.1

2864
2865
2866
2867
2868
2869
2870
2871
2872
2873

According to the definitions of the Marrakesh Accord, both afforestation and reforestation refer to direct humaninduced conversion of land to forest from another land use. The definitions do not include regrowth of forests
following harvest or natural disturbance of forests. This is because these losses of forest cover are only
temporary and therefore not considered deforestation: the land remains as forested land. Harvesting followed byre-establishment of forest is considered a forest management activity (Section 2.7). The distinction between
afforestation and reforestation is due to the period of time the land has been non-forest. Afforestation occurs onland that has not been forest for at least 50 years prior to the start of the commitment period. Reforestation
occurs on land that has been forest more recently, though was non-forest on or at some time since, 31 December
1989. Land that was forest on 1st January 1990 can be identified as reforestation if it was subject to deforestation
to non-forest land after this date, and forest re-establishment subsequently occurs.

2874
2875
2876
2877
2878
2879

For the identification of units of land, afforestation and reforestation will be discussed together because the two
definitions differ only by the time since the area was last forested, and because the same carbon reporting andaccounting rules apply to both activities. When calculating changes in carbon stocks following afforestation andreforestation, the assumptions about the initial size and composition of the litter, dead wood, and soil organiccarbon pools should reflect the preceding land-use type and history, rather than the distinction between
afforested and reforested sites.

2880

The annual inventory should, at a minimum, identify (for Reporting Method 1 in Section 2.2.2):

2881
2882
2883
2884
2885
2886
2887
2888
2889
2890



The geographical location of the boundaries of the areas that encompass units of land subject toafforestation/reforestation activities (including those units of land subject to activities under Article 3.3, ofthe Kyoto Protocol which would otherwise be included in land subject to forest management or elected
activities under Article 3.4, of the Kyoto Protocol, because reporting of Article 3.3 activities takes
precedence over Article 3.4 activities, see Section 1.1). Land areas previously considered subject todeforestation which are subsequently subject to reforestation should also be included. Lands that would be
subject to afforestation/reforestation activity under Article 3.3 but are instead accounted for as forest
management activity under the Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion provision should be identified
separately (section 2.7.7). The geographical boundaries which are reported should correspond to strata in theestimation of land areas as described in Chapter 3, Volume 4, 2006 IPCC Guidelines;

2891
2892
2893
2894



For each of these areas, or strata, estimates of the area of the units of land affected byafforestation/reforestation activities in the three subcategories, namely those subject to Article 3.3, thosesubject to Article 3.3 that would otherwise be subject to Article 3.4; and those subject to deforestation thatare subsequently subject to reforestation. This is to avoid double counting;

2895
2896
2897
2898



The year of the start of afforestation/reforestation activities, which will be between 1 January 1990 and theend of the inventory year. Within the boundary of the areas, afforestation/reforestation activities may havestarted in different years. It is good practice to group afforestation and reforestation units of land by age andto report the area in each age class separately; and

2899
2900
2901



The area of units of land subject to afforestation/reforestation in each productivity class and species
combination to assign growth rate estimates and to support the calculation of carbon stock changes and nonCO2 greenhouse emissions.

2902
2903
2904
2905
2906
2907
2908
2909

A more comprehensive system (Reporting Method 2 in Section 2.2.2) identifies each unit of land subject toafforestation/reforestation activities since 1990 (again in the two subcategories – Article 3.3 and Article 3.3 thatwould otherwise be subject to Article 3.4; note that if areas under the Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion
provision exist, these should be identified separately within the area subject to Article 3.4), using the polygon
boundaries, a coordinate system (e.g., the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Grid or Latitude/Longitude), ora legal description (e.g., those used by land-titles offices) of the location of the land subject to afforestation or
reforestation activities. Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Basis for Consistent Representationof Land Areas) discusses in detail the possible approaches for consistent representation of land areas.

2.92

Definitional issues and reporting requirements

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

2912

Choice of methods for identifying units of land
subject to direct human-induced afforestation/
reforestation

2913
2914
2915
2916
2917
2918
2919
2920

Parties need to report on the carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions during the commitment period onareas that have been subject to afforestation and reforestation (AR) activities since 1990. The first step in thisprocess is to make national parameter choices for the forest definition within the ranges allowed by the
Marrakesh Accords, namely 0.05 – 1 ha for minimum area, minimum tree crown cover of 10-30% (or equivalent
stocking level), minimum height at maturity of 2 to 5 meters and to report on these parameters, in the annual
greenhouse gas inventory as set out in Table 2.4.1. As explained in Section 2.2.6.1 it is also good practice tochoose a parameter for the minimum width of forest areas. Once the parameters have been chosen, they willallow identification of units of land subject to afforestation and reforestation.

2921
2922

The identification of units of land subject to afforestation / reforestation activities requires the delineation ofareas that:

2923
2924



Meet or exceed the size of the country’s minimum area in the applied forest definition (i.e., 0.05 to 1 ha),
and

2925



Did not meet the definition of forest on, or at some point after, 31 December 1989, and

2926
2927



Do meet the definition of forest at the time of the assessment as the result of direct human-induced activities;
and

2928



Do not meet the criteria for Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion at the time of the assessment

2929
2930

Note that the definition of forest can be met by young trees that do not yet meet the minimum height or crowncover criteria, provided that they are expected to reach these parameter thresholds at maturity.

2931
2932
2933
2934
2935
2936
2937
2938
2939
2940
2941
2942

It is good practice to distinguish those areas that did not meet the crown cover threshold in the definition offorest, for example because of recent harvest or natural disturbances, from those areas that were non-forest on orat some point after 31 December 1989, because only the latter areas are eligible for afforestation andreforestation activities under the Marrakesh Accords. The Marrakesh Accords require that Parties provide
information on the criteria used to distinguish harvesting or forest disturbance that is followed by the reestablishment of a forest from deforestation63. It is good practice to apply the same criteria when evaluating
whether a unit of land meets the definition of forest. For example, if a country uses the criterion “time since
harvest” to distinguish temporary forest cover loss from deforestation, and specifies that a harvested area will
regenerate within X years, then only those areas that have been harvested and that have not regenerated after X
years would be eligible for reforestation, as only they would be considered non-forest. Similarly, areas that havebeen disturbed by wildfire or other natural disturbances and that have not regenerated to forest after X years
would be classified as non-forest and would therefore be eligible for reforestation.

2943
2944
2945
2946
2947
2948
2949

As discussed in Section 2.2.2 (Reporting methods for Lands subject to Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities), Parties
have the option either to report a complete inventory of all units of land subject to Article 3.3 activities, or to
stratify the land into areas, i.e., defining the boundaries of these areas, and to then develop for each area
estimates or inventories of the units of land subject to afforestation, reforestation and deforestation activities.
Combined approaches are also possible: complete spatial inventories of all units of land can be developed forsome strata, while estimates based on sampling approaches are developed for other strata in the country,
ensuring consistency in land representation in order to avoid double counting.

2950
2951
2952
2953
2954
2955
2956
2957

A Party’s choice of methods for the development of an inventory of afforestation and reforestation activities will
depend on the national circumstances. It is good practice to use Approach 3 in Chapter 3 Volume 4 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines (Consistent Representation of Lands, Section 3.3) for the identification of units of land subject
to afforestation and reforestation since 1990. As discussed above, this requires that the spatial resolution of thesystems in Approach 3 meets the requirements for the identification of the minimum forest area of 0.05 to 1 ha.
The methods available to identify lands subject to afforestation and reforestation activities are discussed in
Section 2.9.2. It is good practice to provide information on uncertainties in the estimates of the total area of theunits of land subject to afforestation and reforestation as discussed in Section 2.4.3 of this volume.

2910

2.5.2

2911

63

See paragraph 8(b) of the Annex to draft decision -/CMP.1 (Article 7), contained in document FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.3,
p.23.

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.93

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
2958
2959
2960
2961
2962
2963

It is good practice to provide information demonstrating that all afforestation and reforestation activities
included in the identified units of lands are direct human-induced 64 . Relevant information includes
documentation which demonstrates that a decision has been taken that aimed at replanting or promoting or
allowing forest regeneration, for example, through laws, policies, regulations, management decisions andpractices. In the absence of such documentation or information, forest regrowth as a consequence ofabandonment does not qualify as direct human induced afforestation or reforestation.

2964
2965
2966
2967
2968
2969
2970
2971
2972
2973
2974
2975

In some cases it may not be clear whether newly established trees will pass the forest threshold. The difference
between afforestation/reforestation activities and revegetation is that, revegetation does not lead to meet (in X
years) the Party’s definition of a forest (i.e., the height at maturity or the minimum crown closure). Where it isuncertain whether the trees on a unit of land will pass the thresholds of the definition of forest, it is good practice
not to report these areas as afforested or reforested land, and to await confirmation (at a later time) that theseparameter thresholds have been or will be passed. Prior to meeting the definition of afforestation or reforestation,
the carbon stock changes on these units of land could be reported in the land-use category in which the land wasreported prior to the land-use change, provided that this category is included in the national inventory, e.g., as
cropland or revegetation. This approach is consistent with the treatment of deforestation, i.e., units of land thathave not been confirmed as deforested remain in the forest category – see Section 2.6.2.1. A decision tree fordetermining whether an area will qualify for afforestation/reforestation or for revegetation is given in Figure
2.5.1

2976

64

Decision 16/CMP.1 defines afforestation and reforestation as "... the direct human-induced conversion of [non forested]
land ... to forested land through planting, seeding and/or the human-induced promotion of natural seed sources.” Decision
2/CMP.7 maintained the same definitions.

The 2006 IPCC Guidelines give the following definition of Land converted to Forest Land: “Land is converted to Forest
Land by afforestation and reforestation, either by natural or artificial regeneration (including plantations). The
anthropogenic conversion includes promotion of natural re-growth (e.g., by improving the water balance of soil bydrainage), establishment of plantations on non-forest lands or previously unmanaged Forest Land, lands of settlements andindustrial sites, abandonment of croplands, pastures or other managed lands, which re-grow to forest.” It should be notedthat the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, used for reporting under the UNFCCC, use the term “afforestation and reforestation” witha broad meaning. The reporting under the Kyoto Protocol for the second commitment period follows the rules defined in
Decision 2/CMP.7 and any other relevant CMP decision. According to the draft decision -/CMP.8 (Implications of theimplementation of decisions 2/CMP.7 to 5/CMP.7 on the previous decisions on methodological issues related to the Kyoto
Protocol, including those relating to Articles 5, 7 and 8 of the Kyoto Protocol), Annex II, paragraph 4, page 7, specificinformation to be reported for activities under Article 3, paragraph 3, shall include information that demonstrates that
activities under Article 3, paragraph 3, began on or after 1 January 1990 and before 31 December of the last year of thecommitment period, and are directly human-induced. The demonstration of direct-human induced afforestation andreforestation is therefore a specific requirement under the Kyoto Protocol, additional to the reporting requirements under
the UNFCCC. Due to this difference, some areas that have turned into forest since 1990 in the UNFCCC inventory may nothave been converted through direct human- induced activity.

2.94

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

2977
2978

Figure 2.5.1

Decision tree for determining whether a unit of land qualifies for direct
human-induced (dhi) Afforestation/Reforestation (AR) or Revegetation (RV)Start

Did theunit of land NOT meet thedefinition of a forest on
or at some point after 31 December
1989?

Yes
No

Are trees growing on the unit of land
during the commitment period?

No

Yes

Do the trees
exceed or have thepotential to exceed your selected
thresholds of crown coverand height atmaturity

No

Yes
Yes
Are thetrees growing
the result of planting or seeding
activities?
(establishment of forest)

No
Are thetrees growing as
the result of policy regulation,
management decisions or practices aimed
to allowing forest regeneration?

No

Not eligible for dhi AR

NoClassify as dhi AR

Yes

Is the unit of land meeting the criteria for
CEFC1?

YesClassify as FM

2979
2980
2981

Note:
1. Equivalent Forest Conversion (CEFC): refer to Section 2.7.7: Carbon Equivalent Forest

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.95

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
2982
2983
2984

Links with methodologies in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines on reporting of land areas and carbon stock changes andnon-CO2 emissions in inventories under the UNFCCC are given in the Box 2.5.1.

2985
2986

BOX 2.5.1

2987
2988

LINKS WITH THE 2006 IPCC GUIDELINES

2989
2990
2991
2992
2993
2994
2995

Chapter 4 (Forest Land), Section 4.3 (Land Converted to Forest Land): methodological guidanceon annual estimation of emissions and removals of greenhouse gases, which occur on land
converted to Forest Land from different land-uses, through afforestation and reforestation, either
by natural or artificial regeneration (including plantations). Note that some areas that have turned
into forest since 1990 in the UNFCCC inventory may not have been converted through direct
human-induced activity.

2996

2998

Choice of methods for estimating carbon stockchanges and non-CO 2 emissions

2999
3000
3001
3002
3003
3004
3005
3006

Estimation of carbon stock changes from afforestation and reforestation activities (including forest establishment
accounted for as Article 3.4 forest management under the Carbon Equivalent Forest provision, that would
otherwise be accounted for as Article 3.3 afforestation or reforestation) should be consistent with the methods set
out in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines - Chapter 4 (Forest Land), Section 4.3 (Land converted to Forest Land), andthe equations it contains, and applied at the same or higher tier as used for UNFCCC reporting. Growth
characteristics of young trees differ from those of the managed forest as a whole, and special provisions may beneeded where the UNFCCC inventory (prepared according to Section 4.3, Land converted to Forest Land) is not
sufficiently detailed to provide information that applies to young stands.

3007
3008
3009

On areas subject to Article 3.3 activities, gross-net accounting rules are applied and information on carbon stockchanges and non-CO2 emissions in the base year (i.e., 1990) is therefore not required. Only the carbon stockchanges and non-CO2 emissions during each year of the commitment period are estimated and reported.

3010
3011

At Tier 1, biomass growth is determined using the data in 2006 IPCC Guidelines - Chapter 4, Section 4.3 (Land
Converted to Forest Land).

3012
3013
3014
3015
3016
3017

Under Tier 2, regional or national growth rates are likely to be available as a function of stand age, species or sitequality, but data may be missing for stands between ages 0 years and that reached by the end of the commitment
period. Where biomass estimates exist for older age stands, biomass at younger ages can be estimated byinterpolating between the known value and biomass zero at age zero using a non-linear growth function fitted tothe data that are available for older stands; in some cases, depending on the availability of data otherinterpolation methods may be applied.

3018
3019
3020
3021
3022

At Tier 3, biomass growth rates should be established directly using measured data, validated growth models, or
empirical yield tables for the appropriate combinations of species and site conditions. The estimates of changes
in carbon stocks in biomass can be carried out on the basis of finer geographical scale and sub-division to forest
type. It is good practice to include ground-based field measurements as part of any Tier 3 method, either as acomponent of a national (or project) forest inventory or of a growth and yield forest monitoring system.

3023
3024
3025

Determination of the size and dynamics of litter, deadwood and soil organic carbon pools prior to theafforestation/reforestation activity may require the use of methods developed for Cropland or other land uses
(2006 IPCC Guidelines - Chapter 5 and other relevant chapters).

3026
3027
3028
3029
3030

It is good practice to estimate emissions and removals of the harvest wood product pool associated withafforestation and reforestation activities using the guidance provided in Section 2.8 (Harvested Wood Products)of this report. It is good practice to report carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions (e.g, methane) fromorganic soils associated with rewetting of drained wetlands under Afforestation and Reforestation activities using
the guidance provided in Chapter 2.12 (Wetland drainage and rewetting) of this report.

3031
3032

Links with methodologies in this report and the 2006 IPCC Guidelines on reporting of carbon stock changes andnon-CO2 emissions in inventories under the UNFCCC are given in Box 2.5.2 below.

2997

2.5.3

2.96

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

3033
3034

BOX 2.5.2

3035
3036

LINKS WITH CHAPTERS OF THIS REPORT

3037

Section2.8: Harvested Wood Products

3038

Section 2.12: Wetland drainage and rewetting

3039

LINKS WITH THE 2006 IPCC GUIDELINES

3040

Section 4.3, Chapter 4 (Land Converted to Forest Land)

3041
3042
3043
3044

This section provides methodological guidance on estimation of emissions and removals ofgreenhouse gases, which occur on lands converted to Forest Land from different land-uses,
including Cropland, Grassland, Wetlands, Settlements, and Other land, through afforestation andreforestation, either by natural or artificial regeneration (including plantations).

3045
3046

2.5.3.1

P OOLS AFFECTED BY AFFORESTATION / REFORESTATIONACTIVITIES

3047
3048
3049
3050
3051

Afforestation/reforestation activities often involve site preparation (slashing and possibly burning coarse biomass
residue, and tilling or ploughing on parts of or the whole area), followed by planting or seeding. These activities
may affect not only above and belowground biomass pools, but also soil, as well as deadwood, and litter, if (inthe latter instances) land with woody shrub or sparse tree cover was afforested.

3052
3053
3054
3055
3056
3057
3058
3059
3060
3061
3062
3063
3064
3065
3066
3067

The Marrakesh Accords require Parties to estimate carbon stock changes in all five pools (see 2006 IPCC
Guidelines Volume 4, Chapter 1, Table 1.1) during the commitment period unless the Party can demonstrate bytransparent and verifiable information that the pool is not a source65, for which good practice guidance is set out
in Section 2.3.1. Decision 2/CMP.766 further requires Parties to estimate carbon stock changes in the harvested
wood product Pools. It is good practice to include carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions that result frompre-planting activities, such as site preparation or shrub removals. Land conversions on mineral soils generally
either maintain similar levels of belowground biomass carbon storage or create conditions that increase soil
carbon stocks, particularly if the land was previously managed for annual crop production (Merino et al. 2004,
Post and Kwon, 2000, Schulp et al. 2008). However, under certain circumstances, soil carbon may decline withafforestation of grasslands or wetlands for several years following conversion (Davis and Condron, 2002; Guoand Gifford. 2002; Paul et al., 2003; Tate et al., 2003; Vesterdall et al. 2002), and net losses of carbon after
planting and seeding can persist over many years. Therefore, it is good practice to ensure that estimates of preactivity carbon stocks in the area are used to compute stock changes, including for methodologies involving
modelling. Since there is no forest on the area prior to the afforestation/reforestation activity, the assessment
should be done by methods described in the appropriate sections of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines - Chapter 4,
Section 4.3 (Land Converted to Forest Land).

3068
3069
3070
3071
3072
3073

For Article 3.3 afforestation or reforestation activities that begin during the commitment period, reporting forthat unit of land should begin at the beginning of the year in which the activity commences67. Site preparationand seeding/planting activities should be considered part of the activity, and associated emissions during thecommitment period should therefore be included. For forest establishment activity undertaken under the Carbon
Equivalent Forest provision, reporting for that unit of land should begin at the beginning of the year in which thecorresponding forest land unit is cleared under the same provision.

3074
3075
3076
3077

The methods given in 2006 IPCC Guidelines – Volume4, Chapter 4, Section 4.3 for estimating non-CO2
greenhouse gas emissions on lands converted to forest land are applicable for the afforestation and reforestation
activities (see 2006 IPCC Guidelines, Volume4, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.4: Non-CO2 greenhouse gases emissions
from biomass burning).

3078
65

Paragraph 21 in the Annex to Decision 16/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry)66

Decision 2/CMP.7

67

Paragraph 6(d) in the Annex to Decision 15/CMP.1 (Article 7)

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.97

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
3079

2.5.3.2

M ETHODS TO ADDRESS NATURAL DISTURBANCE

3080
3081
3082
3083
3084
3085
3086

Under the UNFCCC, and in the first commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, the effect of disturbances on
emissions and removals is included in reporting for disturbances, which occur on managed lands, regardless ofwhether the disturbances are natural or human-induced. Decision 2/CMP.7 introduced a modification of thisapproach by which under certain conditions the effect of natural disturbances that occur in forests may be
excluded from accounting under the Kyoto Protocol for the second commitment period. This provision extends
to units of land subject to afforestation and reforestation. The effect of disturbances is included in the discussionof generic methods set out in Chapter 2 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines and Section 2.3.9 of this volume

3087
3088
3089
3090
3091
3092
3093

Forest lands that have been designated as affected by natural disturbance should be monitored over thecommitment period using methods consistent with those used for estimating emissions and removals from theseareas. It is good practice to keep a complete record of the areas of land that have been subject to natural
disturbance provisions, including their geo-referenced location and to check annually for the occurrence of landuse change and salvage logging on each of these land areas using remote sensing or by visiting the land, or thesemethods in combination. If land-use change has occurred then lands may not be excluded from accounting under
the disturbance provision.

3094
3095

2.6

DEFORESTATION

3096
3097

This section addresses specific methods applicable to deforestation activities and should be read in conjunction
with the general discussion in Sections 2.2 to 2.4.

3098

2.6.1

3099
3100
3101
3102
3103
3104
3105
3106
3107
3108
3109
3110

Under the definitions of the Marrakesh Accords, deforestation refers to direct, human-induced conversion offorest to non-forest land. The definition does not include losses of forest cover due to harvest or natural
disturbance events that are followed by natural or human-induced re-establishment of forest. This is because
these losses of forest cover are only temporary and therefore not considered deforestation, the land remains as
forested land. Harvest followed by re-establishment of forest is considered a forest management activity andreported according to Section 2.7. Natural disturbance followed by re-establishment of forest is not counted as
deforestation and disturbance emissions may be excluded from accounting following the methodologies in
Section 2.3.9. Human activities (since 1990) such as agricultural practices or the construction of roads orsettlements, that prevent forest regeneration by changing land-use on areas where forest cover was removed by anatural disturbance, are considered direct human-induced deforestation. Under the Decision 2/CMP.7,
deforestation of some plantation forests in special circumstances may be accounted for as a forest management
activity under the Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion provisions (Section 2.7.7).

Definitional issues and reporting requirements

3111
3112

The annual inventory should, at a minimum, identify (for Reporting Method 1 in Section 2.2.2):

3113
3114
3115
3116
3117
3118



The geographical location of the boundaries of the areas that encompass units of land subject to direct
human-induced deforestation activities. Areas subject to direct human-induced deforestation that are subject
to the Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion provision (and will therefore be accounted for under forest
management) should be identified separately. The geographical boundaries which are reported should
correspond to strata in the estimation of land areas as described in Chapter 3, Volume 4 of 2006 IPCC
Guidelines;

3119
3120
3121



For each of these areas, or strata, an estimate of the area of the units of land affected by direct humaninduced deforestation activities, and the area of these units of land that are also subject to elected activities
under Article 3.4 (cropland management, grazing land management, revegetation);

3122
3123



The year of the deforestation activities (1990 or later), which could be estimated through interpolation froma multi-year inventory; and

3124
3125
3126
3127



The area of units of land subject to direct human-induced deforestation in each of the new land-use
categories (Cropland, Grassland, Settlements) to support the calculation of carbon stock changes and nonCO2 emissions. It is good practice to group deforestation units of land by year and to report the deforestation
area in each year separately.

2.98

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft
68

3128
3129
3130

Following Decision 2/CMP.7 it is mandatory to report and account for conversion of natural forest to planted
forest. Reporting should be under forest management rather than Deforestation, because the land remains under
the forest definition (Section 2.7).

3131
3132
3133
3134
3135
3136
3137

The more comprehensive system for compiling annual inventory (Reporting Method 2 in Section 2.2.2)
identifies each unit of land subject to deforestation since 1990 using the polygon boundaries, a coordinate system(e.g., the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Grid or Latitude/Longitude) at possible finer resolution, or alegal description (e.g., those used by land-titles offices) of the location of the land subject to deforestation
activities (note that areas subject to the Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion provision should be identified
separately). Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Basis for Consistent Representation of Land
Areas) discusses in detail the possible approaches for consistent representation of land areas.

3138
3139
3140
3141
3142
3143
3144
3145
3146
3147

Parties will need to use the methods outlined in Chapter 3, Volume 4 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Consistent
Representation of Lands), and the guidance in Section 2.2 to ensure that units of land subject to deforestation are
adequately identified in land-use change and other inventory databases. The Marrakesh Accords require thatareas subject to direct human-induced deforestation since 1990 be reported separately from areas subject todirect human-induced deforestation since 1990 that are also subject to elected activities under Article 3.4. This
will ensure that carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions in areas that have been deforested since 1990
(Article 3.3) and that are subject to other elected activities such as cropland management (Article 3.4) are notcounted twice. Decision 2/CMP.7 also requires that areas that would be reported as Article 3.3 Deforestation but
are instead reported as Article 3.4 forest management under the Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion provision,
be reported separately (Section 2.7.7).

3148
3149
3150
3151

A Party’s choice of methods for the development of an inventory of units of land subject to deforestation
activities will depend on the national circumstances. For detecting deforestation areas it is good practice to use
Approach 3 in Section 3.3.1, Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Section 2.2.2 of this volume
provides a general discussion of methods for the reporting on units of land subject to Article 3.3 activities.

2.6.2

3152
3153

Choice of methods for identifying units of land
subject to direct human-induced deforestation

3154
3155
3156
3157
3158
3159
3160
3161
3162

Annex B Parties to the Kyoto Protocol must report carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions during thecommitment period on land areas that have been subject to direct human-induced deforestation activities since1990 (after 31 December 1989). The definition of deforestation is given by the Marrakesh Accords 69 .
Deforestation for the purposes of the Kyoto Protocol involves the conversion of forest land to non-forest land.
The Decision 2/CMP.7 allows the conversion of some planted forest land to non-forest land to be accounted forand reported as forest management if a Carbon Equivalent Forest is established elsewhere (Section 2.7.7). To
quantify deforestation, forest must first be defined in terms of potential height, crown cover and minimum area
as already described for afforestation and reforestation activities. The same parameter values for the definition offorest must be used for determining the area of land subject to deforestation.

3163
3164
3165
3166

Once a Party has chosen its parameter values for the definition of forests, the boundaries of the forest area can be
identified for any point in time. Only areas within these boundaries are potentially subject to deforestation
activities. “Treed areas” that do not meet the minimum requirements of the country-specific forest definition cantherefore not be deforested.

3167

The identification of units of land subject to deforestation activities requires the delineation of units of land that68

Paragraph 5 in the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 Annex, Paragraph 5: “Each Party included in Annex I shall report andaccount for, in accordance with Article 7, all emissions arising from the conversion of natural forests to planted forests”.
Paragraph 5(d) in Annex II to the Draft decision -/CMP.8 specifies this activity as being reported under Forest
Management.

69

Paragraphs 1(d), 3 and 5, respectively, in the Annex to Decision 16/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry):“Deforestation” is the direct human-induced conversion of forested land to non-forested land.
For the purposes of determining the area of deforestation to come into the accounting system under Article 3, paragraph 3,
each Party shall determine the forest area using the same spatial assessment unit as is used for the determination ofafforestation and reforestation, but not larger than 1 hectare.
Each Party included in Annex I shall report, in accordance with Article 7, on how harvesting or forest disturbance that isfollowed by the re-establishment of a forest is distinguished from deforestation. This information will be subject to review
in accordance with Article 8.

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.99

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
3168

1.

Meet or exceed the size of the country’s minimum forest area (i.e., 0.05 to 1 ha), and

3169

2.

Have met the definition of forest on or after 31 December 1989, and

3170
3171

3.

Have ceased to meet the definition of forest at some time after 1 January 1990 as the result of direct
human-induced deforestation; and

3172

4.

Do not meet the criteria for Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion.

3173
3174
3175
3176
3177
3178
3179
3180

Units of land can only be classified as deforested if they have been subject to direct human-induced conversion
from forest to non-forest land. Areas in which forest cover was lost as a result of natural disturbances are
therefore not considered deforested, even if changed physical conditions delay or prevent regeneration, provided
no land-use change has occurred (Section 2.3.9). If, however, the natural disturbance is followed by a non-forest
land use, then this will prevent the regeneration of forest, and the disturbance emissions count as deforestationand cannot be excluded from accounting. Forest areas that have been flooded as a result of changed drainage
patterns (e.g., road construction or hydroelectric dams) and where the flooding has resulted in a loss of forest
cover are considered to be subject to direct human-induced deforestation.

3181
3182
3183

Linkages with methodologies in this report and the 2006 IPCC Guidelines on reporting of land areas related todeforestation (conversion of forest to other land uses) in inventories under the UNFCCC are given in the Box
2.6.1.

3184
3185

BOX 2.6.1

3186

LINKS WITH THE 2006 IPCC GUIDELINES

3187

Volume 4 Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use

3188

Chapter 3: Consistent Representation of Land Areas

3189
3190
3191

Chapter 5 (Cropland), Section 5.3 (Land Converted to Cropland): methodological guidance onannual estimation of emissions and removals of greenhouse gases, which occur on Land Converted
to Cropland from different land-uses.

3192
3193
3194

Chapter 6 (Grassland), Section 6.3 (Land Converted to Grassland): methodological guidance onannual estimation of emissions and removals of greenhouse gases, which occur on Land Converted
to Grassland from different land-uses.

3195
3196
3197

Chapter 7 (Wetlands), Section 7.3.2 (Land Converted to Flooded land): methodological guidanceon annual estimation of emissions and removals of CO2, which occur on Land Converted to
Flooded land from different land-uses.

3198
3199
3200

Chapter 8 (Settlements), Section 8.3 (Land Converted to Settlements): methodological guidance onannual estimation of emissions and removals of greenhouse gases, which occur on Land Converted
to Settlements from different land-uses.

3201
3202
3203

Chapter 9 (Other Land), Section 9.3 (Land Converted to Other land): methodological guidance onannual estimation of emissions and removals of greenhouse gases, which occur on Land Converted
to Other land from different land-uses.

3204

2.6.2.1

TEMPORARY LOSS OF FOREST COVER

3205
3206
3207
3208
3209
3210
3211
3212
3213
3214

D ISCRIMINATING BETWEEN DEFORESTATION AND

Parties must report on how they distinguish between deforestation and areas that remain forests but where tree
cover has been removed temporarily70 , notably areas that have been harvested or have been subject to otherhuman disturbance but for which it is expected that a forest will be replanted or regenerated naturally. It is goodpractice to develop and report criteria by which temporary removal or loss of tree cover can be distinguishedfrom deforestation. For example, a Party could define the expected time periods (years) between removal of tree
cover and successful natural regeneration or planting. The length of these time periods could vary by region,
biome, species and site conditions. In the absence of land-use change, such as conversion to Cropland or
construction of settlements, areas without tree cover are considered “forest” provided that the time since forest
cover loss is shorter than the number of years within which tree establishment is expected. After that time period,
70

Paragraph 8(b) in the Annex to Decision 15/CMP.1 (Article 7).

2.100

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

3215
3216
3217
3218
3219
3220

lands that were forest on or after 31 December 1989, that since then have lost forest cover due to direct humaninduced actions and that failed to regenerate are identified as deforested and the carbon stock changes and nonCO2 emissions for this land are to be recalculated and added to those of other deforested areas. There is an
exception under the Carbon Equivalent Forest provision which allows the carbon stock changes and non-CO2
emissions from some plantation conversion to non-forest to be reported under forest management if a Carbon
Equivalent Forest is established elsewhere (see Section 2.7.7).

3221
3222
3223
3224
3225
3226
3227
3228
3229
3230
3231
3232
3233
3234
3235

Although the loss of forest cover is often readily identified, e.g., through change detection using remote sensing
images, the classification of this area as deforested is more challenging. It involves assessing the unit of land on
which the forest cover loss has occurred, as well as the surrounding area, and typically requires data frommultiple sources to supplement the information that can be obtained from remote sensing. In some cases a newland use can be determined from remote sensing images, for example where it is possible to identify agricultural
crops or infrastructure such as houses or industrial buildings. Information about actual or planned land-use
changes and actual or planned forest regeneration activities can be used to distinguish deforestation from
temporary loss in forest cover. Where such information is missing or unavailable, only the passage of time willtell whether or not the cover loss is temporary. In the absence of land-use change or infrastructure development,
and until the time for regeneration has elapsed, these units of land remain classified as forest. Note that this isconsistent with the approach suggested for afforestation and reforestation, i.e., units of land that have not been
confirmed as afforested/reforested remain classified as non-forest land. A Party may also choose a moreconservative approach. It could calculate, based on regional averages or other data, the proportion of the lands
without forest cover that is expected not to regenerate to forest and assign this proportion of the area to lands
subject to deforestation.

3236
3237
3238
3239
3240
3241
3242
3243
3244

Regardless of the approach selected, it is good practice for Parties to identify and track the units of land with lossof forest cover that are not yet classified as deforested, and to report on their area and status in the annual
supplementary information (see Table 2.4.1 in Section 2.4.4.1) It is also good practice to confirm that, on theseunits of land, regeneration did occur within the expected time period. Units of land for which, at the end of acommitment period, no direct information was available to distinguish deforestation from other causes of coverloss, could be reassessed annually or at a minimum prior to the end of the next commitment period. If
regeneration did not occur or if other land-use activities are observed, then these units of land should bereclassified as deforested and the carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions recalculated accordingly (seealso Chapter 5, Volume1, 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Time Series Consistency).

3245
3246
3247
3248
3249
3250
3251

The task of distinguishing temporary forest cover loss and deforestation can be supported by information on
harvested areas and areas subject to natural disturbances. In many countries, information on harvest cut blocks
and on natural disturbance events is more readily available than information on deforestation events. Suchinformation can be used to distinguish direct human-induced deforestation from temporary cover loss (e.g.,
harvest) or non-human induced disturbances (e.g., wildfire or insect outbreak). Attribution of the cause of forest
cover loss to the remaining areas would be made easier and would support the identification and verification ofunits of land subject to deforestation.

3252
3253

A decision tree for determining of whether a unit of land is subject to direct human-induced deforestation is
given in Figure 2.6.1

3254

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.101

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
3255
3256

Figure 2.6.1

Decision tree for determining whether a unit of land is subject to direct
human-induced (dhi) Deforestation (D)Start

Did the unit ofland meet the definition of a forest
on or after 31 December

Yes

Was there
a forest cover loss below thethreshold after 31 December 1989?

Classify as FM2

Was thecover loss followed by land-use
change to non-forest land
use?

No

Yes

Yes

No

Is the unit of land meeting thecriteria for CEFC1?

No

Is therea reasonable
expectation that, within X
years1, the area will regenerate or
be planted
to forest?

Yes

Classify as forest and re-evaluate nextyear

Have X
years1 passed sincecover loss?

No

Yes

Classify as forest
Yes
Yes

No

Does theland currently meet the definitionof aforest?

No

No

Classify as D

Yes

Has forest
regrowth been
prevented by direct
human activity?

No

Not eligible as D

3257
3258
3259
3260

Note:
1. Refer to country-specific criteria for distinguishing harvesting from deforestation
2. Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion (CEFC): refer to Section 2.7.7: Carbon Equivalent Forest

2.102

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

3261

2.6.3

3262
3263

Choice of methods for estimating carbon stockchanges and non-CO 2 emissions

3264
3265
3266
3267
3268
3269
3270

The Marrakesh Accords specify that all carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions during the commitment
period on units of land subject to direct human-induced deforestation since 1990 must be reported71. Where
deforestation occurred between 1990 and the beginning of the commitment period, changes in the carbon pools
after the deforestation event need to be estimated for each inventory year of the commitment period. Postdisturbance losses during the commitment period will result primarily from the continuing decay of deadwood,
litter, below ground biomass and soil carbon remaining on the site after the deforestation event. These losses canbe offset by increases in biomass pools.

3271
3272
3273
3274

If the deforestation occurs during the commitment period, biomass carbon stocks will decrease but, depending on
deforestation practices, some of this biomass may be added to litter, deadwood and harvested wood productpools. Their increase can initially partly offset biomass carbon losses and delay emissions. In subsequent years,
carbon is likely to be released from litter, deadwood and harvested wood product pools through decay or burning.

3275
3276
3277

It is good practice to report carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions (e.g, methane) from organic soils
associated with rewetting of drained wetlands under deforestation activities using the guidance provided in
Section 2.12 (Wetland drainage and rewetting) of this report.

3278
3279
3280

On areas subject to Article 3.3 activities, gross-net accounting rules are applied72 and information on carbon
stock changes and non-CO2 emissions in the base year (i.e., 1990) is therefore not required. Only the carbon
stock changes and non-CO2 emissions during each year of the commitment period are estimated and reported.

3281
3282
3283

For the estimation of carbon stock changes, it is good practice to use the same or a higher tier than is used for
estimating emissions from forest conversion in 2006 IPCC Guidelines Chapters 5,6,7,8,9, Volume 4(Conversion from Forest Land to any other land-use category).

3284
3285
3286
3287
3288
3289
3290
3291
3292
3293
3294
3295
3296
3297

Carbon stock changes on lands subject to deforestation activities during the commitment period can be estimatedby determining the carbon stocks in all pools prior to and after the deforestation event. Alternatively, the stockchanges can be estimated from the carbon transfers out of the forest, e.g., the amount harvested (Chapter 2,
Volume 4, 2006 IPCC Guidelines) or the fuel consumed in the case of burning. For deforestation events that
occur prior to the commitment period, knowledge of pre-deforestation carbon stocks will also be useful for theestimation of post-disturbance carbon dynamics. For example, estimates of emissions from decay of litter,deadwood, and soil organic carbon pools can be derived from data on pool sizes and decay rates. Information
about pre-deforestation carbon stocks can be obtained from forest inventories, aerial photographs, satellite data,by comparison with adjacent remaining forests, or can be reconstructed from stumps where these are remaining
on the site. Information on the time since deforestation, on the current vegetation and on management practices
on that site is required for the estimation of carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions.
Carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions on planted forest land that is converted to non-forest land under
the Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion provision should be estimated using the same approach as for Article
3.3 deforestation lands, although they will be reported under forest management.

3298
3299
3300
3301

Harvested wood products derived from deforestation activity are accounted for as an instantaneous emission at
the time of deforestation, unless a Carbon Equivalent Forest is established in which case the land is reported
under the forest management activity and harvested wood products are accounted for according to themethodology described in Section 2.8.

3302
3303
3304
3305
3306

Where units of land subject to deforestation become land under other categories such as Cropland or Grassland,
the established methodologies described in relevant sections of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines should be used toestimate carbon stocks changes. Several of these categories may contain little or no carbon, or the change incarbon may be very small. Box 2.6.2 summarises links with methodologies on estimation of carbon stockchanges and non-CO2 emissions in this report and with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

3307

71

Pools which are not a source can be excluded from accounting, though this is unlikely in the case of deforestation

72

Except for Parties that fall under the provisions of the last sentence of Article 3.7.

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.103

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
3308

BOX 2.6.2

3309

LINKS WITH OTHER CHAPTERS OF THIS REPORT

3310

Chapter 2.8 Harvested Wood Products

3311

Chapter 2.12 Wetland drainage and rewetting

3312
3313
3314

LINKS WITH THE 2006 IPCC GUIDELINES (VOLUME 4, Agriculture, Forestry andOther Land Use)

3315
3316
3317

Chapter 5 (Cropland), Section 5.3 (Land Converted to Cropland): methodological guidance onannual estimation of emissions and removals of greenhouse gases, which occur on Land Converted
to Cropland from different land-uses.

3318
3319
3320

Chapter 6 (Grassland), Section 6.3 (Land Converted to Grassland): methodological guidance onannual estimation of emissions and removals of greenhouse gases, which occur on Land Converted
to Grassland from different land-uses.

3321
3322
3323

Chapter 7 (Wetlands), Section 7.3.2 (Land Converted to Flooded land): methodological guidanceon annual estimation of emissions and removals of CO2, which occur on Land Converted to
Flooded land from different land-uses.

3324
3325
3326

Chapter 8 (Settlements), Section 8.3 (Land Converted to Settlements): methodological guidance onannual estimation of emissions and removals of greenhouse gases, which occur on Land Converted
to Settlements from different land-uses.

3327
3328
3329

Chapter 9 (Other land), Section 9.3 (Land Converted to Other land): methodological guidance onannual estimation of emissions and removals of greenhouse gases, which occur on Land Converted
to Other land from different land-uses.

3330

2.104

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

3331

2.7

FOREST MANAGEMENT

3332
3333
3334

According to Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry), accounting of emissions andremovals from forest management under the Kyoto Protocol during the second commitment period is
mandatory73 , and based on a reference level74 .

3335
3336
3337

This section addresses definitional issues and specific methods for identification of areas subject to forest
management and calculation of carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions for those areas (Sections 2.7.1,
2.7.2, 2.7.3).

3338

This section also addresses the new elements introduced by Decision 2/CMP.7, including:

3339



Reporting of emissions arising from the conversion of natural forests to planted forest (within Section 2.7.1).

3340



Methodological requirements related to the forest management reference level (Section 2.7.5).

3341



Performance of technical corrections for accounting purposes (see Section 2.7.6).

3342
3343



Reporting and accounting of lands under the Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion provision (i.e., lands
under forest management that would otherwise be accounted as Article 3.3 lands, Section 2.7.7).

3344
3345

The treatment of harvested wood products related to forest management, according to Decision 2/CMP.7, isdiscussed briefly in this section and in more detail in Section 2.8.

3346This section should be read in conjunction with the general discussion in Sections 2.2 to 2.4.

3347

2.7.1

3348
3349
3350
3351
3352
3353

Under the Marrakesh Accords, “Forest Management” is defined as “a system of practices for stewardship anduse of forest land aimed at fulfilling relevant ecological (including biological diversity), economic and social
functions of the forest in a sustainable manner”. It includes both natural forests and plantations meeting theforest definition in the Marrakesh Accords with the parameter values for forests that have been selected andreported by the Party. Decision 2/CMP.7 maintains the same definition of forest management as in the
Marrakesh Accords75 .

3354
3355
3356
3357
3358
3359
3360
3361

There are two conceivable approaches that countries could choose to interpret the definition of forest
management. In the narrow approach, a country would define a system of specific practices that could include
stand-level forest management activities, such as site preparation, planting, thinning, fertilization, and harvesting,as well as landscape-level activities such as fire suppression and protection against insects, undertaken since1990. In this approach the area subject to forest management might increase over time as the specific practices
are implemented on new areas. In the broad approach, a country would define a system of forest management
practices (without the requirement that a specified forest management practice has occurred on each land), andidentify the area that is subject to this system of practices during the inventory year of the commitment period.

3362
3363
3364
3365
3366
3367
3368
3369
3370

According to Decision 2/CMP.7, Parties are required to report and account for all emissions and removals
arising from the conversion of natural forests to planted forests after 31 December 2012. In this context,“conversion” does not involve a land-use change but refers to the replacement of natural forest after harvestingwith planted forests. Following Section 1.1, it is good practice that Parties, according to their national
circumstances, provide their definition of natural forest and planted forest, which should include forest
plantations (as defined in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines), define when a transition from natural forest to planted
forest occurs, and apply these definitions consistently throughout the commitment periods. It is good practicethat emissions and removals on lands subject to conversion from natural forest to planted forest are reported andaccounted within forest management.

3371
3372
3373

According to Decision 2/CMP.7, Parties applying the Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion provision describedin Section 2.7.7 need to report these lands separately from other forest management lands. These lands will
include both forest and non-forest lands but are accounted for as forest management.

Definitional issues and reporting requirements

73

See paragraph 7 in the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7, contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.14.

74

See paragraph 12 in the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7, contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.14.

75

See paragraphs 20 and 21 of the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7, contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.16.

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.105

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
3374
3375
3376

Section 2.2 (Generic Methodologies for Area Identification, Stratification and Reporting) explains that thegeographical location of the boundaries of the areas containing land subject to forest management activities need
to be defined and reported. Two reporting methods are outlined in Section 2.2.2.

3377
3378
3379
3380
3381
3382
3383
3384

In Reporting Method 1 a boundary may encompass multiple forest management lands and other kinds of land
use such as agriculture or unmanaged forests. Any estimates of carbon stock changes resulting from forest
management are for the forest management lands only. In Reporting Method 2, a Party identifies the geographic
boundaries of all lands subject to forest management throughout the country. Reporting Method 1 or 2 are used
for reporting the carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions in the aboveground biomass, belowgroundbiomass, deadwood, litter, and soil organic carbon. Accounting for the harvested wood products pool is at thenational level. For both reporting methods, forest management lands include also non-forest land accounted forunder forest management through the Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion provision.

3385
3386
3387

The Marrakesh Accords also specify that lands subject to forest management (Article 3.4) that are also subject to
Article 3.3 activities (in this case only afforestation and reforestation) be reported separately from those lands
that are subject to forest management only.

3388

2.7.2

3389
3390
3391
3392
3393
3394
3395

Choice of methods for identifying lands subject toForest Management

Land subject to “Forest Management” as defined by the Marrakesh Accords and by Decision 2/CMP.7 is notnecessarily the same area as “managed forests” in the context of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines used for UNFCCC
reporting. The latter includes all forests under direct human influence, including forests that may not meet therequirements of the Marrakesh Accords. Most of the forest area that is subject to forest management under
Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol would also be included in the area of “managed forests” of a Party. The
relationships are summarized in Figure 2.7.1.

3396

2.106

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

3397
3398
3399
3400
3401
3402

Figure 2.7.1

Relationship between different forest categories. Some of these lands may
also be subject to activities under Article 3.3 (afforestation or reforestation)as outlined in Figure 1.1. Thick arrows indicate where the majority of thearea included in a particular category for UNFCCC reporting is likely to be
included for Kyoto Protocol reporting. See Sections 2.7 and 2.7.1 for further
explanation.

ALL FORST LANDS

Unmanaged

ManagedUNFCCC reporting

KP Reporting
Does not meet eligibility
criteria for forest management
under Decision 2/CMP.7

Meets eligibility criteria forforest management underDecision 2/CMP.7*

Does not meet eligibility
criteria for forest management
under Decision 2/CMP.7

Unbalanced accounting possible

3403
3404
3405
3406
3407
3408
3409
3410
3411
3412

It is good practice for each Party to provide documentation of how it applies the definition of forest management
under Decision 2/CMP.7 in a consistent way, and how it distinguishes areas subject to forest management fromother areas. Examples of country-specific decisions include the treatment of tree orchards or grazing lands withtree cover. It is good practice to base the assignment of land to activities using criteria of predominant land use,following the guidance in Section 1.2.

3413
3414
3415
3416

Figure 2.7.1 outlines the relationship between different forest categories. For UNFCCC reporting, countries havesubdivided their forest area into managed forests (those that are included in the reporting) and unmanaged forest(not included). The managed forests could further be subdivided into those areas that meet the eligibility criteria
for forest management activities under Decision 2/CMP.7 and those (if any) that do not.

3417
3418
3419
3420
3421
3422
3423
3424
3425
3426
3427
3428
3429
3430

Since most countries have in place policies to manage forests sustainably, and/or use practices for stewardshipand use of forest land aimed at fulfilling relevant ecological (including biological diversity), economic andsocial functions of the forest in a sustainable manner76 , the total area of managed forest in a country will often
be the same as the area subject to forest management. It is good practice to define the national criteria for theidentification of land subject to forest management such that there is good agreement between the area ofmanaged forest (as reported under the UNFCCC) and the area of forest subject to forest management. Where
differences occur between the two, these should be explained and the extent of the differences should be
documented. In particular, where areas that are considered managed forest are excluded from the area subject toforest management, the reason for the exclusion should be provided, to avoid the perception of unbalanced
accounting (Figure 2.7.1). Unbalanced accounting can occur if areas that are considered a source are
preferentially excluded and areas considered a sink are included in the national reporting. The IPCC Report on
Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from Direct Human-Induced Degradation ofForests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types further addresses the issue of unbalanced accounting. The
inclusion of non-forested areas within forest management accounting under the Carbon Equivalent Forest* Some non-forest land can also meet the eligibility criteria of Decision 2/CMP.7 for accounting as forest management, under the
Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion provision (see Section 2.7.7).

76

See paragraph 1(f) in the Annex to Decision 16/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry).

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.107

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
3431
3432

Conversion provision can also lead to differences between the reported area of managed forest and the area
under forest management – all such areas must be clearly identified (see Section 2.7.7).

3433
3434
3435
3436

Figure 2.7.2 gives the decision tree for determining whether land qualifies as subject to forest management. Land
that is classified as subject to forest management must meet the country’s criteria for forest. It is possible that
more than one direct human activity impacts the land. In such cases, the land has to be reported under forest
management, if not already reported under afforestation/reforestation.

3437

2.108

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

3438
3439
3440

Figure 2.7.2

Decision tree for determining whether land qualifies as being subject toForest Management. This decision tree applies to lands which are not eligiblefor direct human-induced AR (see Figure 2.5.1)

3441
Start

Does the land meet the defintion offorests?

Yes

No

Is the land subject to a system ofpractices for FM as defined in the
Marrakesh Accords?

Yes

Classify land as FMNo

Is the land subject to Carbon
Equivalent Forest provisions?

Yes

No

Not eligible for FM

3442
3443

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.109

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
3444
3445
3446
3447
3448
3449
3450
3451
3452

It is good practice to develop clear criteria for the assignment of lands to Article 3.4 activities based on the
predominant land use and the hierarchy among activities, according to the guidance in Section 1.2 on land
categorization, and to apply these criteria consistently across space and time. For example, lands that are
predominantly managed for grazing could be included under grazing land management even if tree coverexceeds the threshold for forest definition, provided that the predominant land use is not forest. Similarly, fruitorchards can meet the definition of forest, but be reported under cropland management if the forest land use is
not predominant. Whether land is classified under forest management, or grazing land management/cropland
management or wetland drainage and rewetting has implications for the accounting rules that apply.

3453
3454
3455
3456
3457
3458
3459
3460
3461
3462

It is good practice for each Party to describe its application of the definition of forest management and todelineate boundaries of the areas that encompass land subject to forest management in the inventory year of thecommitment period. In most cases, this will be based on information contained in forest inventories including
criteria such as administrative, zoning (e.g., protected areas or parks) or ownership boundaries, since thedifference between managed and unmanaged forests or, possibly, between managed forest meeting the
Marrakesh Accords definition of forest management and managed forest not doing so, may be difficult or
impossible to detect by remote sensing or other forms of observation. Lands subject to afforestation andreforestation activities that also qualify as forest management lands must be identified separately from thoseareas meeting only the criteria of Article 3.3 or those only subject to forest management under Article 3.4.
Identification of these areas reduces the possibility of double counting.

3463
3464
3465

It is good practice for each Party to provide information to show that where a transition from natural forest toplanted forest has occurred based on their national definitions, reporting and accounting of emissions andremovals has been captured within forest management.

3466
3467
3468

According to Decision 2/CMP.7, the carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions on lands subject to forest
management under Article 3.4 can be excluded from accounting if they are subject to natural disturbance (See
Section 2.3.9).

3469
3470
3471
3472
3473
3474
3475

The area of land subject to forest management can increase or decrease over time. For example, if a country
expands its road infrastructure into previously unmanaged forests and initiates harvesting activities, the area ofland subject to forest management is increasing and the associated carbon stock changes need to be estimatedaccordingly. On the other hand, deforestation decreases the area under forest management. Where changes inarea occur over time, it is essential that the methods for carbon stock change calculation are applied in thesequence outlined in Section 2.3.3. Failure to use the correct computational methods may result in an apparent
but incorrect increase in carbon stocks that is the result of the area change.

3476
3477
3478
3479
3480

Once an area has been included in the carbon stock change reporting under the Kyoto Protocol it cannot be
removed, but it can change the reporting category (as outlined in Section 1.2). Units of land that are deforested
are, however, subject to the rules of Article 3.3 and future carbon stock changes must be reported. Thus, while
the area reported under Article 3.4 would be decreasing, the area reported under Article 3.3 would be increasing
by the same amount.

3481
3482

Figure 2.7.3

Relationship among forest lands, lands subject to FM, lands subject tonatural disturbance and Carbon Equivalent Forests.

3483
All land-uses

3484

Other land-uses

3485
Forest3486
3487

Lands subject to FM

3488
3489

Naturaldisturbance(optional
accounting)3490

Carbon Equivalent Forest provision
Equivalent forests

Forests converted
to other land uses

3491
Accounted and reported separately

3492
3493
3494
3495

Forest land that is converted to non-forest under the Carbon Equivalent Forest provision (see Section 2.7.7. isreported under Article 3.4, as is the compensating non-forest land converted to forest land. This means that the

2.110

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

3496
3497
3498
3499
3500

area reported under forest management may increase without an increase in forested land. It is good practice thatlands subject to the Carbon Equivalent Forest provision are identified separately with the boundaries delineated.
All lands under the Carbon Equivalent Forest provision are subject to forest management, and these lands
include newly planted equivalent forests and forests converted into other land uses. Figure 2.7.3 shows
relationships of lands subject to forest management.

3501
3502

Box 2.7.1 summarises links with methodologies in this report and with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for theidentification of land areas.

3503

BOX 2.7.1

3504

LINKS WITH CHAPTER 3 OR 4 OF THE 2006 IPCC GUIDELINES

3505

Volume 4 Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Use

3506

Chapter 3 Consistent Representation of Lands

3507

Chapter 4 Section 4.2 (Forest Land Remaining Forest Land)

3508

3510

Choice of methods for estimating carbon stockchanges and non-CO 2 emissions

3511
3512
3513
3514

The methods to estimate carbon stock changes in the various pools within forest management lands follow thosein the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, as elaborated in Volume 4, Chapter 4, for above- and belowground biomass, deadwood, litter and soil organic carbon. For harvested wood products, estimation methods in line with Decision
2/CMP.7 are provided in Section 2.8 of this report.

3515
3516
3517
3518
3519

On areas subject to forest management activities, the reference level accounting rule is applied for the second
commitment period, i.e. for each Party the accounting is based on the comparison between the net emissions andremovals reported for forest management during the commitment period and the forest management reference
level inscribed in the appendix to the Decision 2/CMP.7 (see Section 2.7.5). In certain cases, it is good practice
to apply Technical Corrections for accounting purposes (see Section 2.7.6).

3520

The tier structure described in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines should be applied as follows:

3521
3522
3523
3524
3525
3526
3527
3528
3529
3530
3531



Tier 1 can only be applied if forest management is not considered a key category, or if the pool is “notsignificant”, according to the guidance in Section 2.3.6 (Choice of method). Tier 1 as elaborated in Volume
4, Chapter 4 assumes that the net change in the carbon stocks for litter (forest floor), dead wood and soilorganic carbon (SOC) pools is zero, but Decision 2/CMP.7 specifies that above- and belowground biomass,
litter, dead wood, and SOC should all be accounted unless the country chooses not to report changes in apool demonstrating it is not a net-source. Therefore Tier 1 can only be applied if the litter, dead wood and
SOC pools can be shown not to be a net-source using the methods outlined in the Section 2.3.1 (Pools to bereported). It is important to note that, once a pool has been included in the forest management reference
level, for consistency reasons it is good practice to report this pool during the commitment period,
irrespective of the pool being a sink or a source (see Section 2.7.5.2 on methodological consistency). For
the harvested wood products, specific guidance is provided in Section 2.8.

3532
3533
3534
3535



It is good practice to apply Tier 2 and 3 methods if forest management is a key category and if the pool is“significant”, according to the guidance in Section 2.3.6. With the exception of the pools already included in
the forest management reference level, a country may decide to exclude those pools that can be shown not to
be a net-source, using the methods described in Section 2.3.1.

3536
3537
3538

In most cases, the information requirements for Kyoto Protocol reporting exceed the information contained in
the national UNFCCC inventory. The conditions that need to be met to ensure that the information contained in
the national UNFCCC inventory satisfies the requirements for Kyoto Protocol reporting include:

3539
3540
3541

1.

The areas subject to forest management are the same as the areas of the managed forest (Figure 2.7.1), (orwhere these are not the same the area and carbon stock changes of the areas subject to forest management
are known), and

3542
3543

2.

The area and carbon stock changes of the managed forest within the geographic boundaries of each of thestrata used in a country are known, and

3544
3545

3.

The area of the managed forest that was the result of direct human-induced afforestation or reforestation
since 1990 is known, along with the carbon stock changes on this area.

3509

2.7.3

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.111

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
3546
3547

4.

There has been no Carbon Equivalent Forest conversion, so there are no non-forest lands accounted forwithin forest management but not within managed forests under the UNFCCC reporting.

3548
3549

5.

There have been no areas subject to natural disturbance for which emissions and subsequent uptake havebeen excluded from accounting.

3550
3551
3552
3553

6.

Harvested wood products may be accounted for on the basis of instantaneous oxidation, or a countryspecific approach has been used for convention reporting that is compatible with the requirements foraccounting as defined in Decision 2/CMP.7 (e.g. harvested wood products from deforestation and imports
are excluded).

3554
3555
3556
3557
3558
3559
3560
3561
3562

Furthermore, to meet the Kyoto Protocol reporting requirements, national accounting systems should be able toidentify and track all forest areas (with geo-referenced and/or statistical techniques, as specified in Section 2.2),
whether these are classified as managed forest (UNFCCC) or subject to Articles 3.3 and/or 3.4 of the Kyoto
Protocol, and whether they have been subject to natural disturbances or to the Carbon Equivalent Forest
accounting provisions. Such systems can then be used to calculate and report the net carbon stock changes in all
relevant categories for both UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol reporting. Such a comprehensive approach would also
ensure consistency among the methods used for calculating and reporting carbon stock changes, because thesame forest and land-use change inventories would be the basis for the computations used in both UNFCCC andKyoto Protocol reporting.

3563
3564

Box 2.7.2 summarises links with methodologies in this report and with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines to estimate
carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions.

3565
3566

BOX 2.7.2

3567

LINKS WITH THE 2006 IPCC GUIDELINES

3568

Chapter 4 Section 4.2 (Forest Land Remaining Forest Land)

3569
3570

The area subject to forest management may not be the same as the area of Forest Land Remaining
Forest Land and estimates may have to be adjusted accordingly.

3571

2.7.4

3572
3573
3574
3575
3576
3577
3578
3579
3580
3581

The identification of areas subject to forest management, and especially the calculation of carbon stock changes
and non-CO2 emissions for these areas, can be influenced by the presence of natural disturbances, i.e. nonanthropogenic events or non-anthropogenic circumstances that cause significant emissions in forests and are
beyond the control of, and not materially influenced by a Party. Emissions from forest management can be
influenced by natural disturbances in two ways: 1) through emissions from natural disturbances occurring in thecommitment period and; 2) through an inconsistency between the treatment of natural disturbances in thereporting of forest management emissions in the commitment period and the forest management reference level.
Methods for addressing natural disturbances in case 1) are provided by Section 2.3.9 Disturbances. Guidance toaddress inconsistencies in the treatment of natural disturbances in reported data and the forest management
reference level are presented in Sections 2.7.5 and 2.7.6.

3582

2.7.5

3583
3584
3585
3586
3587
3588
3589

According to Decision 2/CMP/777, for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, accountable carbon
stock changes and non-CO2 emissions resulting from forest management under Article 3, paragraph 4, equal
carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions in the commitment period, less the duration of the commitment
period in years times the Forest Management Reference Level (FMRL) inscribed in the Appendix to the decision.
In practice, the FMRL is a value of annual net emissions and removals from forest management, against which
the net emissions and removals reported for forest management during the second commitment period, will becompared to for accounting purposes.

3590
3591
3592
3593

This section addresses methodological issues related to the FMRL, including: (i) approaches and methods used
and the elements taken into consideration by Parties for the construction of their FMRL, (ii) a description of how
to demonstrate methodological consistency between the FMRL and reporting for forest management during thecommitment period, and (iii) a description of how and when to perform technical corrections for accounting
77

Methods to address natural disturbanceForest Management Reference Levels

Decision 2/CMP.7 in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1.

2.112

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

3594
3595
3596

purposes, if necessary to ensure consistency, or to exclude from the accounting any impact due to inconsistencies.
This section should be read in conjunction with the general guidance on forest management in Sections 2.7.1 to
2.7.4.

3597

2.7.5.1

3598

A PPROACHES , METHODS AND ELEMENTS CONSIDERED IN
THE CONSTRUCTION OF FMRL S

3599
3600
3601
3602
3603
3604
3605
3606

Decision 2/CMP.6 requested each Annex I Party to submit information on how the country’s FMRL wasconstructed and provided guidelines for the submission of such information. The objectives of the submissions
were: (a) to provide information consistent with the general reporting principles set out by the Convention andelaborated by the IPCC on how the elements contained in footnote 1 in paragraph 4 of decision 2/CMP.678 weretaken into account by Parties in the construction of FMRLs, and to provide any additional relevant information;(b) to document the information that was used by Parties in FMRLs in a comprehensive and transparent way;and (c) to provide transparent, complete, consistent, comparable and accurate methodological information usedat the time of the construction of the FMRL.

3607
3608
3609
3610
3611

The information provided by the Parties on how the FMRL was constructed provides the basis for assessing themethodological consistency between the FMRL and the reporting of forest management during the second
commitment period. This section summarizes the approaches and methods used and the elements considered in
the construction of the FMRL, based on the FMRL submissions made by Parties and the synthesis report of thetechnical assessments provided by the UNFCCC Secretariat79.

3612
3613

APPROACHES AND METHODS USED TO CONSTRUCT FMRLS

3614
3615
3616
3617

The FMRL submissions included a description of the approaches, methods and models used in the constructionof the FMRLs, including assumptions used and referring, where relevant, to the latest available NIR. Based on
the submissions on FMRL made by Parties, the following general approaches used to set FMRLs may berecognized (see Box 2.7.3 for more details):

3618

1.

FMRLs based on modelled projections under a business as usual scenario.

3619
3620

2.

FMRLs based on the average of or the linear extrapolation of historical data from GHG inventories,
assumed as proxy for a business-as-usual scenario.

3621

3.

FMRLs based on a single year (1990).

3622

4.

FMRL set as zero.

78

These elements are: (a) removals or emissions from forest management as shown in greenhouse gas inventories andrelevant historical data; (b) age-class structure; (c) forest management activities already undertaken; (d) projected forest
management activities under a ‘business as usual’ scenario; (e) continuity with the treatment of forest management in thefirst commitment period; (f) the need to exclude removals from accounting in accordance with decision 16/CMP.1,
paragraph 1. Points (c), (d) and (e) above were applied where relevant. The FMRLs also took into account the need forconsistency with the inclusion of carbon pools and the provisions for addressing natural disturbances.

79

Synthesis report of the technical assessments of the forest management reference level submissions. Note by the secretariat.
FCCC/KP/AWG/2011/INF.2, http://unfccc.int/bodies/awg-kp/items/5896.php

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.113

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
3623
3624

BOX 2.7.3
APPROACHES USED FOR CONSTRUCTING FOREST MANAGEMENT REFERENCE LEVELS

3625
3626
3627
3628
3629
3630

Based on the UNFCCC’s synthesis report of the technical assessments of the FMRL submissions,
it emerges that out of the 38 Parties submitting FMRLs, 17 used country-specific projections, 14
used a common approach for projections, one proposed a historical average, two proposed an
extrapolation of historical data, three proposed historical FMRLs based on a single year, and one
proposed an FMRL of zero. Below are summarized the different approaches used, aggregated into
the four groups:

3631

1)

3632
3633
3634
3635

Model-based projections using country-specific methodology. Most of the country-specificapproaches used data from national forest inventory (NFI) as a source information for future forest
resources, combined with projections of future harvest demand from partial equilibrium models or
scenario analysis.

3636
3637
3638
3639
3640
3641
3642
3643
3644

Model-based projections using a common methodological approach. Several EU countries
followed a common approach developed by Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European
Commission, in collaboration with modelling groups from the International Institute for Applied
Systems Analysis (IIASA) and the European Forest Institute (EFI). Two models projected annual
estimates of emissions and removals for forest management until 2020 for the living biomass
carbon pool. To calculate the FMRL, the average of models’ results for the time series 2000–2020
were “calibrated” ex-post using historical GHG data from each country for the period 2000–2008.
This was achieved by shifting the projection up or down to achieve the same average as thehistorical data for the calibration period.

3645
3646

2)
FMRLs based on the elaboration of historical data from GHG inventories, assumed asproxy for a ‘business-as-usual’ scenario

3647
3648
3649

Average of historical data. One Party for its revised FMRL used the average removals under theForest land Remaining Forest Land category, as reported in the 2011 GHG inventory for the period
1990–2009.

3650
3651

Extrapolation from a historical time series trend. Two Parties used a linear extrapolation of net
emissions historical data (1990–2008) to construct the FMRLs.

3652

3)

3653

Three Parties proposed the use of a historical FMRL based on 1990 data.

3654

4)

3655
3656

One Party used the narrow approach for forest management, and set its FMRL equal to zero, whichis equivalent to gross–net accounting.

FMRLs based on modelled projections under a ‘business-as-usual’ scenario

Historical FMRL based on the single year 1990
FMRL equal to zero

3657
3658

ELEMENTS CONSIDERED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF FMRLS

3659
3660
3661
3662
3663

Pools and gases

3664
3665
3666

Furthermore, Decision 2/CMP.7 specified that for the second commitment period Party shall account for allchanges in above-ground biomass, below-ground biomass, litter, deadwood, soil organic carbon and harvested
wood products (see Section 2.3.1 for additional information and methodological guidance).

Decision 2/CMP.6 requested Parties to identify pools and gases which have been included in the FMRL, toexplain the reasons for omitting a pool from the FMRL construction (i.e. including evidence for the pool not
being a source), and to explain consistency between the pools and gases included in the FMRL and thoseincluded in the reporting of forest management or Forest Land Remaining Forest Land.

3667

2.114

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

3668
3669
3670
3671
3672
3673
3674
3675
3676
3677

Area under forest management

3678
3679
3680
3681
3682
3683
3684
3685
3686

Historical data from greenhouse gas inventory

3687
3688
3689
3690
3691
3692
3693
3694
3695
3696

Forest characteristics and related management

3697
3698
3699
3700
3701
3702
3703

Historical and assumed harvesting rates

3704
3705
3706
3707
3708
3709
3710
3711

For projected FMRLs, countries provided information on the assumptions about the future harvesting rates,
based on business-as-usual scenarios (i.e. considering domestic policies adopted and implemented no later thanDecember 2009). Some Parties used averages of historical harvest rates as a proxy of business-as-usual scenario,
while other Parties predicted future harvest based on macroeconomic scenarios or based on the continuation ofcurrent forest management activities. For transparency purposes, any information on the assumptions made on
the disaggregation of future harvest, by type of wood use (i.e. industrial wood/wood for energy use) and/or byassortment types (as feedstock for HWP production, cf. Section 2.8.1), was useful to demonstrate consistency
between the biomass losses due to assumed future harvest rates and the biomass used for HWP estimates.

3712
3713
3714

Harvested wood products

3715
3716
3717

Since the final agreement on HWP, included in the Decision 2/CMP.7, was reached after the FMRL submissions,
it is essential to consider the need for a Technical Correction for accounting purposes in order to reflect theDecision 2/CMP.7. See Section 2.8 for detailed information and good practice guidance on HWP.

The FMRL submissions contain information on the forest management area used in the construction of the
FMRL with the aim of showing consistency with the reporting of forest management or Forest land Remaining
Forest Land. Parties also explained how the area used in the construction of the FMRL relates to the area
accounted for as subject to deforestation and afforestation or reforestation activities. In the case of modelled
projections, consistency between FMRL area and area under Article 3.4 activities means that the future
deforestation is taken into account by projecting a decreasing FM area in the second commitment period80 , andthat the expected future afforestation and reforestation should not affect the evolution of FM area considered for
FMRL. In some cases, an increase in the future FM area was included in FMRL due to new forest area (e.g.,previously unmanaged) assumed to enter the FM definition.
Parties were also requested to include in the FMRL submissions information on the relationship between forest
management and Forest Land Remaining Forest Land as shown in GHG inventories and relevant historical data,
including information provided under Article 3.3, and, if applicable, Article 3.4. The purpose of this information
is to show the consistency between the proposed FMRLs and historical data as reported in each Party’s GHG
inventory and NIR. The historical data came from the 2010 GHG inventory, unless otherwise specified. In caseof modelled projections, the consistency with historical data can be shown by the fact that the model used forconstructing the projected FMRL reproduces historical data forest management or Forest land Remaining Forest
Land from the GHG inventory.
The FMRL submissions included information on forest characteristics, including age-class structure, increments,
rotation lengths, and other relevant information, including information on forest management activities alreadyundertaken and assumed under business as usual. In many cases information included the forest types, the soil
types, the growing stock, the tree species composition and the detailed silvicultural practices (including theregeneration modality, the type and frequency of cuttings, etc.). In the case of models used for projected FMRLs,
other information included the assumptions on future silvicultural practices, on key drivers (i.e. harvest rates), on
the expected evolution of key forest characteristics (age structure, increment), with the aim to describetransparently the forest management activities foreseen under the business as usual scenario and to demonstrate
their feasibility.
Harvest rate is a major driver of emissions and removals from forest management. The FMRL submissions
included the time series of historical harvesting rates and the predicted future harvest rates. In the case ofmodelled projections, it is particularly important that the information showing that the historical harvest used by
the models is consistent with data used in the GHG inventory or, in case harvest is not used in GHG inventories(i.e., if the stock-difference method is used), that the historical harvest used by the models is consistent with
official country statistics.

Many Parties presented in their FMRL submissions values related to the contribution of HWP, assuming either
instantaneous oxidation, or a first-order decay function with default half-lives (see Section 2.8.5).

3718

80

Some Party did not consider the impact of future deforestation rate on the evolution of the FM area, assuming this has aconservative impact on the FMRL value.

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.115

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
3719
3720
3721
3722
3723
3724
3725

Natural disturbances

3726
3727
3728
3729

Since the final agreement on natural disturbances, included in the Decision 2/CMP.7, was reached after the
FMRL submissions, a Technical Correction for accounting purposes may be needed if a country intends to apply
the provision on natural disturbances for the second commitment period. See Section 2.3.9 for detailed
information and good practice guidance on natural disturbances.

3730
3731
3732
3733
3734
3735
3736
3737
3738
3739
3740
3741
3742
3743
3744
3745

Factoring out

Decision 2/CMP.6 also requested Parties to consider including in the construction of their FMRLs information
on disturbances in the context of force majeure (as defined in decision 2/CMP.6). Most Parties did not consider
disturbances explicitly in the construction of their FMRLs, often noting the low frequency of such events. In
some cases, the average impact of past disturbances is incorporated in the FMRL through the methodologies
used. In other cases, the impact of natural disturbances on FMRL was expressed as a range of possible
disturbances scenarios or as a constant background level of natural disturbances.

Decision 2/CMP.6 required Parties to consider in their FMRL submissions factoring out in accordance withparagraph 1(h) (i) and 1(h) (ii) of decision 16/CMP.1 (i.e. to factor out the removals from elevated carbon
dioxide concentrations above pre-industrial level, indirect nitrogen deposition, and the dynamic effects of age
class structure resulting from activities and practices before the reference year 1990). Parties did not explicitly
consider factoring out in their FMRLs. In the case of historical FMRLs, it is noted that, given the present state ofscientific knowledge, the effects of elevated CO2 concentrations and indirect nitrogen deposition are considered
to be approximately the same in the FMRL and in the commitment period estimates, and therefore they can beassumed to be factored out. The dynamic age-class effects will remain over any given commitment period but
may eventually be removed from accounting by being cancelled out over successive commitment periods. For
projected FMRLs, it is generally assumed that there is no effect from elevated CO2. Furthermore, the use of a
projected FMRL means that removals resulting from elevated CO2 concentrations above the pre-industrial level
and indirect nitrogen deposition will be factored out when subtracting the FMRL from net emissions or removals
that occur during the commitment period. Similarly, the dynamic effects of differing age-class structures acrossthe forests resulting from past activities and practices and natural disturbances are included in both theconstruction of the FMRL and the estimation of net emissions during the reporting period.

3746
3747
3748
3749
3750
3751
3752
3753

Continuity with the treatment of forest management in the first commitment
period

3754
3755
3756
3757
3758
3759
3760
3761
3762

Policies included

3763

Parties proposing historical FMRLs based on 1990 do not take into account policies and measures since that year.

3764
3765
3766

Other relevant information

3767

The new elements and refinements include:

3768



The emissions arising from the conversion of natural forests to planted forest (see Section 2.7.1)

3769



The Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversions (see Section 2.7.7)

3770
3771



This is not a relevant element for most approaches used to calculate the FMRL. For one country, the continuity
with the treatment of forest management in the first commitment period means that the same narrow approachwith gross–net accounting will continues, and therefore FMRL was set as zero. In this case, the narrow approachaccounts for emissions and removals only from forest land where these activities, including thinning, areimplemented or where any additional activity is to be implemented to enhance sustainable forest management in
the future. In doing this, the narrow approach provides continuity with the first commitment period.
Following Decision 2/CMP.6, Parties were requested to include in their FMRL submissions a description of thedomestic policies adopted and implemented no later than December 2009 and explain how these polices havebeen considered in the construction of the FMRL. Parties were also requested to confirm that the construction of
the FMRL includes neither assumptions about changes to domestic policies adopted and implemented after
December 2009, nor includes new domestic policies. The aim of this information is also to document thefeasibility of the policies and the assumptions included in the FMRL, in relation to the country-specificcircumstances. A few Parties also clarified the effects of policies related to biofuel or the use of biomass as arenewable source in the calculation of their FMRLs.

Decision 2/CMP.7 introduced some new elements and some refinements as compared to the text in Decision
2/CMP.6, on which the FMRL submissions were based on.

The final agreement on the accounting of harvested wood products removed from areas under forest
management (see Section 2.3.8)

2.116

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

3772
3773



3774
3775
3776

To fulfil the requirement under point (a), it is good practice to provide additional information according to theSection 2.7.1. Whenever any of points (b), (c) or (d) is applied, it is essential to consider the need for TechnicalCorrection when accounting (see Section 2.7.6).

3777

2.7.5.2

The final agreement on the possible exclusion of emissions associated with natural disturbances (seeSection 2.3.9).

3778

M ETHODOLOGICAL CONSISTENCY BETWEEN FMRL AND
REPORTING FOR F OREST M ANAGEMENT DURING THE

3779

COMMITMENT PERIOD

3780
3781
3782
3783
3784

According to Decision 2/CMP.7, when accounting for forest management, Parties shall demonstrate
methodological consistency between the FMRL 81 and reporting for forest management during the second
commitment period, and shall apply technical correction, if necessary, to ensure consistency. This section
discusses general issues and good practice guidance related to methodological consistency. Technicalcorrections are addressed in the following section.

3785
3786
3787
3788
3789
3790
3791
3792

Consistency is one of the key principles in the estimation of greenhouse gases inventories. In the UNFCCC
reporting guidelines consistency means that an inventory should be internally consistent in all its elements withinventories of other years, i.e. it refers to the need of time-series consistency of an inventory. An inventory is
consistent if the same methodologies are used for all years and if consistent data sets are used for estimating
carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions during the whole period. Under certain circumstances 82 , aninventory using different methodologies for different years can be considered to be consistent if it has beenrecalculated in a transparent manner, and if potential inconsistencies are minimized in accordance with theguidance provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Volume 1, Chapter 5) and with GPG-LULUCF (Chapter 5).

3793
3794
3795
3796
3797
3798
3799
3800

The 2006 IPCC Guidelines describe common situations in which time series consistency may not be achieved,
including: (i) recalculations due to methodological changes and refinements, and (ii) adding new categories. A
methodological change is a switch to a different tier (or to a different method, e.g. from stock-change to gainloss, or from inventory-based to process-based method) from the one previously used for reporting, often driven
by the development of new and different data sets. A methodological refinement occurs when an inventory
compiler uses the same tier to estimate emissions but applies it using a different data source or a different levelof aggregation. Both methodological changes and refinements over time are an essential part of improving
inventory quality. The adding of new categories includes also the addition of new carbon pools and gases.

3801

In the context of FMRL, the following distinction needs to be made:

3802
3803

1.

Methodological elements used in the construction of FMRL (as reported in the FMRL submission),including:

3804
3805

(i) The historical data (i.e. pre-201083 ) used to establish the FMRL (e.g. area, harvest, increment, age
structure, forest characteristics and management, emissions and removals etc.).

3806
3807
3808

(ii) Other methodological elements, including: pools and gases, the treatment of harvested wood products,
the treatment of natural disturbances, the treatment of Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversions,factoring out.

3809
3810
3811

2.

Policy assumptions under business-as-usual scenarios (for projected FMRL only, as reported in the FMRL
submission), including economic assumptions or responses and assumptions on the evolution (after the
FMRL submission) of forest management, of the forest area, of forest characteristics, and harvesting rates.

3812
3813
3814
3815
3816

During the commitment period, it is essential to ensure consistency between the methodological elements (see 1
above) used in the construction of FMRL and those used in the reporting of forest management. It is goodpractice to consider all the specific elements highlighted in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Annex to Decision
2/CMP.7, and the list of criteria and elements included in Table 2.7.1 to address any inconsistency through aTechnical Correction (see following section).

81

As inscribed in the appendix of decision 2.CMP.7.

82

Referred to in paragraphs 16 to 18 of the UNFCCC reporting guidelines (decision … CMP.7)

83

Depending of the country, the FMRL may have been constructed using historical data up to 2008 or 2009.

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.117

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
3817
3818
3819

By contrast, a deviation in policy assumptions (see 2 above) from those assumed in constructing the FMRL,
including differences in economic assumptions or responses (e.g. harvesting decisions), do not represent
methodological inconsistencies, and thus should not be considered for technical corrections.

3820
3821
3822
3823
3824
3825
3826
3827
3828

A common situation of inconsistency is the change, after the FMRL has been set, of one or more of themethodological elements used in the construction of FMRL when reporting forest management during thecommitment period. For instance, a methodological change or refinement may lead to the recalculation ofhistorical data (pre-2010) used to establish FMRL, or the treatment of HWP or natural disturbances may change
in the commitment period as compared to the FMRL. These changes would introduce inconsistencies. Other
possible cases of inconsistency between the FMRL and reporting for forest management during the commitment
period are possible. For this reason, for the purpose of demonstrating that the accounting of emissions andremovals during the commitment period is not affected by methodological or time-series inconsistency,
additional information and/or checks may be needed, depending on the approach and method used to set FMRL.

3829
3830
3831
3832
3833
3834
3835
3836
3837
3838
3839
3840
3841
3842
3843

For projected FMRLs, it is good practice to provide information on the main factors generating the accounted
quantity (i.e., the difference in net emissions and removals between reporting of forest management during thesecond commitment period and the FMRL); for instance, given that harvest rate is generally the main driver ofthe forest sink in the short term, it is good practice to show that a higher (or lower) sink during the second
commitment period, as compared to what was assumed in the business-as-usual scenario, is quantitatively
consistent with the observed lower (or higher) harvest rate, and/or to provide evidence that other major factors
are involved. The aim of this information is to show that the accounted quantity in the second commitment
period can be explained in terms of deviations in policy assumptions or responses to them (e.g. harvest rate) as
compared to what was assumed in the FMRL.. The aim is not to provide the basis for a technical correction. In
addition, it is good practice to show that a model used for constructing a projected FMRL reproduces thehistorical data of forest management or Forest land Remaining Forest Land as reported in FMRL submission. It
is also good practice that the documentation of the model follows the criteria listed in the Annex 1 of the IPCC
expert meeting report on the use of models in Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC, 2010), including information
on model selection and development, on model calibration and evaluation, on input data used, on uncertainties,
on model implementation and on the evaluation of model results.

3844
3845
3846
3847
3848

Furthermore, for any of the approaches used to set FMRL, once a pool has been included in the FMRL inscribedin the Appendix to Decision 2/CMP.7, for consistency reasons it is good practice to report this pool during thecommitment period, irrespective of the pool being a sink or a source (i.e. a pool that has been included in FMRL
cannot be omitted when reporting forest management during the commitment period by referring to the “not a
net-source” provision).

3849

2.7.6

3850
3851
3852
3853
3854

Estimation of the FMRL typically relies upon numerous data inputs, assumptions, and models brought together
in a consistent and transparent way. For accounting of forest management, what counts is the difference between
the FMRL and forest management emissions and removals occurring in the second commitment period.
Therefore, it is important to ensure that the FMRL and the reporting of forest management during thecommitment period are as methodologically consistent as possible (see Section 2.7.5.2).

3855
3856
3857
3858
3859
3860

If the reported data on forest management or Forest land Remaining Forest Land used to establish the reference
level are subject to recalculations, or if other methodological inconsistency exists between the FMRL and theforest management reporting during the respective commitment period, to ensure consistency, Parties arerequested to apply a technical correction. The Technical Correction ensures methodological consistency between
the FMRL and the reporting of forest management during the commitment period, or at least it removes theimpact of any methodological inconsistency when accounting.

3861
3862
3863
3864

Essentially, the Technical Correction is a value of net emissions and removals, which is added at the time ofaccounting to the original FMRL (contained in Decision 2/CMP.7) to ensure that accounted emissions andremovals will not reflect the impact of methodological inconsistencies. The Technical Correction is defined as(in Mt CO2eq/year):

3865
3866

EQUATION 2.7.1
TECHNICAL CORRECTION

3867

Technical _ Correction  FMRL corr  FMRL

Technical Corrections for accounting purposes

3868

2.118

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

3869

Where:

3870
3871
3872

Technical Correction= Value of net emissions and removals, which is added at the time of accounting tothe original FMRL (contained in Decision 2/CMP.7) to ensure that accounted emissions andremovals will not reflect the impact of methodological inconsistencies

3873

FMRL = Forest Management Reference Level inscribed in the appendix of Decision 2/CMP.7

3874
3875

FMRLcorr = Forest Management Reference Level recalculated for the purpose of calculating theTechnical Correction.

3876
3877
3878
3879

FMRL itself is not changed through a technical correction. However, in the case the need for TechnicalCorrection is identified, i.e. if a methodological inconsistency is found at any time during the commitment period,
the FMRLcorr represents the recalculated reference level which does not contain impacts of any methodologicalinconsistencies.

3880
3881

This section describes how to detect the need for technical correction, how to calculate FMRLcorr, and when to
apply the technical correction.

3882
3883
3884
3885
3886
3887

2.7.6.1

H OW TO DETECT THE NEED FOR T ECHNICALC ORRECTIONS

Figure 2.7.4 provides a general decision tree on how to identify the need for technical correction. Table 2.7.1
provides the specific criteria and the elements to be checked to detect a possible methodological inconsistency
and the consequent need for technical correction.

3888
3889

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.119

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
3890
3891

Figure 2.7.4

Decision tree for identifying the need for Technical Correction during thesecond commitment period.
Start

Did the historical data used toestablish FMRL, as reported in the FMRL
submission change after the adoption of
FMRL?

Yes

There is a methodological inconsistency

No

There is no need for TC

No
Check for any other methodologicalinconsistency between FMRL and thereporting of FM in the second CP

Is there any methodological inconsistency
identified in the steps above?

Yes

Calculate FMRLcorr to remove the impactof any inconsistency identified

Calculate the Technical Correction andadd it when accounting to the original
FMRL

3892
3893

2.120

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

3894
3895
3896
3897
3898
3899

If a methodological inconsistency is identified between FMRL and reporting of forest management during thecommitment period, technical corrections are for the purpose of removing the impact of this methodologicalinconsistency when accounting. The need for Technical Correction may arise only if one of the following
conditions are met:
1. The historical data (i.e., pre-2010) used to establish the FMRL, as reported in the FMRL submission, change
after the adoption of FMRL.

3900
3901

2.

3902
3903

Technical corrections can neither be triggered by changes in policy assumptions or responses to them, nor bychanges in the approach or model used to set FMRL.

3904

Common cases where it is good practice to apply a Technical Correction for accounting purposes may include:

3905
3906



Errors have been identified in the previous inventory data, models, or methods that affect the data used
to establish the FMRL.

3907
3908
3909
3910
3911



Available historical input data used to establish FMRL have changed. For example, forest inventory data
may be compiled only once in a five or ten year period. In the case new historic (pre-2010) forest inventory
data (e.g. new area, age structure, carbon stock, net removals, harvest or increment rates) become available
that could not be used for the construction of the FMRL, Technical Correction could allow the inclusion ofsuch new information.

3912
3913
3914
3915
3916
3917
3918
3919



Methodological change or refinements are implemented in the reporting of forest management (i.e. moving
to a different tier), which lead to recalculation of reported historical data (pre-2010) of forest management or
Forest land Remaining Forest Land used. In the future, new methods may be developed that take advantageof new datasets, and modelling tools, new technologies or improved scientific understanding. For example,
remote-sensing technology and site-specific modelling is making it feasible to estimate historic emissions
from land clearing activities more accurately than by using simple aggregate emission factor and activity
data. The development of new or refined inventory methods for reporting is part of the broader process ofcontinuous improvement, which countries are encouraged to follow.

3920
3921
3922



In the case of FMRLs based only on the elaboration of historical data from GHG inventories (average ofpast data, linear extrapolation) or FMRL based on the single year 1990, any recalculation of the time series
used to establish the FMRL will trigger a technical correction.

3923
3924
3925
3926



New pools or GHG sources are included in the reporting for forest management. For instance, if a pool notreported earlier (and therefore not included in the FMRL) because of being a sink, becomes a source in the
future, it is good practice to include this pool both in the reporting of forest management and in a new
FMRLcorr.

3927
3928



The FMRL and the reporting of forest management in the respective commitment period are not consistent
with respect to:

Any other methodological inconsistency exists between the FMRL and reported data during the respective
commitment period (see Table 2.7.1 for a full list of criteria and elements to be checked).

3929
3930
3931

(i)

The treatment of harvested wood products agreed in Decision 2/CMP.7. Since the final agreementon HWP was reached after the FMRL submissions, a Technical Correction related to HWP is
expected to be a common case.

3932
3933
3934
3935

(ii)

The treatment of natural disturbances agreed in Decision 2/CMP.7, e.g. if the calculation of the
background level of natural disturbances indicates that one or more events need to be excluded, it isgood practice to remove these events should be removed from historical emissions andto calculate
FMRLcorr should be calculated.

3936

(iii)

The treatment of Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversions.

3937
3938
3939
3940
3941
3942

Other kinds of methodological inconsistency may exist between the FMRL and the forest management reporting
during the commitment period. For example, if a model used for constructing a projected FMRL does not
reproduce the historical data (before the FMRL submission) of forest management or Forest land Remaining
Forest Land, this is a likely sign of inconsistency. In this case, it is good practice either to provide additional
evidence demonstrating consistency or to apply a technical correction.

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.121

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
3943
TABLE 2.7.1
CRITERIA TO DETECT THE NEED FOR TECHNICAL CORRECTION
Criteria
1.

Comment /action

Any of the methodological element used to establish the FMRL, asreported in the FMRL submission, changed after the adoption of FMRL

Element

ChangeNew pools or gases84

Calculate FMRLcorr by including
the new pools or gasesb)
Area under forest
management

Different historical area pre-2010

Calculate FMRLcorr using the
new areac)Historical datafrom greenhouse gas
inventory

Different historical data pre-2010 for FL-FL or FM,
due to recalculation.

Calculate FMRLcorr using the
new datad)
Forestcharacteristics and related
management85

Different historical data and information on
management pre-2010

Calculate FMRLcorr using the
new data and informatione)Historical
Harvesting rates

Different historical data pre-2010

Calculate FMRLcorr using the
new harvesting ratesf)Harvested wood
products

Different data and/or methods

Calculate a FMRLcorr byapplying the same data and/or
methodg)
Naturaldisturbances

Different data and/or method

Calculate a FMRLcorr by applying
the same data and/or method

Different treatment

Calculate a FMRLcorr by applying
the same treatment of CEFC

2.
Other possible methodological inconsistencies, e.g. the FMRL model
does not reproduce historical data (pre-2010) of FM or FL-FL

If needed, calculate a FMRLcorr,
e.g., by applying IPCC methods
to ensure time-series consistency.

a)Pools and gases

Other relevant informationh)
CarbonEquivalent Forest
Conversion

3944
3945
3946
3947
3948
3949
3950

Table 2.7.1 provides general guidance on the cases for which methodological consistency is affected andTechnical Correction needs to be applied. By contrast, policy assumptions occur without affecting
methodological consistency. In particular, the evolution of specific elements after the FMRL submission (i.e.
forest management area, forest characteristics and related management, harvesting rates) represent a deviationfrom the policy assumptions described in the FMRL submission. These deviations do not imply amethodological inconsistency, and therefore do not trigger technical corrections.

3951

3953

H OW TO PERFORM AND DOCUMENT THE CALCULATION OF
FMRL C O R R

3954
3955
3956

If the need for Technical Correction is determined, it is good practice to calculate FMRLcorr. Several methods
may be considered to address methodological inconsistencies and to calculate FMRLcorr, depending on theapproach used to construct FMRL, the cause of the inconsistency and the data that are available to perform the3952

2.7.6.2

84

Note that, when accounting, it is not possible to exclude a pool or gas already included in the FMRL

85

This includes, among others: age-class structure, increment, species composition, rotation lengths, management practices,
etc.

2.122

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

3957
3958
3959

recalculations. Irrespective of the method used, it is good practice to provide information that the method usedavoids the expectation of net credits linked to any methodological inconsistency between FMRLcorr and reportingfor forest management during the commitment period.

3960
3961
3962
3963

In the case of projected FMRLs, FMRLcorr may be calculated by, inter alia, a new model projection using new
historical data or applying a different treatment of a specific element (e.g., HWP, natural disturbances). When
new projections are made, it is essential to keep all the policy assumptions under the business-as-usual scenario
unchanged.

3964
3965
3966
3967
3968
3969

If the need for a Technical Correction due to a methodological inconsistency has been identified, but a newmodel run cannot be performed, the time-series consistency may be ensured by using one of the methods
described by 2006 IPCC Guidelines, including the overlap between models results and data for forest
management of Forest land Remaining Forest Land reported for the historical period (before the FMRL
submission). In this case, consistency would be ensured ex-post, i.e. adjusting existing model results to thehistorical reported data.

3970
3971
3972
3973
3974

In the case of FMRL based on elaboration of historical data only (average of past data, linear extrapolation) oron the single year 1990, any recalculation of the time series will automatically produce FMRLcorr. It is essentialthat the criteria to calculate FMRLcorr are the same as those used for setting FMRL, i.e. if the FMRL is calculated
as a linear extrapolation of any historical period trend, the same period should be used for FMRLcorr in case arecalculation of historical time series occurs.

3975
3976

Irrespective of the method applied to calculate FMRLcorr, it is good practice to accompany any TechnicalCorrection with transparent information on:

3977



Rationale for calculating FMRLcorr (description of which criteria in Table 2.7. 1 has been met)

3978
3979
3980



Methods used to calculate FMRLcorr. In case a model is used, it is good practice to document theimplementation of the model according to the criteria listed in the Annex 1 of the IPCC Expert Meeting
Report on the Use of Models in GHG Inventories (IPCC, 2010).

3981



Results, i.e. the FMRLcorr

3982
3983
3984
3985



Discussion of the differences between FMRLcorr and FMRL. For this purpose, it is good practice to report
acomparison of recalculated estimates with previous estimates, e.g. as shown in Table 2.7. 2 and wheneverpossible also as a graphical plot showing the temporal dynamics of the estimates underlying FMRLcorr and
FMRL.

3986
TABLE 2.7.2
EXAMPLE OF DOCUMENTATION DOCUMENTATIONWHEN PERFORMING A TECHNICAL CORRECTION
Emissions and Removals (Gg)FMRL

-10000FMRLcorr-10500Difference in per cent =100●[(FMRLcorr–FMRL)/FMRL]

10%Technical Correction= FMRLcorr - FMRL

-500

FM reported during the commitment period-12000Accounted Quantity = FMRL - reported FM + Technical Correction

1500

3987
3988

2.7.6.3

W HEN TO APPLY T ECHNICAL C ORRECTION

3989
3990

It is essential to apply Technical Correction when accounting, i.e. annually or at end of the commitment period,
depending on the choice made by the Party.

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.123

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
3991
3992
3993
3994
3995

For most Parties, it is expected that in most years there will be the need to calculate FMRLcorr, e.g., due tochange in reporting methods or new data which cause a recalculation of historical data used to construct FMRL.
Therefore, also for not accounting years, for transparency purposes whenever it is possible it is good practice toassess annually the need for technical correction, i.e. to check the criteria set in Table 2.7.1, to calculate
FMRLcorr and to report such information in the annual national inventory report.

3996

2.7.7

3997

2.7.7.1

Carbon Equivalent Forests
D EFINITIONAL ISSUES AND REPORTINGREQUIREMENTS

3998
3999
4000
4001
4002
4003
4004
4005

Under Decision 2/CMP.7, Parties may account for emissions by sources and removals by sinks resulting fromthe harvest and conversion of some forest plantations to non-forest land, provided that certain conditions are met.
The main condition is that a forest of at least the same area and carbon stock potential must be created on nonforest land. Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion (CEFC) is the activity of converting plantation forest to nonforest while simultaneously establishing a “carbon equivalent forest” on non-forest land elsewhere. The CEFC
provision allows what would otherwise be Article 3.3 Deforestation and Afforestation/Reforestation activity to
be accounted for as Article 3.4 Forest Management instead.

4006
4007
4008
4009

CEFC requires two land components – the existing forest land to be cleared (CEF-d) and the non-forest land on
which a Carbon Equivalent Forest is to be established (CEF-ar). Both components must meet the criteria for
CEFC in order to be accounted for under forest management. Figures 2.7.5 and 2.7.6 provide decision trees for
categorising forest clearance and establishment activities.

4010

2.124

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

4011

Figure 2.7.5

CEFC decision tree for forest clearance

4012
4013
4014

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.125

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
4015

Figure 2.7.6

CEFC decision tree for forest establishment

4016
4017
4018

2.126

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

4019
4020
4021
4022

It is good practice for Parties to identify, monitor and report all lands and associated carbon pools subject to the
CEFC provision, including the geo-referenced location and year of conversion. It is good practice to use areporting method that is consistent with the method used for Article 3.3 activities.

4023

If Reporting Method 1 is used, the Party must identify:

4024
4025
4026



The geographical location of the boundaries of the areas that encompass units of land subject to the CEFC
provision. The geographical boundaries which are reported should correspond to strata in the estimation ofland areas as described in Section 2.2.2;

4027
4028
4029



For each of these areas, or strata, estimates of the area of the units of subject to CEFC in the two
subcategories, namely those that would have been subject to Article 3.3 Deforestation, and Article 3.3
Afforestation/Reforestation.

4030
4031
4032
4033

If Reporting Method 2 is used, the Party must identify each unit of land subject to the CEFC provision using thepolygon boundaries, a coordinate system (e.g., the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Grid or
Latitude/Longitude) at possible finer resolution, or a legal description (e.g., those used by land-titles offices) of
the location of the land subject to the CEFC provision.

4034

For both reporting methods the Party must provide:

4035
4036
4037
4038
4039



The year of the start of CEFC activities, which will be between 1 January 2013 and the end of the inventory
year. The year of forest land conversion to non-forest under the CEFC provision is taken as the year inwhich land use change is confirmed. Within the boundary of the areas activities may have started indifferent years. It is good practice to group units of land by age and to report the area in each age classseparately; and

4040
4041



The area of units of land subject to CEFC activity in each productivity class and species combination (where
relevant) to support the calculation of carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions;

4042
4043
4044
4045



Documentation that demonstrates the link between each unit of forest land cleared and the corresponding
land established in plantation forest under the CEFC provision. It is good practice for Parties to provide,
according to their national circumstances, the definition of plantation forest that is used in the application of
the CEFC provision. This definition should be consistent throughout the time series and the inventory.

4046

2.7.7.2

4047

C HOICE OF METHODS FOR IDENTIFYING LANDS SUBJECTTO C ARBON E QUIVALENT F OREST C ONVERSION

4048
4049
4050

For eligibility under the CEFC provision, conditions apply to both the land converted from plantation forest to
non-forest (CEF-d land) and the corresponding land converted from non-forest to forest (CEF-ar land).
According to Decision 2/CMP.7 the forest to be cleared must meet the following criteria:

4051
4052



Must be plantation forest at time of conversion, meeting or exceeding the thresholds for the country’s
definition of forest as well as their specific definition of plantation forest.

4053



Must have been plantation forest on 31 December 1989

4054



Must have been first established by direct-human induced planting or seeding

4055
4056
4057
4058
4059



Must have been first established onto non-forest land. If this non-forest land was previously forested, it isgood practice to apply the same criteria used to distinguish harvesting or forest disturbance that is followedby the re-establishment of a forest from deforestation. For example, normal practice in a country may be tore-establish forests three years after harvesting. A plantation that was first established on land that hadremained non-forest for five years would then be eligible under the CEFC provision.

4060
4061



Must still be the original forest established, or, if re-established, this must have last occurred through direct
human induced planting and/or seeding after 1 January 1960.

4062
4063
4064

It is good practice to apply the same methods described in Section 2.6.2 for identifying units of land subject todirect human-induced deforestation, to also identify units of land cleared of forest which are to be accounted forunder the CEFC provision, since only land that qualifies as Article 3.3 D land will qualify as CEF-d land.

4065
4066

The decision tree for determining eligibility for forest land to be converted to non-forest land under the CEFC
provision is shown in Figure 2.7.7.

4067

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.127

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
4068
4069

Figure 2.7.7

Decision tree for determining the eligibility of land to be deforested under
CEFC provision (CEF-d land)

4070

4071
4072

2.128

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

4073
4074
4075

The land on which a Carbon Equivalent Forest is to be established (CEF-ar land) must meet the following
criteria:4076

Must be non-forest at the time of conversion.

4077



Must have been non-forest on 31 December 1989

4078



Must be converted to forest land through direct human-induced planting and/or seeding

4079



The forest established must be at least equal in area to the forest converted to non-forest

4080
4081
4082



The forest established must reach at least the equivalent carbon stock that was contained in the harvested
forest plantation at the time of harvest, within the normal harvesting cycle of the harvested forest plantation,and if not, a forest management accounting debit would be generated under Article 3.4.

4083
4084
4085
4086

It is good practice to apply the methods described in Section 2.5.2 for identifying units of land subject to direct
human-induced afforestation and reforestation also for identifying units of land established in forest which are to
be accounted for under the CEFC provision, since only land that qualifies as Article 3.3 AR land will qualify as
CEF-ar land.

4087
4088

The decision tree for determining eligibility for non-forest land to be converted to forest land under the CEFC
provision is shown in Figure 2.7.8

4089

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.129

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
4090
4091

Figure 2.7.8

Decision tree for determining eligibility of land to be afforested under CEFC
provision (CEF-ar land)

4092

4093
4094
4095

2.130

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

4096
4097
4098
4099
4100
4101
4102
4103

All lands and associated carbon pools subject to the CEFC provision can be accounted for as forest management
under Article 3.4. This includes any harvested wood products resulting from the conversion of forest to nonforest land.
It is good practice to provide documentation that CEF-ar lands included in the identified units of land are forests
established by direct human-induced planting and seeding. Where it is uncertain whether the trees on a unit ofland will pass the thresholds of the definition of forest, it is good practice not to report these areas as forest
management lands under the CEFC provision, and to await confirmation (at a later time) that these parameter
thresholds have been or will be passed.

4104
4105

DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN ARD LAND AND CARBON EQUIVALENTFORESTCONVERSION LAND

4106
4107
4108
4109
4110
4111

It is good practice that areas subject to the CEFC provision are reported separately from areas subject to direct
human induced deforestation and afforestation/reforestation. Until forest establishment on CEF-ar land has been
confirmed, the clearance of plantation forest on the CEF-d land should be reported as Article 3.3 Deforestation.
After confirmation that a forest has been established, both the CEF-d and CEF-ar land should be reported as
Article 3.4 Forest Management lands. Documentation should be provided to demonstrate that all therequirements for the CEFC provision have been met.

4112
4113
4114

If non-forest land established in forest under the CEFC provision is subsequently deforested (before or after
achieving carbon stock equivalence) the land should be reclassified as Article 3.3 Deforestation land andreported accordingly.

4115
4116

DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN CM, GM AND RV LAND AND CARBON
EQUIVALENT FORESTCONVERSION LAND

4117
4118
4119
4120
4121

It is good practice that areas subject to the CEFC provision are reported under forest management which haspriority over elected activities under Article 3.4. This means that there may be land units that are subject toelective article 3.4 activities (e.g. cropland management) but are reported under forest management. These lands
should be identified and reported separately from other forest management lands. Methodologies appropriate to
the actual land use should be applied, such that emissions and removals are neither under- nor over-estimated.

4122
4123
4124

2.7.7.3

C HOICE OF METHODS FOR ESTIMATING CARBON STOCKCHANGES AND NON -CO 2 EMISSIONS

4125
4126
4127
4128
4129
4130

It is good practice too apply the same methods for estimating carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions on
CEFC lands asas are applied on FM land. The same or a higher tier should be used. In addition, forest land
converted to non-forest under the CEFC provision may be subject to management that results in anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions over-and-above what would have been expected if the forest had been re-established.
It is good practice to capture these emissions and stock changes by applying the methods for the appropriate landuse (e.g. cropland or grazing land).

4131
4132
4133
4134
4135
4136
4137
4138
4139
4140
4141

Accounting for forest management is based on a reference level approach. If a modelled projection is used toestablish the FMRL, then the expectation that an equivalent carbon stock will be achieved through the CEFC
provision must be included within FMRL. This will require a Technical Correction for accounting purpose sothat the impact of the establishment of a Carbon Equivalent Forest on non-forest land is considered in theaccounting. This ensures that if carbon equivalence is not achieved, a forest management debit will be generated
based on deviation from the reference level. Similarly, net credits will be generated if carbon equivalence issurpassed e.g. if the CEF-ar land has a higher productivity than the CEF-d land which would lead to exceeding
the FMRL. The expectation of future carbon stock should be established in a way that is consistent with theapproach used for other forest management lands in the reference level. It is good practice that transparent
documentation is provided that defines the normal rotation length of the cleared forest plantation and shows how
the expectation that carbon stock will be equivalent has been met.

4142
4143
4144
4145
4146

If forest land established under the CEFC provision is affected by natural disturbance, the emissions andsubsequent uptake on that land can be excluded from accounting in accordance with the natural disturbanceprovisions in Section 2.3.9. The natural disturbance accounting provision applies to emissions from forests, so
cannot be used for natural disturbances affecting non-forest CEF-d land that is accounted for under forest
management using the CEFC provision.

4147

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.131

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
4148

2.8

HARVESTED WOOD PRODUCTS (HWP)

4149
4150
4151
4152
4153

This chapter provides good practice guidance for estimating annual changes in carbon stocks and CO2
emissions/removals (hereinafter referred to as HWP contribution) from the harvested wood products (HWP) pool
to be accounted for in accordance with decision 2/CMP.7.86 It gives guidance for selecting the adequate data andmethods for estimating the carbon stock and the carbon stock changes in the HWP in line with the definedsystem boundaries of the accounting approach agreed upon in decision 2/CMP.7.

4154
4155
4156

To date various accounting approaches have been proposed to estimate and report HWP contribution. They
differ in the reference to the atmosphere and/or the treatment of HWP trade, due to different interpretations ofsome key terms relevant for the reporting framework (Winjum, et al. 1998, Cowie, et al. 2006).

4157
4158
4159
4160

This is also reflected in Chapter 12 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines which states that the guidance given “does notprefer any of these approaches and does not attempt to prejudge whether these, or any other approach, should be
used to account” for the HWP contribution (IPCC 2006). Hence, it suggests calculating different variables thatare needed to estimate the HWP contribution according to the different approaches (see Table 12.1, IPCC 2006).

4161
4162
4163
4164
4165
4166

One of the implications of the decision 2/CMP.7 is that accounting of HWP shall be confined to products in use
where the wood in the products came from domestic harvest, i.e. trees harvested in the reporting country.87 In
principle, this follows the approach to base estimates of HWP contribution on changes in the pool (i.e. stockchanges) reflected by variable 2A in Table 12.1 in 2006 IPCC Guidelines. But contrary to the estimation method
proposed there, decision 2/CMP.7 limits the extent of HWP which can be included in the estimates and defines
constraints for accounting of HWP contribution by Parties.

4167

2.8.1

4168
4169
4170

In order to estimate the HWP contribution and account for the changes in the HWP pool in line with decision
2/CMP.7, it is good practice to follow the decision tree (Figure 2.8.1) and the steps described hereinafter, whichgive guidance on choosing the adequate tier method for the estimation.

4171
4172

The following steps are to be taken for selecting the adequate tier method corresponding to the national
circumstances.

4173
4174
4175
4176
4177

STEP 1:
HWP

4178
4179
4180
4181

STEP 1.1: In order to verify whether your country complies with this mandatory requirement, checkdatabases of international organizations, such as the public database of the Food and Agricultural Organizationof the United Nations (FAO) 89 for the availability of production and trade statistics on the defined HWP
categories. Detailed guidance is given in Section 2.8.1.1.

4182
4183
4184

STEP 1.2: In case your country complies with this requirement, check whether other activity data (i.e.
country-specific) are available which fulfil the requirement to be “transparent and verifiable”. Further guidanceis given in Section 2.8.4.1.

4185
4186
4187

STEP 1.3: If available country-specific activity data do not follow the classification of forest products asoutlined in Section 2.8.1.1, determine whether HWP activity data represent information on the material use ofwood in service and cross-check the information with guidance given in Section 2.8.2.

4188
4189
4190

STEP 2: Check whether HWP categories to be used in the calculation
originate from forests that are accounted for by your country and allocate
HWP to the particular forest land use category

Initial steps to estimate HWP contribution

Check availability of transparent and verifiable activity data on

According to decision 2/CMP.7 Parties shall account for HWP on the basis of the change in the HWP pool
during the second and subsequent commitment periods, provided that transparent and verifiable activity data forthe three HWP categories sawn wood, wood panels and paper are available.88

86

References to paragraphs in this chapter refer to the Annex of decision 2/CMP.7 to be found in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, unless indicated otherwise

87

Cf. paragraphs 27 and 32

88

Cf. paragraph 29

89

http://faostat.fao.org/site/630/Default.aspx

2.132

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

4191
4192
4193
4194

Decision 2/CMP.7 limits the mandatory accounting to HWP originating from forests which are accounted for bythat Party under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4. Imported HWP, irrespective of their origin, are excluded90. As
reflected in the decision tree (Figure 2.8.1), the decision 2/CMP.7 specifies the methods to be used for theestimation depending on the purpose of use as well as the origin of HWP.91

4195

90

Cf. paragraph 27

91

Cf. paragraphs 28, 29, 31 and 32

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.133

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
4196
4197

Figure 2.8.1

Decision tree for selection of a correct tier method for estimating HWP
carbon stock change

4198
4199

No

Are
transparent andverifiable activity data
available for the specified
HWP categories?
(2.8.1.1)

Start

Yes

No

Do HWP
activity data represent
information on material use of
HWP in service?
(2.8.1.1)
Yes

No

Yes

Do HWP
originate from forests
which are accounted for byyour country under
Articles 3.3
and 3.4?

Yes

Calculate the domestic feedstock
and allocate to forest land use
category (2.8.1.2)

Do HWP
originate fromdeforestation (D)?

No
Are
country-specifichalf-lives and/or
methodologies
available?

Yes

Demonstrate that themethodologies used are at least
as detailed and accurate as under
Tier 2 approach (2.8.4)

No
Apply Tier 1(2.8.2)

Apply Tier 2(2.8.3)

Apply Tier 3(2.8.4)

4200
4201

2.134

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

4202

Detailed guidance on how to implement the following steps is given in Section 2.8.1.2.

4203
4204
4205

STEP 2.1: Estimate the share of HWP originating from forests within your country. The default assumption
is that domestic industrial roundwood represents the feedstock for the subsequent processing of the semi-finishedproduct categories sawnwood and wood panels. Domestic wood pulp is the feedstock for paper production.

4206
4207
4208
4209

STEP 2.2: Estimate the share of HWP originating from afforestation, reforestation and deforestation (ARD)
under Article 3 paragraph 3 and forest management (FM) under Article 3 paragraph 4, as the methods for
estimating the HWP contribution will differ according to the provisions outlined in the decision tree for tierselection (Figure 2.8.1).

4210
4211

STEP 2.3: The share of HWP activity data entering the accounting framework is obtained by allocating HWP
which originate from domestic harvest (STEP 2.1) to the relevant forest land use category (STEP 2.2).

4212
4213
4214
4215
4216

STEP 3: Check availability of country-specific information and estimate
carbon stock in HWP and its annual change
Depending on the results of STEPS 1 and 2, as well as the availability of country-specific half-lives and/or
country-specific methodologies, which again have to comply with specific requirements92, the estimation of
HWP contribution follows different tier methods.

4217
4218
4219
4220
4221
4222

Tier 1 method specifies the assumption of instantaneous oxidation that is to be used under certain circumstancesand for specific parts of the HWP pool. The combination of HWP activity data following the internationalclassification system of semi-finished wood products (Figure 2.8.2) with default conversion factors and default
half-lives constitutes Tier 2. Under a Tier 3 method, more accurate country-specific information is to be applied.
This includes activity data and/or emission factors (i.e. service life information of HWP), which is intended to
improve the accuracy of the estimates.

4223

STEP

4224
4225
4226
4227

STEP 3.2: Check whether country-specific HWP activity data following the international classification
system outlined in Section 2.8.1.1 together with specific conversion factors are available for your country
following guidance given in Section 2.8.4.1. If this is the case, allocate HWP activity data in line with STEPS 2
and apply Tier 3 (Section 2.8.4).

4228
4229
4230

STEP 3.3: Check whether country-specific half-life values for the three HWP categories and/or its
disaggregates (See Section 2.8.1.1) can be obtained following the guidance given in Section 2.8.4.2. If this is thecase, apply Tier 3 (Section 2.8.4).

4231
4232
4233

STEP 3.4: Check whether other country-specific methods are available that meet the requirements as
specified in Section 2.8.1.1 and 2.8.4. If this is the case, allocate HWP activity data in line with STEP 2 andapply Tier 3 (Section 2.8.4).

4234
4235
4236

STEP 3.5: In case your country will not make use of a Tier 3 method as outlined for the STEPS 3.2 to 3.4,
allocate HWP activity data in line with STEP 2 and apply Tier 2. Detailed guidance on Tier 2 is given in Section
2.8.3.

4237

2.8.1.1

3.1: In case HWP originate from deforestation within your country use Tier 1 method (Section 2.8.2).

A VAILABILITY OF TRANSPARENT AND VERIFIABLE
ACTIVITY DATA

4238
4239
4240
4241
4242

A key prerequisite for Parties to consider the HWP contribution in their accounting is the availability of“transparent and verifiable activity data” for the three specified HWP categories “paper, […] wood panels, and[…] sawnwood” (cf. STEP 1). 93 This section gives guidance on when available data is to be consideredtransparent and verifiable for estimating the HWP contribution.

4243
4244
4245
4246
4247
4248
4249

Whereas the term “harvested wood products” is based on a concept containing the two separate elements “forest
harvesting” and “wood products” (Brown, et al. 1998, FCCC/TP/2003/7), the named categories refer to thedefinitions of semi-finished wood products of the international classification system of forestry products (cf.
FAO 2009). It is thus good practice to assume that the three HWP categories named in 2/CMP.7 accord withthese commodities. “Removals” (i.e. roundwood) are a subset of “forest harvesting” of biomass (i.e. fellings) at
the beginning of the forest-wood chain. Following the forestry products definitions of the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO), Figure 2.8.2 furthermore shows the relevance of the aggregate commodity “industrial
92

Cf. paragraph 30

93

Paragraph 29

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.135

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
4250
4251
4252
4253

roundwood”. Its subcategories provide the feedstock for the subsequent processing of the three named semifinished HWP commodities along the value chain (cf. FAO 2012). The international classification system forforestry products can be related to the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (HS) of tariff
nomenclature provided by World Customs Organization (WCO).94

4254
4255

Figure 2.8.2

Forest-wood chain based on simplified classification of wood products basedon FAO forestry products definitions 44256

Process chain

Harvest (fellings)
Roundwood (wood-removals)

Slash

Industrial roundwood

Fuelwood and charcoal

Sawlogs and veneer logs

Pulpwood, round and split

Other industrial roundwood

Wood pulp
Sawnwood

Wood-based panels

Paper and paperboard

Other

Finished products in different end uses

4257
4258
4259
4260
4261
4262
4263

In the following, definitions of product commodities, which are relevant for the application of the guidance on
estimating HWP contribution in line with decision 2/CMP.7, are listed (cf. Figure 2.8.2). They are drawn fromthe definitions of the Joint Forest Sector Questionnaire as established by the Intersecretariat Working Group on
Forest Sector Statistics95 and form the basis for the forest products statistics e.g. provided by FAO (2009).96
Datasets for these aggregate product categories are freely and easily accessible, are updated on at least an annual
basis with a 6-month or one year reporting lag, and time series are available for most countries worldwide.97

4264
4265
4266
4267
4268
4269
4270

SAWNWOOD (2/CMP.7 refers to this as “sawnwood”): “Wood that has been produced from both domestic andimported roundwood, either by sawing lengthways or by a profile-chipping process and that exceeds 6 mm inthickness. It includes planks, beams, joists, boards, rafters, scantlings, laths, boxboards and "lumber", etc., in thefollowing forms: unplaned, planed, end-jointed, etc. It excludes sleepers, wooden flooring, mouldings(sawnwood continuously shaped along any of its edges or faces, like tongued, grooved, rebated, V-jointed,
beaded, moulded, rounded or the like) and sawnwood produced by resawing previously sawn pieces. It isreported in cubic metres solid volume.”96

4271
4272

WOOD-BASED PANELS (2/CMP.7 refers to this as “wood panels”): “This product category is an aggregate
comprising veneer sheets, plywood, particle board, and fibreboard. It is reported in cubic metres solid volume.”964273

For the definitions of these subcategories please see FAO 2009. 96

4274
4275
4276
4277

PAPER AND PAPERBOARD (2/CMP.7 refers to this as “paper”): “The paper and paperboard category is anaggregate category. In the production and trade statistics, it represents the sum of graphic papers; sanitary andhousehold papers; packaging materials and other paper and paperboard. It excludes manufactured paper products
such as boxes, cartons, books and magazines, etc. It is reported in metric tonnes.”96

4278
4279
4280
4281

By definition, these three aggregate commodities on semi-finished wood products represent information on thematerial use of HWP and equal the default categories mentioned in decision 2/CMP.7. Additionally, all datasets
are reported in cubic metres solid volume or metric tonnes, which is information that enables countries toconvert the data given into carbon units. Commodities which are excluded from the definitions above (e.g. V94

http://www.wcoomd.org/en/topics/nomenclature/instrument-and-tools/hs-online.aspx (2012/11/26)

95

Comprising the Forestry Department of FAO, the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE), the Statistical Office of theEuropean Communities (EUROSTAT) and the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO)

96

http://www.fao.org/forestry/62283/en/97

http://faostat.fao.org/site/630/default.aspx

2.136

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

4282
4283
4284
4285
4286
4287

jointed sawnwood) might be the result of subsequent processing and therefore fall under the definition offinished wood products (see below). For further clarification on the mass flows along the forest wood processing
chain and definitions of the relevant commodities, countries are strongly encouraged to consult e.g. FAO 2009.
This is especially important to avoid potential double counting. The inclusion of the commodity pulp under the
HWP category paper, for example, would result in double counting, as pulp by definition constitutes thefeedstock for the production of paper and paperboard, cf. Figure 2.8.2).

4288
4289
4290
4291
4292
4293
4294

In order to implement STEP 2, further information on commodities representing the processing stages of forest
harvesting eventually used as feedstock for the production of the above listed semi-finished HWP categories (cf.
Figure 2.8.1) is needed. Further definitions of major feedstock commodities that are used as a default to estimate
the carbon in the above listed semi-finished HWP commodities entering the accounting framework are provided
below. Please note that some possible feedstock commodities are not included due to difficulties in determining
sources and multiple uses, e.g. wood chips used in wood-based panel production as some chips come fromindustry co-products, others could be recycled products and others go to energy use.

4295

According to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, “WOOD-REMOVALS are generally a subset of fellings”.

4296
4297
4298
4299
4300
4301
4302

ROUNDWOOD: “All roundwood felled or otherwise harvested and removed. It comprises all wood obtained fromremovals, i.e. the quantities removed from forests and from trees outside the forest, including wood recoveredfrom natural, felling and logging losses during the period, calendar year or forest year. It includes all wood
removed with or without bark, including wood removed in its round form, or split, roughly squared or in otherform (e.g. branches, roots, stumps and burls (where these are harvested) and wood that is roughly shaped orpointed. It is an aggregate comprising wood fuel, including wood for charcoal and industrial roundwood (woodin the rough). It is reported in cubic metres solid volume underbark (i.e. excluding bark).” 96

4303
4304
4305
4306
4307
4308

INDUSTRIAL ROUNDWOOD (WOOD IN THE ROUGH): “All roundwood except wood fuel. In production, it is anaggregate comprising sawlogs and veneer logs; pulpwood, round and split; and other industrial roundwood. It isreported in cubic metres solid volume underbark (i.e. excluding bark). The customs classification systems usedby most countries do not allow the division of Industrial Roundwood trade statistics into the different end-use
categories that have long been recognized in production statistics (i.e. sawlogs and veneer logs, pulpwood andother industrial roundwood). Thus, these components do not appear in trade. It excludes: telephone poles.” 96

4309
4310
4311
4312

WOOD PULP: “Fibrous material prepared from pulpwood, wood chips, particles or residues by mechanical and/or
chemical process for further manufacture into paper, paperboard, fibreboard or other cellulose products. It is anaggregate comprising mechanical wood pulp; semi-chemical wood pulp; chemical wood pulp; and dissolving
wood pulp.” 96

4313
4314
4315
4316
4317

Production data on finished wood products processed from the three semi-finished product categories (see Figure
2.8.2) are not included in international databases. However, the HS nomenclature also includes somecommodities for finished HWP (e.g. furniture, builders' joinery and carpentry of wood). Accordingly,
information on such commodities could be available in national production and trade statistics (See Section
2.8.4.1).

4318
4319
4320
4321
4322
4323

In consequence, good practice in providing transparent and verifiable activity data for HWP, which qualifies forthe provision of decision 2/CMP.7 to account for HWP contribution on the basis of changes in the HWP pool, isachieved by the availability of data in public available databases of international organizations (e.g. FAO) for thethree aggregate HWP commodities sawnwood, wood-based panels and paper and paperboard. It is good practice
to report on uncertainties and, wherever it is applicable, levels of confidence related to these datasets (seeSection 2.8.6)

4324
4325

Countries, for which data on finished wood product categories derived from the default HWP categories areavailable, are encouraged to use these data following the guidance given in Section 2.8.4.

4326

2.8.1.2

4327
4328
4329
4330
4331
4332
4333

A LLOCATION OF HWP TO DOMESTIC FOREST ACTIVITIESUNDER A RTICLE 3, PARAGRAPHS 3 AND 4

According to 2/CMP.7, accounting for the HWP contribution shall only consider carbon in HWP from forests
which are accounted for by the particular Party under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4. Carbon in imported HWPshall be excluded.98 As the accounting framework furthermore differentiates between activities under Article 3
paragraph 3 and activities under Article 3 paragraph 4, it is good practice to allocate the carbon in HWP to theseparticular activities. Also within Article 3 paragraph 3, HWP from deforestation is treated differently from HWP
for afforestation and reforestation activities (see Section 2.8.3.1).
98

Cf. paragraph 27

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.137

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
4334
4335

In the following, guidance is given on how to implement STEP 2 (See 2.8.1) for estimating HWP contribution
originating from forests that are accounted for by your country under particular forest land use category.

4336
4337
4338
4339
4340
4341
4342
4343
4344
4345
4346

Implementation of STEP 2.1

4347
4348
4349
4350

Provided detailed and representative information on the composition of feedstock and the associated wood flows
is available for these domestically produced HWP commodities, countries are encouraged to use this countryspecific information to estimate the fraction of feedstock from domestic harvest for HWP production and apply
Tier 3 (see Section 2.8.4.1).

4351
4352
4353
4354

If no country-specific estimates are available to determine the processing of feedstock coming only fromdomestic origin (e.g. track and trace systems), it is good practice to apply Equation 2.8.1 for estimating theannual fraction of the feedstock coming from domestic harvest
for the HWP categories sawnwood andwood-based panels.

Firstly, the share of carbon in HWP coming from domestic forests is to be estimated. For this purpose, thedomestic consumption (computed from data on the production + imports – exports) of industrial roundwood(IRWCONS) (see Section 2.8.1.1) is assumed to equal the feedstock being used for the subsequent processing of
the semi-finished HWP categories sawnwood and wood-based panels within your country (i.e. domestic
production, cf. Figure 2.8.1) (Rüter 2011, Johannsen, et al. 2011). Furthermore, it is assumed that the domestic
consumption of wood pulp being produced from pulpwood serves as feedstock for the semi-finished HWP
commodity paper and paperboard. However, commodities other than industrial roundwood and/or wood pulp
serve as feedstock for the production of HWP and the fraction of domestic feedstock in reality differs within the
different product categories (Rüter and Diederichs 2012). For example, substantial amounts of industrial wood
residues including wood chips are being used for producing particle board (Wilson 2010).

4355
EQUATION 2.8.1
ESTIMATION OF ANNUAL FRACTION OF FEEDSTOCK FOR HWP PRODUCTION ORIGINATING

4356
4357
4358
4359

FROM DOMESTIC HARVEST

4360
4361

Where:

4362
4363= share of industrial roundwood for the domestic production of HWP originating from domestic
forests in year i.

4364= production of industrial roundwood in year i, Gg C yr-1

4365

= import of industrial roundwood in year i, Gg C yr-1

4366

= export of industrial roundwood in year i, Gg C yr-1

4367
4368
4369
4370

In consideration of the HWP process chain and countries that produce paper from traded pulp and in order toprovide more reliable figures, it is likewise good practice to apply Equation 2.8.2 to estimate the annual fractionof domestically produced wood pulp as feedstock originating from domestic harvest for the production of the).
HWP category paper and paperboard (4371
EQUATION 2.8.2
ESTIMATION OF ANNUAL FRACTION OF DOMESTICALLY PRODUCED WOOD PULP AS FEEDSTOCK

4372
4373
4374
4375

FOR PAPER AND PAPERBOARD PRODUCTION

4376
4377

Where:

4378
4379= share of domestically produced pulp for the domestic production of paper and paperboard inyear i.

2.138

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

4380= production of wood pulp in year i, Gg C yr

4381

= import of wood pulp in year i, Gg C yr-1

4382

= export of wood pulp in year i, Gg C yr-1

-1

4383
4384
4385

is then to be applied for the aggregate commodities sawnwood and woodAs result, the feedstock factor
based panels in Equation 2.8.4 below. For estimating the HWP contribution of the aggregate commodity paper
andapply.
and paperboard, both feedstock factors

4386
4387
4388
4389
4390
4391
4392

Implementation of STEP 2.2

4393
4394
4395
4396
4397

Provided transparent and verifiable activity data are available (see Section 2.8.1.1), it is good practice to apply
Tier 2 or Tier 3 methods for the particular fractions of HWP derived from domestic forests accounted for under
FM and AR activities (HWPFM and HWPAR) in line with the provisions set out in decision 2/CMP.7 (See Figure
2.8.3).100 In both cases, guidance on estimation methods is provided in Sections 2.8.3 and 2.8.4. For HWP
originating from D activities it is likewise good practice to apply Tier 1 method (Section 2.8.2).

4398

Figure 2.8.3

For estimating the HWP contribution in line with decision 2/CMP.7, it is good practice to allocate the carbon in
HWP to the particular forest activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4 (see Figure 2.8.1). Under Article 3
paragraph 3, the HWP contribution originating from forest activities afforestation (A), reforestation (R) anddeforestation (D) is estimated since the base year 1990. The HWP contribution from HWP originating fromforest management (FM) under Article 3 paragraph 4 is accounted for in the second commitment period on thebasis of a forest management reference level (FMRL) 99 (See Section 2.7.5).

Allocation of carbon in harvest associated with ARD and FM activities

Lands not accounted for under Art.
3.3 and 3.4 forest activities (e.g. CM)
Forests accounted for under Art. 3.4(FM)

Carbon in HWP estimated for accounting in FMRL (HWPFM).
Apply Tier 2 or Tier 3 methods

Forests accounted for under Art. 3.3(AR)

Carbon in HWP estimated on the basis of changes in the HWPpool since 1990 (HWPAR). Apply Tier 2 or Tier 3 methods

Forests accounted forunder Art. 3.3 (D)Carbon in HWP estimated on the basis of instantaneousoxidation. Apply Tier 1 method

4399
4400
4401
4402

In case no country-specific approaches are available to allocate domestic harvest or to track and trace carbon in
harvest from the area subject to ARD and/or FM, the estimates shall be based on the harvest volumes associatedwith the particular activity.

4403
4404
4405
4406
4407
4408
4409
4410
4411
4412
4413
4414

Most countries only report harvest from forests as industrial roundwood to the statistics and the uncertainties
associated with feedstock for HWP production originating from lands other than forests are generally expected to
be low. However, due to the definition of roundwood (see Section 2.8.1.1), it may be the case that the specified
HWP categories are produced from industrial roundwood (or domestic feedstock), which originates from land
not accounted for under activities related to forests under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4 (cf. Figure 2.8.2).101 In
the Kyoto-Protocol accounting framework, activities on lands which are not covered by the country-specificforest definition and which could provide industrial roundwood to the markets (e.g. short-rotation plantations),
could instead be accounted for under the activity cropland management on a voluntary basis102 (e.g. as perennial
crops including trees, see Section 4.2.8.2). Following the guidance given in Sections 4.2.8.1 and 4.2.8.2 of the
GPG-LULUCF countries are encouraged to provide information on how lands that could potentially be thesource of harvested woody biomass have been included in their accounting. It is furthermore good practice todemonstrate that no significant amounts of biomass not originating from forests103 have been used as feedstock
99

Paragraph 12 and 14

100

Paragraph 16, 29 and 30

101

Cf. Paragraph 27: „ […] harvested wood products removed from forests which are accounted for by a Party under Article
3, paragraphs 3 and 4 […]”

102

Paragraph 6

103

See Footnote 6 in Section 4.1 of GPG-LULUCF for the definition of “forest” given in the Marrakesh Accords

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.139

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
4415
4416
4417

for the production of the HWP default commodities. In case Parties did not elect cropland management, further
information on the origin of industrial roundwood can be obtained from the 2006 IPCC Guidelines under
Chapter 5.

4418
4419

For estimating the annual fraction of HWP derived from the specific forest activity (be applied as a default.

), Equation 2.8.3 is to4420
EQUATION 2.8.3
ESTIMATION OF ANNUAL FRACTION OF FEEDSTOCK FOR HWP ORIGINATING FROM FOREST
ACTIVITIES UNDER ARTICLE 3, PARAGRAPHS 3 AND 4

4421
4422
4423
4424

4425
4426

Where:

4427= share of harvest originating from the particular activity j in year i.

4428= activity FM, AR or D in year i.

4429
4430
4431
4432
4433
4434

For estimating harvest fractions associated with the particular activity j related to forests under Article 3,
paragraphs 3 and 4, it is good practice to apply information, which identifies the provision of wood from theforest associated with the particular activity. This could be derived e.g. from national forest inventories or otherinformation on fellings (cf. Figure 2.8.2). Further guidance on relevant information is provided in Sections 2.5.3,
2.6.1.2 and 2.7.2.1. The identified fraction of the total harvest should then be attributed to HWP by application of
Equation 2.8.4.

4435
4436
4437
4438

As the annual fraction of feedstock for HWP originating from forest activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and4(can only be estimated from information available from the first and second commitment periods, it is aconservative approach and thereby in line with good practice to assume that all harvested wood prior to the startof the first commitment period is derived from managed forests (i.e. forest management).

4439
4440
4441
4442
4443
4444
4445

Implementation of STEP 2.3
In order to finally obtain the annual fractions of HWP entering the accounting framework from domestic harvest
associated with the particular activity j (ARD and FM), the results of STEP 2.1 (i.e. Equations 2.8.1 and 2.8.2)
and STEP 2.2 (i.e. Equation 2.8.3) are, as a default, to be combined with the annual production of the HWP
commodity categories (HWPP) as specified in Section 2.8.1.1 (i.e. sawnwood, wood-based panels, paper andpaperboard). For this purpose, it is good practice to apply Equation 2.8.4, in case no country-specific track andtrace systems are available.

4446
EQUATION 2.8.4
ESTIMATION OF ANNUAL HWP AMOUNTS BEING PRODUCED FROM DOMESTIC HARVESTRELATED TO ACTIVITIES UNDER ARTICLE 3, PARAGRAPHS 3 AND 4

4447
4448
4449
4450

•
4451
4452
4453
4454
4455

with:

=

•

for HWP categories ‘sawnwood’ and ‘wood-based panels’; and•for HWP category ‘paper and paperboard’

Where:

4456
4457= share of domestic feedstock for the production of particular HWP category originating fromdomestic forests in year i

4458
4459

= HWP amounts being produced from domestic harvest associated with activity j in year i, in m³
or m.t. yr-1

4460
4461

= production of the particular HWP commodities (i.e. sawnwood, wood-based panels and paper
and paperboard, or their sub-categories, see Section 2.8.1.1) in year i, in m³ or m.t. yr-1

2.140

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

4462
4463

Note that Equation 2.8.4 must be applied separately to each of the defined HWP commodities (HWPp) andseparately to HWP related to activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4 (HWPj).

4464
4465
4466
4467
4468

The estimates associated with the particular land use category (ARD and FM) also apply in case countries
provide estimates for sub-categories of the three HWP default categories (see Section 2.8.3.1), or for countryspecific activity data e.g. on assemblies composed of a combination of products, such as in wooden buildings.
Further guidance on how to estimate fraction of HWP originating from forests being accounted for under Article
3, paragraphs 3 and 4 using country-specific activity data is provided in Section 2.8.4.1.

4469
4470
4471

As emissions by sources (i.e. harvest) from A and R activities will be higher than the subsequent removals ofcarbon on the land associated with these activities, it is a conservative approach and complies with good practiceto assume that HWP entering the accounting framework originating from A and R are derived from FM.

4472

2.8.2

4473
4474
4475
4476
4477
4478

The estimation method presented in this section is to be applied by countries as the default method to estimate
the HWP Contribution.104 It is based on the assumption that the annual carbon release from the HWP pool is thesame as the annual carbon inflow to the pool. In consequence, this method corresponds to an estimate of nochange in HWP carbon stocks. It equals the assumption that all carbon in biomass harvested is oxidised in theremoval year and is equivalent to reporting no net-emissions from HWP, as the annual change in carbon stock in
HWP is zero (cf. IPCC 1997, IPCC 2006).

4479
4480
4481
4482
4483

According to GPG-LULUCF, in the first commitment period, the storage of carbon in HWP was not included in
the reporting since, as result of this recommended default assumption, it was not listed as a pool covered by the
Marrakesh Accords. 105 Following this decision, the mere presence of carbon stocks is excluded from theaccounting. Countries following the good practice guidance as described in GPG-LULUCF and applying
instantaneous oxidation, did thus not account for emissions from HWP in the first commitment period.106

4484
4485
4486
4487
4488

Decision 2/CMP.7 establishes mandatory accounting of all changes in the HWP pool. 107 Prerequisite foraccounting HWP on the basis of delayed emissions, however, is the availability of transparent and verifiable
HWP activity data (see Section 2.8.1.1). In consequence, it is good practice to apply the Tier 1 method as
outlined in this section (i.e. reporting no net-emissions from HWP) in case no transparent and verifiable activity
data for the default HWP categories are available.108

4489
4490

Furthermore, defined fractions of HWP are to be accounted on the basis of instantaneous oxidation (see Figure
2.8.1):4491



HWP resulting from D activities under Article 3 paragraph 3 (see Section 2.8.1.2);109

4492



HWP in solid waste disposal sites;110

4493



Harvested wood being used for energy purposes.110

4494



HWP originating from activities other than activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4.

4495
4496
4497
4498
4499
4500
4501

Following the guidance given in Section 2.8.1.2, the fraction of HWP originating from domestic forests being
accounted for under the activities AR and FM can be derived. Thereby, the fraction of HWP resulting from D is
implicitly excluded from further estimation of HWP contribution and assumed to be treated on the basis of
instantaneous oxidation. However, in case it is assumed that HWP entering the accounting framework
originating from A and R are derived from FM, it is good practice to separately calculate the estimates for
HWPD by means of Equation 2.8.3. The amounts for HWPD are subsequently subtracted from HWP activity data(
) that are used to estimate HWP contribution following the guidance in Sections 2.8.3 and 2.8.4.

Tier 1: “Instantaneous oxidation”

104

Paragraph 28

105

Decision 11/CMP.7

106

Cf. Paragraph 16

107

Paragraph 26

108

Cf. Paragraph 29

109

Paragraph 31

110

Paragraph 32

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.141

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
4502
4503
4504
4505
4506
4507

By estimating HWP contribution on the basis of methodologies as outlined in Sections 2.8.3 and 2.8.4, only
HWP contribution of HWP in use is estimated. HWP in solid waste disposal sites and wood harvested for energy
are thus implicitly treated on the basis of instantaneous oxidation. Estimates that are based on the three default
commodities are per definition not derived from wood that harvested for energy purposes. Where carbon dioxide
emissions from HWP in solid waste disposal sites are separately accounted for, it is good practice to include
them on the basis of instantaneous oxidation (i.e. reporting no net-emissions from HWP).

4508

2.8.3

4509
4510
4511
4512

Provided transparent and verifiable activity data are available for the three default HWP categories sawnwood,
wood-based panels and paper and paperboard, as defined in Section 2.8.1.1, and no country-specific information
qualifying to apply a Tier 3 method is available (cf. Section 2.8.4), Parties shall obtain estimates on the HWP
contribution by application of the Tier 2 method as outlined in this section.

4513
4514
4515
4516

In line with the decision 2/CMP.7, it is good practice to estimate the change in carbon stocks separately for eachof the HWP fractions associated with the particular forest activity (HWPj) as specified in Section 2.8.1.2. For thispurpose, the first-order decay (FOD) function as presented in Equation 2.8.5, which is a flux data method that
corresponds to Equation 12.1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, is to be applied:

Tier 2: First order decay

4517
EQUATION 2.8.5
ESTIMATION OF CARBON STOCKS AND ANNUAL CARBON STOCK CHANGES IN HWP POOL OF THE

4518
4519
4520
4521

REPORTING COUNTRY

•

1

1

•

4522
∆
4523
4524

1

Source: IPCC 2006

Where:

4525

i = year4526

C (i) = the carbon stock in the particular HWP category at the beginning of year i, Gg C

4527
4528

k = decay constant of first-order decay for HWP category given in units yr-1 (k = ln(2)/HL, where HL ishalf-life of the HWP pool in years (see Section 2.8.3.2).

4529

Inflow (i) = the inflow to the particular HWP category (HWPj) during year i, Gg C yr-1

4530

ΔC(i) = carbon stock change of the HWP category during year i, Gg C yr-1

4531
4532
4533
4534
4535
4536

It is good practice to apply Equation 2.8.5 with activity data for semi-finished wood products that have been
dedicated to the particular forest activity (HWPj) (see Section 2.8.1). In combination with semi-finished wood
product commodities, this FOD implicitly includes finished HWP in the pool estimates, and it is assumed that
immediate losses of the HWP pool due to final processing along the processing chain (cf. Figure 2.8.1) aredescribed realistically by the exponential decay pattern (Pingoud and Wagner 2006). Emissions from woodprocessing residues used for energy purposes along the process chain are also well described by FOD.

4537
4538
4539

Whereas Equation 12.1 contained in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines suggests to start with i = 1900, the application of
FOD in the context of the decision 2/CMP.7 necessitates a differentiated approach to enable HWP accounting
associated with the different forest activities (see Section 2.8.1.2).

4540
4541
4542
4543
4544
4545
4546

In order to produce an estimate of the existing HWP carbon pool by means of Equation 2.8.5, and based on thesubsequent changes of this pool to produce an estimate of the HWP contribution, the historical wood use (i.e. theaccumulation of the historic Inflow to the HWP pool) has to be included. This procedure is needed as this also
includes the historic and current discard from the HWP pool, which is also termed “inherited emissions” (IPCC
2006). This is reflected in decision 2/CMP.7, which states that “emissions that occur during the second
commitment period from harvested wood products removed from forests prior to the start of the second
commitment period shall also be accounted for.”111 The term “emissions” from HWP (which are defined as a
111

Paragraph 16

2.142

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

112

4547
4548
4549
4550
4551
4552
4553

pool ) thus refers to the “decay” from that pool, which is the discarding of wood and paper products from end
uses described e.g. by FOD (i.e. Equation 2.8.5). Discarding, thus, does not mean that the products’ carbon isoxidized, but describes the release of HWP from the HWP pool in use (or in service) from where the products
are potentially recycled, burned, composted or transferred to solid waste disposal.113 The discard from the poolof HWP in use (comprising wood products in service), therefore depends on the historic level of Inflow (seeSection 2.8.1) and the particular service life and/or half-life of the HWP commodities (cf. Sections 2.8.3.2 and2.8.4.2).

4554
4555
4556

In order to account for HWP contribution from A and R activities, estimates are to be based on activity data
since the base year 1990. It is thus good practice to include inherit emissions from the pool that has been
established from HWPAR since 1990. This is implemented by the use of Equation 2.8.5 starting with i = 1990.

4557
4558
4559
4560
4561
4562

For HWP from FM activities, however, the inclusion of inherited emissions in the estimates of the HWP carbon
pool depends on the Party’s accounting approach for FM. In case the FM reference level (FMRL) is based on a
projection which represents a ‘business as usual scenario’ (See Sections 2.7.5.1 and 2.8.5), Parties may exclude
inherited emissions from before the start of the second commitment period in their estimates.114 In this case, theestimation by means of Equation 2.8.5 starts with i = 2013. If the Party’s FMRL is not based on a projection
representing a ‘business as usual scenario’, it is thus good practice to include inherit emissions from the pool.

4563
4564

), it is thus good practice to separately estimate and report by the
As reflected also by Equation 2.8.4 (above procedure the annual HWP contribution for:

4565



HWP from AR activities (HWPAR) and for HWP from FM activities (HWPFM)

4566
4567



HWP for each of the particular commodities (i.e. sawnwood, wood-based panels, paper and paperboard ortheir subcategories)

4568
4569
4570
4571

The availability of activity data series (i.e.
varies. For most countries e.g. the FAO statistics provide
data on the HWP commodity categories since 1961. 115 However, for some countries activity data are available
only since their independence or foundation (e.g. in 1991). Further guidance on the activity data to be used forTier 2 method is provided in Section 2.8.3.1.

4572
4573
4574
4575
4576

As a default proxy in the Tier 2 method it is assumed that the HWP pools are in steady state at the initial time t0
from which the activity data start. This means that as a proxy ΔC(t0) is assumed to be equal to 0. The steady statecarbon stock C(t0) for each HWP commodity category is approximated based on the average of Inflow(i) during
the first 5 years of which statistics data are available. By substituting C(t0) in Equation 2.8.6, the C(i) and ΔC(i)in the sequential time instants can be calculated.

4577
EQUATION 2.8.6
APPROXIMATION OF THE CARBON STOCKS IN HWP POOLS AT INITIAL TIME, I.E. SINCE WHEN

4578
4579
4580
4581

ACTIVITY DATA ARE AVAILABLE

•
4582
where

4583

∑

⁄5

4584
4585
4586
4587
4588
4589
4590

This corresponds to the approach to calculate missing activity data since the year 1900 on HWPFM carbon pool
inflow from the average of the first five years for which activity data are given for the country (cf. Rüter 2011),
which many countries have chosen to estimate the HWP contribution to the FMRL. 116 Further estimation
methods for calculating the carbon inflow to the HWPFM pool (Inflow(i)) back to the year 1900 are provided by
the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (i.e. on the basis of estimated annual rates of increase for industrial roundwood
production that are based, inter alia, on the annual per cent change of population growth). If inherited emissions
112

Cf. Paragraph 26

113

For more information see IPCC FAQ, Q4-29 (http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/faq/faq.html)

114

Paragraph 16

115

http://faostat.fao.org/site/630/default.aspx

116

See submissions by Parties on FMRL as requested by decision 2/CMP.6 (http://unfccc.int/bodies/awg-kp/items/5896.php)

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.143

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
4591
4592
4593
4594

from the HWPFM pool are to be considered as described above and the inclusion of HWP in the countries’ FMRL
is not based on a projection representing a ‘business as usual scenario’ (see Section 2.7.5 and 2.8.5), it is goodpractice to demonstrate that the approach chosen to include inherited emissions in the estimates of the HWPFM
carbon pool reflects best the countries’ circumstances.

4595
4596
4597

The carbon stock change in all the HWP pools of the commodities associated with the particular activities isobtained by summing the stock changes ΔC of each commodity category. The carbon stock change is thenconverted into Gg CO2 yr-1 by multiplying with 44/12.

4598
4599
4600
4601
4602
4603

Under the Tier 2 method, Equation 2.8.5 is equally applied for domestically consumed as well as for exported
HWP together with the same half-life parameters (See Section 2.8.3.2). Therefore, it complies with goodpractice not to differentiate between domestic consumption and exports in the reporting of HWP contribution. In
order to increase transparency and facilitate potential changes in the methodology used to estimate HWP
contribution (e.g. by application of country-specific half-lives following the guidance provided in Section 2.8.4),
however, Parties are encouraged to report separately for domestically consumed and exported HWP.

4604

2.8.3.1

4605
4606
4607

Activity data include the carbon stock of the HWP pool at the beginning of each year (C(i)) and the inflow to the
HWP pool during each year (Inflow (i)) for each HWP category. In order to apply Equation 2.8.4, it is goodpractice to determine C(i) and Inflow (i).

4608
4609
4610
4611

For this purpose, Tier 2 uses forest products data from FAO or other international organizations (e.g. UNECE)
for semi-finished HWP commodities as set out in Section 2.8.1.1. As a default, the annual Inflow(i) to the HWPpool comprises of the three default HWP commodity categories, i.e. sawnwood, wood-based panels, paper andpaperboard), separated by the particular activity (, see Section 2.8.1.2).

4612
4613
4614
4615
4616

In order to estimate carbon amounts in HWP, default conversion factors are provided in Table 2.8.1. In fact, theconversion factors for the HWP default commodities (i.e. aggregates) very much depend on composition ofcountries’ production amounts of the particular subcategories (e.g. particle board). If Parties have disaggregateddata on subcategories of semi-finished wood products as listed in Table 2.8.1, it is thus good practice to apply
Equation 2.8.5 to the disaggregated subcategories.

A CTIVITY DATA

4617
TABLE 2.8.1
DEFAULT CONVERSION FACTORS FOR THE DEFAULT HWP CATEGORIES AND THEIR SUBCATEGORIESC conversion factor(per air dry
density)[Mg C m-3]

Source[Mg m-3]

Carbon fraction(per oven dry
matters)

Sawn wood (aggregate)[..] [footnote]

…

…

1

Coniferous sawnwood[..] [footnote]

0.5

…

2

Non-coniferous sawnwood[..] [footnote]

0.5

…

2

Wood-based panels (aggregate)[..] [footnote]

…

…

3

Veneer sheets

0,59

…

…

4

Plywood

0,48

…

…

4

Particle board

0.633

0.424

0.269

5

Hardboard (HDF)

0.85

0.394

0.335

5

Medium-density fibreboard (MDF)

0.738

0.4

0.295

5

Fibreboard compressed

0.794

0.396

0.315

6

Other board (Insulating board, LDF)

0,270

…

Paper and paperboard (aggregate)*

0.9

0.5

HWP categories

Air dry density

7
0.45

8

* reported per tonne
1[Will be calculated on the basis of the weighted average from coniferous and non-coniferous sawnwood production volumes of thecountries as listed in Appendix of the Annex of decision 2/CMP.7]

2[Will be calculated on the basis of the weighted average of density (odm) from tree species distribution of the countries as listed inAppendix of the Annex of decision 2/CMP.7]

2.144

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

3[Will be calculated on the basis of the weighted average of included subcategories from the production volumes of the countries as listed
in Appendix of the Annex of decision 2/CMP.7]

4Haynes et al 1990, Tables B-6 and B-7, IPCC 2003, Appendix 3a.1

5

Rüter and Diederichs 2012 (including Oriented Strand Board, OSB)

6

50% of HDF and 50% of MDF

7

Rüter 20118

IPCC 2006

4618
4619
4620
4621
4622

In order to reduce uncertainties associated with assumptions on the conversion factors of activity data (i.e. dataon semi-finished wood product commodities derived from statistics) (See Section 2.8.6), Parties are encouraged
to use country-specific activity data comprising further items of the HWP subcategories as listed in Table 2.8.1.
More information can be obtained in Section 2.8.4.1.

4623

2.8.3.2

4624
4625
4626
4627
4628

The rate at which carbon in the default HWP categories is removed from the HWP pool in service in a given year
is specified by a constant decay rate (k) is expressed as half-life in years. The 2006 IPCC Guidelines define thehalf-life as “the number of years it takes to lose one-half of the material currently in the pool“. As the half-life in
the context of 2/CMP.7 refers to HWP in use (cf. Section 2.8.1.1), the half-life to be applied is a function the(estimated) service life (ESL) of the particular HWP commodities (with HL = ESL* ln(2), cf. Section 2.8.4.2).

4629
4630
4631

When applying the Tier 2 method, decision 2/CMP.7 requires countries to use the default half-lives of the three
HWP categories as specified in Table 2.8.2. The same half-lives apply for the particular subcategories of theaggregate HWP categories as specified in Table 2.8.1.

E MISSION FACTORS

4632
TABLE 2.8.2
TIER 2 DEFAULT HALF-LIVES117 OF HWP CATEGORIESHWP categories118

Default half-lives (years)

Paper

2

Wood panels

25

Sawn wood

35

4633
4634
4635
4636
4637
4638

In order to reduce uncertainties associated with the assumptions on the half-lives of the HWP commodities (See
Section 2.8.6) Parties are encouraged to use country-specific half-lives, both for the domestic use of HWP
categories, as well as country-specific half-lives as being applied by the importing country for the exported HWP
categories. Further guidance on how to use and obtain country-specific half-life information for the relevant
HWP categories can be obtained in Section 2.8.4.2.

4639

2.8.4

4640
4641
4642
4643
4644
4645

This section provides good practice guidance on the use of country-specific methods to estimate the HWP
carbon pool and its changes in order to estimate the overall HWP contribution. These methods shall be appliedby Parties in line with requirements as outlined in Section 2.8.1 and the decision 2/CMP.7 covering the 3 semifinished HWP categories.119 It complies with good practice to apply country-specific methods provided thatverifiable and transparent activity data are available and that the methodologies used are at least as detailed or
accurate as those described under Tier 2. Good practice thus includes a verification of the Tier 3 methods used,
117

Tier 3: Country-specific methods

See footnote of paragraph 29 of decision 2/CMP.7: Half-lives are based on Table 3a.1.3 of the GPG-LULUCF.

118

HWP categories as defined in paragraph 29 of decision 2/CMP.7 refer to the commodities sawnwood, wood-based panels,
paper and paperboard, acc. to the international classification system for forestry products (See guidance in Section 2.8.1.1)

119

Use of Tier 3 methods does not apply to exported wood in circumstances where the importing country uses Tier 3
methods and the exporting country uses Tier 2 methods. This would lead to inconsistencies in the accounting. An exampleof this situation would be exported sawnwood accounted for under a Tier 2 method, which is then processed into floorboards by the importing country, which applies a Tier 3 method with half-lives for HWP subcategories.

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.145

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
4646
4647
4648

e.g. by comparing the results derived using the Tier 2 method (See Section 2.8.3), and by providing all relevant
information in a transparent and verifiable way to demonstrate how HWP contribution has been estimated. Moreinformation on how to verify Tier 3 methods can be found in IPCC FAQs on HWP.120

4649
4650
4651

Two key Tier 3 methodological pathways allow for estimating changes in the HWP carbon pool in line with therequirements as outlined in decision 2/CMP.7 comprising (i) flux data methods, and (ii) combinations of stock
inventory and flux data methods.

4652

FLUX DATA METHODS

4653
4654
4655
4656
4657
4658
4659
4660

In flux data methods HWP carbon pool and its changes are basically calculated from the difference of the
production (i.e. carbon inflow to the HWP pool) and decay/discard rate. There are comprehensive international
activity databases on production and trade of HWP (See Section 2.8.1.1), whereas information on the discard
from the HWP pool is incomplete. Using this discard information (e.g. from waste statistics) to calculate theabove difference would lead to overestimation of HWP carbon pool and its changes. Thus practicable flux data
methods that comply with good practice rest on service life information of HWP. They are based on the use of
decay functions and dynamic models assuring the continuity of mass so that all HWP carbon coming into thepool will be discarded in the long run.

4661

Following alternatives under a Tier 3 method could be used:

4662
4663



The Tier 2 FOD function (See Equation 2.8.5) is a special case of flux data methods and could also be
applied under Tier 3 with:

4664
4665

(i)

Default half-lives in combination with country-specific activity data for disaggregated commodity
items of the three HWP commodities that follow the HS classification system (see 2.8.4.1)

4666
4667

(ii)

Country-specific half-lives to be based on national information on service life of the default HWP
commodities or their sub-categories (See below and Section 2.8.4.2).

4668
4669
4670



Other country- or product-specific decay functions could be applied. Examples of different decay functions
include logarithmic decay (e.g. Karjalainen, et al. 1994), retention curves (e.g. Skog and Nicholson 1998)
and distribution functions (e.g. Marland, et al. 2010). They could be used with in combination with:

4671

(i)

Default half-lives (See Table 2.8.2), or country specific half-lives as specified in Section 2.8.4.2

4672

(ii)

Country-specific activity data (See Section 2.8.4.1).

4673
4674
4675
4676

If country-specific half-lives or decay functions are used, it is good practice to separate HWP pools for thereporting country and for the export markets in order to separately estimate and report its HWP contribution.
Likewise it is good practice to separate the HWP pools for the reporting country and for the export markets in
case

4677
4678

Furthermore, is complies with good practice to separately estimate and report HWP contribution of the HWPpool for the domestic market (i.e. reporting Party) and for export markets, in case:

4679



Country-specific half-lives or decay functions, and/or

4680



Country-specific activity data (i.e. other than specified in Section 2.8.3.1) are used.

4681
4682
4683

In case HWP pools of both semi-finished and finished products are included in Tier 3 calculation models it isgood practice to ensure that overlapping of the HWP pools must be eliminated to avoid any double-counting of
HWP carbon stock changes.

4684

COMBINED HWP STOCK INVENTORY AND FLUX DATA METHODS

4685
4686
4687
4688
4689

HWP stock inventory methods use data of the HWP carbon pool itself for two or preferably more separate points
in time to estimate changes in the pool. Its application is basically relevant for HWP pools in the reporting
country alone (See Section 2.8.4.1) and could be used to estimate the annual change in carbon stock of somespecific finished HWP pools (cf. Figure 2.8.2) such as buildings. Examples of such inventories are reported in
Gjesdal, et al. (1996) for Norway, in Pingoud, et al. (2001) and Statistics Finland (2011) for Finland.

4690
4691
4692
4693

In case of inventory methods, no procedure for adding up wood use data from historical data is needed toestimate the existing HWP stock or annual change in stock, which is an advantage compared to the flux methods(IPCC 2006). However, a fundamental problem in the application of inventory methods alone for the present
accounting purpose is the estimation of that part of the HWP carbon stock originated from domestic forests and120

http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/faq/faq.html

2.146

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

4694
4695

being thus accountable for (See Section 2.8.1). Furthermore, in line with decision 2/CMP.7, imported HWP must
be excluded from the estimated HWP pool increasing the uncertainties.121

4696
4697

Since inventory data are never available for all finished HWP and neither for export markets, it is thus goodpractice to apply inventory methods only in combination with flux data methods.

4698
4699
4700
4701
4702

In case a Party applies inventory methods for specific HWP end uses (e.g. the housing sector), it is thus goodpractice to estimate HWP contribution for the remaining fraction of the 3 HWP default commodities incombination with the flux-data method under Tier 2 or 3. For this purpose, the three HWP categories being usedin the housing sector must be factored out from the flux-data calculation to avoid double-counting and to meetthe requirements of 2/CMP.7.

4703
4704
4705
4706

Inventory methods are looking backwards so it is not possible to do any projections by them (cf. Section 2.8.5).
Flux data models could, however, be calibrated to the inventories and used for projective purposes (See Section
2.8.4.2). Through the calibration procedure more realistic country-specific half-lives could be estimated and used
in a Tier 3 level flux-data model (Statistics Finland 2011).

4707

2.8.4.1

4708
4709
4710
4711
4712
4713
4714
4715

Section 2.8.1.1 introduces the international classification system of forestry products following the HS
nomenclature, which is also relevant for activity data used for a Tier 3 method. Whereas data for semi-finishedHWP can be obtained from national statistics as well as from international databases, HWP activity data otherthan outlined in Section 2.8.3.1 (See Table 2.8.1) are available from national sources only. In the case of Parties
using country-specific activity data as described in this section, it is good practice to disclose the source of dataand provide in a transparent and verifiable manner additional information for items that make up subcategories
and/or final products being produced from the three default HWP categories as defined in decision 2/CMP.7122(cf. Figure 2.8.2).

4716

Country-specific HWP activity data to be used for Tier 3 could be:

4717

1.

4718
4719
4720
4721
4722
4723

These data could be available from country-specific statistics containing further disaggregated items of thesubcategories as specified in Table 2.8.2. Examples would be coated particle board, fibreboard with specificdensity or surface, or coniferous sawnwood made from specific tree species (e.g. larch). Introducing
disaggregated item data using appropriate carbon conversion factors e.g. based on information on wood densities
can contribute to considerably improve the accuracy of the HWP estimations. Further information could beobtained e.g. in Forest Products Laboratory 2010.

4724
4725
4726
4727
4728

In some cases, the aggregated datasets for the specified HWP categories available from national statistics aredifferent from available databases of international organizations (e.g. FAO or UNECE). In order to reduce
uncertainties associated with the use of these datasets (see Section 2.8.6) and in order to provide country-specificactivity data in a transparent and verifiable way, Parties are encouraged to explain the differences between data
used from national sources from these provided in international databases.

4729

2.

4730
4731
4732
4733

These types of activity data refer to finished HWP that do not contain components with different potential halflives. They are made up from at least one of the (default) semi-finished HWP categories (See Figure 2.8.2). This
group of products comprise e.g. doors, flooring systems, books or furniture, which could also be obtained fromnational production statistics (e.g. furniture production statistics).

4734

3.

4735
4736
4737
4738
4739

These types of products rather represent a market segment where finished products are used. Wooden houses arecomposed of different construction components with different renovation intervals, e.g. long lived roof
construction made of beams, wall systems, and comparatively short-lived wooden flooring systems. Countryspecific activity data for buildings could again be derived from the production statistics (e.g. Building
Construction Starts statistics) or from inventories and surveys.

C OUNTRY - SPECIFIC ACTIVITY DATA

Item data following the international HS nomenclature and classification system

Finished HWP not containing components with different service lives

Data on buildings with different wooden construction components with different renovation intervals

121

Paragraph 27

122

Paragraph 30

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.147

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
4740
4741
4742

Some of the above mentioned activity data might be available from annual statistics being applicable for flux
data methods. Others might be available only at the start and the end of the commitment period for the use incombined HWP stock inventory and flux data methods.

4743
4744
4745
4746
4747
4748
4749

In order to allocate the carbon in HWP to the particular forest activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4 (see2.8.1.2) Parties could still apply the relevant equations as suggested in Section 2.8.1 for the use in Tier 3
methods. Nevertheless, Parties are encouraged to estimate carbon in HWP originating from domestic forests
using more country-specific information, including e.g. detailed data on the use of timber assortments for thesubsequent processing of HWP categories. Provided country-specific approaches are available for this purpose, it
is good practice to demonstrate and report how the allocation has been done to meet the requirements as set out
in decision 2/CMP.7.

4750
4751
4752
4753
4754
4755
4756
4757

When using country-specific activity data, information on carbon conversion factors (cf. Table 2.8.1) may not bereadily available. Especially HWP activity data representing finished commodities (See Figure 2.8.2) or market
segments of wood use (e.g. wooden building components, see Table 2.8.3 in Section 2.8.4.2) often include mixes
of wood and other materials. In this case, specific conversion factors could be obtained from statistics or fromlife cycle inventory (LCI) information, which forms the basis for life cycle assessment (LCA) according to ISO
14040:2006 and 14044:2006. Information on the average amount of wood content per unit could be provided e.g.
per square meter of floor space (Tsunetsugu and Tonosaki 2010). Examples of representative LCI information
are reported in Rüter and Diederichs (2012) for Germany.

4758
4759
4760

When using such specific conversion factors, it is good practice to demonstrate and report how conversion
factors have been derived and provide information on the representativeness of associated data as regards time,
technology and geographical scale (see e.g. European Union 2010).

4761

2.8.4.2

4762
4763

This section gives guidance on the concept of service life and half-life information to estimate the HWP
contribution on the basis of flux data methods.

4764
4765
4766
4767
4768
4769

In general, national values for service- or half-life could be derived for the three default HWP categories andtheir subcategories (See Section 2.8.1.1). But also other HWP categories could be established and combined withthe respective service life information. However, in order to ensure that the methodology used is at least as
accurate as the one described in Section 2.8.3, Parties are encouraged to make those HWP categories broad
enough to capture significant carbon volumes contributing to the HWP pool. As a guide, the volumes of HWP
categories are deemed significant if they represent at least 5% of the total HWP production.

4770
4771
4772
4773
4774
4775

Potential data providers and sources for national service life information are national and industry agencies,
technical literature and direct consultations (i.e. surveys of experts, industry and the general public). It is
important to note that service- and half-life values representing the material use of wood can differ notably
among and within countries depending on factors such as construction practices, culture, fashion, and climate.
Thus, in case country-specific information is used, a national quality control system is encouraged in order toprovide data which is as transparent and verifiable as possible.

4776
4777

Several approaches can be used to derive country-specific service- and half-life values based on transparent andverifiable data:

4778
4779



Following ISO 15686 standard series approach in combination with obsolescence on national level (See Box
2.8.1),

4780

A combination of production and trade statistics data with building stock inventory information, and/or

4781



National surveys on the final market use of wood.

4782
4783
4784

In the following, ways on improving service life estimates based on the ISO 15686 series are shown, and an
example of HWP half-life calculation for HWP categories is given based on its estimated service life in
combination with an obsolescence factor and information on its market share.

4785
4786
4787

In order to adequately apply flux data methods based on information on country-specific HWP service life (i.e.
time carbon is held in HWP pool in use before they are disposed or recycled), apart from the concept of half-life(See Section 2.8.3.2), following terms and concepts are to be differentiated:

4788
4789
4790



C OUNTRY - SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORSISO 15686-1 (2011) defines the reference service life (RSL) as the service life of a product, component,
assembly or system which is known to be expected under a particular set, i.e. a reference set of in-use
conditions;.

2.148

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

4791
4792
4793



The estimated service life (ESL) on the other hand is the service life that a wooden or wood based
component would be expected to have in a set of specific in-use conditions. It is determined from RSL data
after taking into account any differences from the reference in-use conditions (ISO 15686-1:2011);

4794
4795



The factor method is used to calculate the ESL. It is a modification of RSL by seven factors to take accountof the specific in-use conditions (ISO 15686-8:2008); and

4796
4797
4798



Obsolescence arises (according to ISO 15686-1:2011) when a facility no longer can be adapted to satisfychanging requirements. Obsolescence tends to result from unexpected changes, often unrelated to theconstruction, and includes:

4799

(i)

Functional obsolescence: function no longer required.

4800
4801

(ii)

Technological obsolescence: new alternatives can offer better performance, change the patternof use.

4802
4803

(iii)

Economic obsolescence: Fully functional but less efficient, more expensive than alternatives.
This includes also replacement due to changing fashion or taste.

4804
4805
4806
4807
4808

ISO 2011 states that estimates of obsolescence should be based on the designer’s and clients experience, and, if
possible, documented feedback from practice. In order to estimate the carbon storage of HWP in use and its
impact on emissions/removals by means of flux data methods using country-specific service life information, itis thus good practice to take into account obsolescence and to distinguish replacement of HWP in use due to e.g.
a defective performance from obsolescence (cf. ISO 2011).

4809

For example:

4810
4811
4812
4813
4814

In northern Europe a wooden decking can last for 50 years or more given proper construction and choice ofmaterial. But the same decking is likely to be replaced already after 20 years (or less) e.g. due to aestheticalreasons. Hence, for calculating country-specific ESL or half-life values an obsolescence factor is needed to use
in Tier 3 estimates of HWP contribution the time actually spent in the HWP carbon pool, not the potential fullservice life of a wooden component given by ESL.

4815
4816

In this guidance document the ESL is applied for estimates on national level and not for a specific case as
suggested in the ISO 15686 standard series. To include the effect of obsolescence:

4817



Either an additional factor (O) is included, with

4818
4819

(i)

Obsolescence = 1 when there is considered to be no significant effect of obsolescencecompared to RSL

4820

(ii)

Obsolescence is given a value < 1 based on the intensity of obsolescence

4821

(iii)

Obsolescence can never be larger than 1.

4822
4823
4824



4825
4826

An example of how to derive national service life estimates by means of the factor method is given in the box
2.8.1 below.

123

Or a decay function to be assigned that uses the service life data to estimate the decay profile (based on
products leaving the pool, not only biological decay and not a biological decay profile) or the actual time
path that products take to go out-of-use.123

For more information see IPCC FAQ, Q4-29 (http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/faq/faq.html)

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.149

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
4827
4828

BOX 2.8.1
EXAMPLE ON THE CALCULATION OF NATIONAL ESL BY MEANS OF FACTOR METHOD

4829
4830
4831
4832
4833

A theoretical example with wooden claddings in Norway is given based on the ISO 15686-8, butelevated from the case specific level given in the standard to a national level. The factor classes
and the factor method are described e.g. in ISO 15686-8: 2008. Non relevant factors are excluded
from the equation. The RSL is based on accelerated field trials and failure was defined when themean decay rating reached 2 (on a scale from 0–4 where 0 is no decay and 4 is failure).

4834

National estimated service life ESL = 55(RSL)*1(A)*1(B)*1(C)*1.2(E)*1(F)*0.9(G) = 59.4 years

4835
4836

A=Quality of components, B= Design level, C= Work execution level, E= Outdoor environment,
F= Usage conditions, G= Maintenance level.

4837
4838
4839
4840

Factor D ‘indoor environment’ is excluded because it is not relevant. It is good practice to include
factors that do not deviate from the RSL even if they do not contribute in changing the RSL since
they are given the value 1. The reasoning for choice of factors needs to be given based on the same
principle as given in ISO (2008).

4841
4842
4843
4844
4845

Another example on how to derive country-specific half-life values (here for the three aggregate HWP categories,
see Section 2.8.1.1) as a function of information on market share of the use of wood (see above), ESL andobsolescence is given in Table 2.8.3.

4846
4847
4848
4849
4850

The use of composed HWP categories in different markets, such as in the construction sector, can be divided
further into different segments (e.g. wall systems, flooring, and roof construction). These different segments
comprise different service lives and obsolescence factors. Hence, Parties are encouraged to allocate thecontribution of the different HWP categories or subcategories (e.g. coniferous sawnwood) to markets and theirsegments in order to receive improved service life estimates for the particular HWP categories.

4851

2.150

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

4852
4853
TABLE 2.8.3
EXAMPLE ON HOW TO DERIVE COUNTRY-SPECIFIC HALF-LIFE FOR HWP CATEGORIES AS A FUNCTION OF INFORMATION ON
MARKET SHARE, ESTIMATED SERVICE LIFE (ESL) AND OBSOLESCENCE
HWP categories(here:
aggregates)

Markets*

Marketshare of
HWP
category

National
estimated
service life
(ESL), years

National
obsolescenc
e factor (O)Adjusted ESL of
HWP category(=ESL*O)*
market shareadjustment

Half-life(=Adjusted
ESL* ln(2))

Sawn woodconstruction

60%

70

0.9

41.0

28.4

furniture

10%

45

0.6

packaging

30%

6

0.3

paper

0%

-

-

construction

50%

60

0.7

30.5

21.2

furniture

45%

35

0.6

packaging

5%

6

0.3

paper

0%

-

-

construction

0%

-

-

1.5

1

furniture

0%

-

-

packaging

50%

3

0.3

paper

50%

10

0.2

Wood-based
panelsPaper and
paperboard

4854

HALF-LIFE DATA TO BE USED FOR EXPORTED HWP

4855
4856
4857
4858
4859
4860
4861

In case of exported HWP, country-specific data refers to country-specific half-lives and HWP usage in theimporting country.124 Hence, it is necessary to quantify export activity data within the three HWP categories
and/or sub categories. In addition, national half-lives must be obtained from the countries the HWP are exported
to. It is thus good practice to ensure that the same activity data (HWP categories) both in the exporting andimporting country are being used. Otherwise the default values (Tier 2) should be used. When verifiable andtransparent activity data are available, the categories should be broad enough to capture significant volumes
contributing to the pool. The amount of exported and domestic wood should be separately reported.

4862
4863

2.8.5

Consideration of the HWP pool in FMRLs

4864
4865
4866

In this section, guidance is given on the relation of HWP originating from FM as described in Section 2.8.1 andits consideration in the forest management reference level (FMRL) as outlined in the decisions 2/CMP.6125,
2/CMP.7 and -/CMP.8. Guidance on the FMRL is provided in Section 2.7.5.

4867

APPROACHES AND METHODS FOR CONSIDERATION OF HWP IN FMRL

4868
4869
4870

Decision 2/CMP.6 requested Parties to inter alia submit descriptions of how HWP were considered in theconstruction of the FMRL.126 In line with the different approaches and methods used by Parties to construct the
FMRL as listed in Section 2.7.5.1, two general approaches on how to treat HWP in FMRL can be differentiated:

4871

1.

Instantaneous oxidation

124

Paragraph 30, Footnote 6

125Paragraph 4 and paragraph 2 and 9 of Appendix II

126

See submissions by Parties on FMRL as requested by decision 2/CMP.6 (http://unfccc.int/5896.php) and document
FCCC/KP/AWG/2011/Inf.2

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.151

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
4872
4873
4874
4875
4876

In this case, Parties only presented values for a FMRL which do not contain estimates on the HWP
contribution.127 Similar to the treatment of HWP in the first commitment period as described in GPG-LULUCF,
as result of the assumption of instantaneous oxidation, the storage of carbon in the HWP pool is not included (cf.
Section 2.8.2). This approach equates the HWP Tier 1 estimation method as described in Section 2.8.2 and waschosen by Parties following the FMRL approach 3) and 4) as described in Box 2.7.5.1.

4877
4878

2.

Inclusion of the HWP pool on the basis of modeled projections under a ‘business as usual’ scenario

4879
4880
4881
4882
4883
4884
4885
4886

In this case, Parties presented values for the FMRL that include estimates of the HWP contribution based onchanges in the HWP pool.128 This approach was chosen by Parties following the FMRL approaches 1) and 2) as
described in Box 2.7.5.1. Many countries derived the values for the projected HWP contribution by means of
FOD as specified in Section 2.8.3 for the Tier 2 HWP estimation method (Equation 2.8.5) applying default halflives as listed in Table 2.8.3 for the HWP categories sawnwood, wood panels and paper (cf. Section 2.8.1.1).129
However, different approaches had been used as regards the consideration of HWP originating from forests prior
to the start of the second commitment period130, as indicated in the application of HWP activity data (i) since
1900, or (ii) since 1990.

4887
4888
4889
4890
4891

Besides these two basically different methodological approaches in the treatment of HWP in the FMRL, further
distinction between Parties’ estimates on the HWP contribution to the FMRL can be recognized for (i) theapplied models that have been used (including activity data, carbon conversion factors, etc.), and (ii) the applied
underlying assumptions as regards the projected HWP contribution and/or its relation to particular projected
harvest rates of Parties.

4892

An example of how estimates of the HWP contribution in the FMRL could be derived is listed in Box 2.8.2.

4893

127

See FMRL values in column ‘Reference level’ in the table of the Appendix of the Annex of decision 2/CMP.7

128

See FMRL values in column ‘Applying first-order decay function for HWP’ in the table of the Appendix of the Annex ofdecision 2/CMP.7

129

Paragraph 27 of Chapter II, Annex I in document FCCC/KP/AWG/2010/18/Add.1.

130

Cf. paragraph 15 sexies, Ibid.

2.152

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

4894
4895

BOX 2.8.2
EXAMPLE ON THE ESTIMATION OF HWP CONTRIBUTION AS PRESENTED IN PARTIES’ FMRL

4896
4897
4898
4899
4900

The following example is intended to show, how estimates of the projected HWP contribution
based on changes in the HWP pool could be derived that are consistent with the assumed
harvesting rates following a ‘business as usual’ scenario in case no country-specific information on
assumed future production of HWP and/or ‘track and trace’ models were available (cf. Rüter
2011).

4901
4902
4903

In line with the guidelines for the submission and review of information on FMRL contained in the
Appendix II of decision 2/CMP.6, Parties had been requested to provide information on historicand assumed harvesting rates following a ‘business as usual’ scenario for forest management.

4904
4905

STEP 1: Calculation of the rates of change of the projected harvest as compared to the last five
years’ average of the historic harvest, for which up-to-date data were available.

4906

Numeric example:

4907

(i)

Average historic harvest for the years 2005-2009: 50 Million m³

4908

(ii)

Projected harvest (in Million m³): in 2013=52, in 2014=53, in 2015=55 …

4909

(iii)

Rates of change as compared to historic average: in 2013=4%, in 2014=6%, in 2015=10%

4910
4911
4912

STEP 2: Application of these annual change rates to the same five year average of historic carbon
inflow to the HWP pool, which has been calculated from HWP production (cf. Section 2.8.3), in
order to project the future carbon inflow to the HWP pool.

4913

Numeric example:

4914

(i)

Production of sawnwood for the years 2005-2009: 10 Million m³

4915

(ii)

Projected production of sawnwood (in Million m³): in 2013=10.4, in 2014=10.6, in 2015=11 …

4916
4917
4918

As a result, it is assumed that the same average proportion of harvested timber being used as
feedstock for the subsequent production of HWP in the chosen historic five year period will also
apply in the projection period.

4919
4920
4921
4922
4923

A five year average was chosen, in order to reduce the uncertainties associated with because theproportions of harvested timber being used for HWP production can vary considerably from year
to year. A similar approach had been proposed by Kangas and Baudin (2003). In case of
substantially varying time series, they suggest to use a ‘fixed constant’ as the projection that is anaverage over the last five years.

4924
4925
4926

METHODOLOGICAL CONSISTENCY BETWEEN HWP IN THE FMRL AND
THE REPORTING DURING THE SECOND COMMITMENT PERIOD

4927

General guidance on methodological consistency in relation to the FMRL is provided in Section 2.7.5.2.

4928
4929
4930

In line with decision 2/CMP.7, it is good practice to demonstrate methodological consistency between thetreatment of HWP in the reference level and the reporting for forest management (FM) during the second
commitment period.131

4931
4932
4933
4934
4935
4936

Provided that Parties comply with the requirements as outlined in Section 2.8.1.1 to estimate HWP contribution
on the basis of changes in the HWP pool following a Tier 2 or Tier 3 method (See Sections 2.8.3 or 2.8.4),
methodological consistency between the treatment of HWP in the FMRL and the reporting as explained in
Section 2.7.5.2 can be demonstrated by providing following information in the annual greenhouse gas inventory
in accordance with Article 5, paragraph 2, of the Kyoto Protocol, which shall be submitted starting with theannual inventory for the first year of the second commitment period132:

4937
4938



Time series of HWPFM separately for the included HWP categories (HWPP), including historic information
as appropriate (See Sections 2.8.3, 2.8.4 and below), in order to also demonstrate that

131

Paragraph 14

132

This information includes methodological elements as used in the estimation of HWP contribution to the FMRL and thereporting during the second commitment period as defined in Annex II of Decision -/CMP.8

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.153

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
4939
4940

(i)

the method(s) to be used for estimating HWP contribution following the different tiers havebeen applied consistently (See Sections 2.8.2, 2.8.3 and 2.8.4);

4941
4942

(ii)

the method to determine the fraction of HWP originating from FM has been appliedconsistently (See Section 2.8.1.2);

4943
4944

(iii)

the same HWP categories (HWPP) have been applied (See Sections 2.8.1.1, 2.8.3.1 and2.8.4.1);

4945

(iv)

the same carbon conversion factors have been used (See Sections 2.8.3.1 and 2.8.4.1)

4946
4947



Emission factors (i.e. service- or half-life information) associated with the particular HWP categories(HWPP) ;4948

The annual HWP contribution (i.e. emissions/removals) from HWP originating from FM;

4949
4950
4951

In case the FMRL has been based on a projection (See Section 2.7.5.1) is furthermore good practice to provide
separate information whether the historic pool (i.e. emissions from HWP originating from forests prior to thestart of second commitment period, see detailed description in Section 2.8.3) has been included in the estimates.

4952
4953
4954
4955

Since the final agreement on HWP, included in the decision 2/CMP.7, was reached after the FMRL submissions,a technical correction for accounting purposes as described in Section 2.7.6 might be needed in the estimation of
the HWP contribution to the FMRL to reflect the changes in the applied methodological elements as describedabove and in the relevant Sections 2.8.1, 2.8.2, 2.8.3 and 2.8.4.

4956
4957

Further general guidance on the detection for the need for, the procedures of performance and documentation of,and the timing of the application of a technical correction is provided in the relevant Section 2.7.6.

4958

2.8.6

4959
4960
4961

This section provides information on potential sources of uncertainty associated with the estimates of the HWP
contribution. The uncertainties can be divided into uncertainties associated with the methods as well as
parameter uncertainties.

4962

METHOD UNCERTAINTIES

4963
4964
4965
4966
4967
4968
4969
4970
4971
4972
4973
4974
4975

In the Tier 2 flux data method the basic model uncertainties are related to the assumption of FOD (Equation
2.8.5). A model is always a simplification of real world inducing method based uncertainties associated with Tier
2. The reason for using decay models — instead of just counting the inflow minus outflow from the HWP pools— is that there are no extensive and reliable statistics on the real discard flows (unlike on the inflows of semifinished products), but some knowledge on the service life of wood products. FOD decay is assumed to be agood proxy for the decay of semi-finished products and other type of distributions could be used to describe thetrue decay process. However, the real world is even more complex. The service life and decay pattern of wood
products are not just a technical issue, but are also related to socio-economic factors (See Section 2.8.4.2). For
instance, the demand for wood products is likely to grow in economic booms resulting simultaneously inincreasing replacement of old HWP with new ones. Thus also discards of HWP correlate with their increasing
consumption. This is not reflected in the FOD pattern, where the discard rate is a constant fraction of the HWP
pools in use over time. As a result of FOD the annual change of carbon stock in HWP is steered too strongly by
the instantaneous production rate of HWP of domestic origin.

4976
4977
4978
4979
4980
4981
4982
4983
4984
4985

In the Tier 2 method another uncertainty is associated with initialisation of the FOD model. Due to lack of long
historical data series on semi-finished HWP – for some countries series only since early 1990s – the initial stocksof the HWP categories (C (t0)) are approximated by assuming that the stock change was zero at initial time. This
proxy slightly overestimates the inherited emissions within the second commitment period from the long-lived
HWP categories sawnwood (with half-life of 35 years) and wood based panels in case their stock in reality was
growing at initial time, particularly when the calculation in Equation 2.8.5 is started just from the early 1990s.
Depending on the accounting of HWP under Article 3 paragraph 4, this could thus potentially increase theuncertainties of the HWP contribution provided especially from products with high half-life values. In case theaccounting approach for FM is based on a projected FMRL, however, this source of uncertainty is of no
relevance and consequence for the accounting of the HWP contribution.

4986
4987
4988
4989

Another model uncertainty is related to the number of HWP categories in the model. In the simplest Tier 2
method there are three HWP sub-pools for the main categories: sawnwood, wood-based panels and paper andpaperboard, each of which follows the FOD pattern but with different half-lives. The uncertainty could basicallybe lowered by introducing disintegrated sub-pools (e.g. for sawnwood) with differing half-lives based on their

2.154

Uncertainty assessment

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

4990
4991

end-use (cf. Table 2.8.3) or based on subcategories (e.g. wood-based panels disintegrated to particle board,
fibreboard etc., cf. Table 2.8.1).

4992
4993
4994
4995
4996
4997
4998
4999
5000
5001
5002
5003

In Tier 3, direct inventories of HWP in service (e.g. in the construction sector) could also be used to reduce theuncertainties associated with the flux data based method of Tier 2. The advantage of direct inventories is that no
idealised models with uncertain assumptions on decay pattern are needed and whose verification and validation
could be questioned. The inventory method could in principle provide more robust and less uncertain estimates
for the carbon stock changes of the included HWP pools. Sequential direct inventories could also be applied tocalibrating of the flux-data models and their half-life parameters (see Box 2.8.1) and thus reducing theiruncertainties. However, the limitation of the method is that the statistics, if available, contains only some major
pools such as the housing sector of the reporting country: but there is no information e.g. on the use of wood for
furniture or packaging. For the use of HWP in export markets inventory methods are inapplicably either. Thus it
must always be combined with flux data methods inducing double-counting risks of semi-finished and final
products. Furthermore, it is applicable only in those few countries from which relevant and sequential statistics
are available.

5004

UNCERTAINTIES OF ACTIVITY DATA

5005
5006

Uncertainties related to activity data on HWP from international databases (e.g. FAO) and associateduncertainties of the estimates of the level of HWP contribution could arise due to:

5007
5008



Lack of time series: some Annex I countries were founded in the early 1990s and thus older activity data
might not be available (see above).

5009
5010
5011



Definitional uncertainties (i.e. data provided do not conform to what has been requested). Removals data e.g.
tend in fact to be only commercial forestry operations or planned cuts, sawnwood production is being
provided in nominal, not solid m3, and pulp is only market (commercially sold) pulp.

5012
5013
5014



The scope of data collection, as not all information is collected, particularly in the informal sector and fromsmall operators. This tends to affect especially the sawmilling industries, as limits to collect statistical data
might be linked to business volume or number of employees.

5015
5016



Double counting (e.g. final products counted in semi-finished commodities, such as cut paper being added topaper in rolls).

5017
5018



Reporting errors in providing correct data that is numbers are put into the wrong category or incorrectly
processed by reporter or collecting agency.

5019
5020
5021
5022



Uncertainties associated with aggregate HWP commodities (e.g. wood-based panels): in general, the sum of
the subcategories accords with the value for the aggregate commodities, but some categories may
underreport because of missing subcategories (e.g. missing data on veneer sheets result in an underestimate
for wood-based panels).

5023
5024

Concerning data on the feedstock of production of semi-finished HWP categories (i.e. industrial roundwood andwood pulp), uncertainty could be caused by unreported sources, by-product use or trade data.

5025
5026
5027

Also the semi-finished HWP categories (i.e. sawnwood, wood-based panels and paper and paperboard) are
subject to the above mentioned conditions. An overall estimate of these factors results in an estimated deviationof the reported values between -25% to +5%.

5028
5029
5030
5031

All of these sources of uncertainty together tend to result in an under-reporting of HWP commodity data ininternational databases, that is actual figures are usually higher. As this is particularly the case in roundwood (i.e.
wood-removals, see Figure 2.8.2) the allocation of the HWP categories to forest activities as described in Section
2.8.1.2 should be fairly conservative.

5032
5033
5034

Further uncertainties associated with activity data are caused by conversion factors. The provided conversion
factors (See Table 2.8.1) are highly generalized and reflect global averages which are not correct for species andspecific items.

5035
5036
5037

In order to reduce uncertainties around conversion factors for carbon, Parties are encouraged to use subcategories under Tier 2 (See Section 2.8.3.2) or use a Tier 3 approach where they can make use of commodity
specific conversion factors linked e.g. to various wood species of the particular items (See Section 2.8.4.2).

5038
5039
5040
5041

Aside from reviewing the data to check if it fits with a general understanding of the forest products supply in acountry, it is most useful for reducing the uncertainties relating to activity data to cross-check if the amount ofdomestic production of HWP categories balances with the available supply of wood. Other validation methods
could include a review of trade unit values and determination of per capita apparent consumption.

5042

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.155

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
5043
5044

UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH EMISSION FACTORS (SERVICEAND HALF-LIFE ESTIMATES)

5045
5046
5047
5048
5049
5050
5051
5052
5053
5054
5055
5056

The half-life parameters are in general the most uncertain part of the Tier 2 calculation method. There is notmuch hard scientific evidence behind the default values given in Table 2.8.2 133 . Nor do they present a
conservative estimate that would rather lead to underestimation than overestimation of the carbon stock changes
in HWP. For decreasing uncertainty countries are strongly encouraged to adjust the Tier 2 half-life parameters by
calibrating the FOD model either a) with direct inventories of HWP in use, or b) with market information asshown in Table 2.8.3. The application of stock inventory information, however, due to the lack of appropriate
statistics is hardly practicable in most countries. Furthermore, it does not cover export markets of the reporting
country. Two specific calibration studies (Pingoud, et al. 2001, Statistics Finland 2011) indicate that the true
half-life of sawnwood and wood-based panels in Finland is likely to be much shorter than the default half-lives(Table 2.8.2). Thus, in this particular case the use of default half-lives would substantially overestimate the HWPpool in use. The results of this kind of case studies could possibly be generalised to obtain better estimates fordefault half-lives.

5057
5058
5059

Even though the uncertainty associated with Tier 2 estimates using default data could be high, working throughsuch estimates can be the first step in identifying ways to improve them. Initial improvements can be made using
country specific data with country-specific half-lives instead of the default half-lives in Tier 3.

5060
5061
5062
5063

To decrease uncertainties in Tier 3 Parties are encouraged to use direct inventories of HWP in use, to develop
more realistic decay patterns for HWP and use of more sub-pools in case transparent information is available.
However, the model calibration procedure to direct HWP inventories requires in practice a model with very few
adjustable parameters.

5064

2.8.7

5065
5066
5067
5068
5069

Detailed steps to improve estimates of HWP activity data are already described in detail for Tiers 2 and 3
methods in Sections 2.8.3 and 2.8.4, and also in Section 2.8.6 (as it relates to uncertainties). These steps include
the use of country-specific data and half-lives for Tier 2 methods (Sections 2.8.3.1.and 2.8.3.2) and theapplication of potential steps to derive improved Tier 3 estimates (Sections 2.8.4.1. and 2.8.4.2). Therefore, thissection does not provide a separate, detailed sub-section on Quality assurance and Quality control.

Quality assurance/Quality control

5070

133

Paragraph 29

2.156

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

5071

2.9

CROPLAND MANAGEMENT

5072

2.9.1

Definitional issues and reporting requirements

5073
5074
5075
5076

“Cropland management” is the system of practices on land on which agricultural crops are grown and on landthat is set-aside or temporarily not being used for crop production.134 Cropland management includes all lands
under annual and perennial crops, and all fallow lands set at rest for one or several years before being cultivatedagain.

5077
5078
5079
5080
5081

It is good practice to include, in land subject to cropland management, all the lands in the ‘Cropland’ category ofSection 3.2 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, namely cropped land, including rice fields, and agro-forestry systems
where the vegetation structure falls below the thresholds used for the Forest Land category. It is also goodpractice for countries to specify how land subject to cropland management is distinguished from other land
management categories using the guidelines provided in Section 3.3 of Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

5082
5083
5084
5085
5086
5087
5088
5089
5090
5091

Perennial crops can include orchards, vineyards and plantations such as cocoa, coffee, tea and bananas. If
perennial cropped lands meet the threshold criteria for forests (see Footnote 6 in Section 4.1 for the definition of“forest” given in the Marrakesh Accords), it is good practice to include them under cropland management orforest management, but not under both. Rice paddies are also included under cropland, but associated methane
emissions are reported under Methane Emissions from Rice cultivation in section 5.5 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines. Treed areas such as orchards or shelterbelts that were established after 1990 and meet the definitionof a forest can qualify as afforestation/reforestation, and if they do, should be included under those categories(see Section 4.1.2 General rules for categorization of land areas under Articles 3.3. and 3.4). Cropland that is
temporarily used for grazing can also be included under cropland management. Countries are encouraged todevelop consistent criteria for defining set aside lands and their allocation among activities.

5092
5093
5094
5095
5096
5097
5098
5099
5100
5101

The aim of the accounting exercise is to identify and report trends and systematic changes in the carbon stocks
resulting from changes in cropland management over time. The premise is that changes in soil C stocks result
from changes in cropland management that influence the rates of either additions to, or losses of, soil carbon.
However, cropland management is not the only driver of changes in carbon stocks. Natural effects, such as
weather, wild fire, abnormal flooding or prolonged drought can also influence the rate of carbon gains and losses
in cropland, and if their effects are large enough, can mask the carbon trend or signal resulting from cropland
management practices, as elements of cropland management activities. Countries are encouraged to use higher
tier methods (Tier 2 or Tier 3) to develop emissions coefficients or models to represent the effects ofmanagement practices rather than those of inter-annual variability and natural disturbances on carbon stocks.
More information about higher tier methods is provided in Section 2.9.3.

5102
5103
5104
5105
5106
5107
5108
5109
5110

The main processes involved in estimating emissions and removals are, first, to subdivide the total cropland area
into strata that represent consistent classes of land types, biophysical characteristics and management practices
for the base year and each of the years in the commitment period (see section 2.9.2 and examples in Table 5.5 of
the 2006 IPCC Guidelines). Broad sets of practices under cropland management that affect carbon stocks include
tillage practices, rotations and cover crops, fertility management, plant residue management, erosion control andirrigation management (IPCC, 2000 Special Report on LULUCF, p.184). The second main process is to estimate
how management practices and changes in management practices influence emissions and removals over time,using methods discussed in Section 2.9.3. The steps for using the proposed methodology for estimating carbon
emissions and removals are outlined in Box 2.9.1.

5111
5112
5113
5114

Countries should aim for consistency and completeness in estimation of emissions and removals across activities.
For example, greenhouse gas estimation methodologies for cropland management practices occurring on landthat was deforested should be consistent with methods used for the surrounding cropland management practices,even though they are accounted under Article 3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol and not under Cropland Management.

5115

Box 2.9.1 provides steps for estimating emissions and removals from cropland.

134

Paragraph 1(g) in the Annex to Decision 16/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry)

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.157

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
5116
5117

BOX 2.9.1
STEPS FOR ESTIMATING EMISSIONS AND REMOVALS FROM CROPLAND MANAGEMENT

5118
5119
5120
5121
5122

STEP 1. Define cropland management and apply the definition in a consistent manner over time,
including in the base year. Crops such as vineyards and orchards that meet the definition of forest
can be included under cropland management or under forest management, but not under both. It is
important to apply the definitions consistently over time, even though data and information fromthe past may be of lower quality.

5123
5124

STEP 2. Identify the land under cropland management using the approaches described in Section
3.3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and the appropriate sections in this KP Supplement.

5125
5126

STEP 3. Distinguish between the two subcategories of cropland management: mineral soils andorganic soils.

5127
5128
5129
5130

STEP 4. Select the appropriate tier and methodology for estimating emissions and removals, basedon key category and significant source analysis (2006 IPCC Guidelines, Volume 1, section 4.2)
and subject to available data. For mineral soils, this includes methodologies for monitoring land
management activities and change.

5131
5132

STEP 5. Stratify by climate. For mineral soils also stratify by other biophysical characteristics ofthe land and cropland management practices (see section 2.9.2).

5133
5134
5135

STEP 6. For each stratum, estimate the cropland management emissions/removals for the base year
and the commitment year using Tier 1, Tier 2 or Tier 3 methods (see section 2.9.3). Total
emissions are the sum of net emissions or removals from mineral soils plus organic soils.

5136

2.9.1.1

5137
5138
5139
5140
5141
5142
5143
5144

Under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol, emissions and removals resulting from cropland management are
estimated using a net-net accounting approach (as are grazing land management, revegetation and wetland
drainage and rewetting). 135 Net-net accounting requires that greenhouse gas emissions and removals are
estimated for the base year and each year of the commitment period. This entails determining the total area undercropland management for the base year and for each year of the commitment period and calculating the carbon
stock change for those areas. Guidance for estimating the corresponding non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions
from cropland for 1990 are covered in Chapters 10 and 11 of Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (see thetext on non-CO2 gases in this section and Box 4.1.1, Examples 1 and 2 in Section 4.1.2).

5145
5146
5147

If the area under cropland management changes significantly between the base year and the commitment period,
this may lead to estimates on moving land basis (that is, subtraction of stock changes on a land base that changes
in size over time (see Box 2.9.2)).

BASE YEAR

135

Net-net accounting refers to the provisions of paragraph 10 of the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change
and forestry) contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/Add.1.

2.158

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

5148
5149
5150

BOX 2.9.2
AN EXAMPLE OF CROPLAND MANAGEMENT AREAS IN 1990
AND IN THE COMMITMENT PERIOD (NET-NET ACCOUNTING)

5151
5152
5153
5154
5155
5156
5157
5158

In this example the area under cropland management in the reporting year during the commitment
period is larger than in the base year. Some of the area was under cropland management in both thebase year and during the reporting period (a). Some of the area under cropland management in thebase year is no longer under cropland management in the reporting year (b). There are also areas
under cropland management in the reporting year that were not under cropland management in thebase year (c). Area (d) is under cropland management, but was subject to deforestation which takes
precedence. Under the Kyoto Protocol, the emissions and removals in areas (a) + (b) in the baseyear are compared to emissions and removals in areas (a) + (c) – (d) in the reporting year.

5159
5160
5161
5162
5163

b

5164

a

c

5165
5166

d

5167
5168

Area under cropland
management only in base year

5169
5170

Area under cropland
management in base year
and in reporting period

5171

EXCLUDED FROM c: Area
under forest in base year andcropland management inreporting period (not included incropland management reporting;reported under Article 3.3 asdeforestation land)

Area under cropland management
only in reporting year (could havebeen settlement, or grassland, or
wetland, in the base year)

5172
5173
5174
5175
5176

This approach avoids having to track the carbon stock changes arising from activities not coveredby the Marrakesh Accords. Like other alternatives, it may have policy implications. For example, asimple change in area without a change in stock change per unit area could yield a credit or debit
without there being an actual change in carbon flux to or from the atmosphere.

5177
5178
5179
5180
5181
5182
5183
5184
5185
5186
5187
5188
5189
5190
5191

For most Parties with commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, the base year is 1990. Under the provisions ofArticle 4.6 of the UNFCCC, however, Parties with economies in transition (EITs) are granted some flexibility on
the level of historical emissions chosen as a reference. As a consequence five EITs have a base year or period
between 1985 and 1990 and hence need to assess the CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions and removals for
those years. Historical data on land-use and management practices in 1990 (or the appropriate year(s)) and inyears prior to 1990 are needed to establish the 1990 base year net emissions/removals of soil carbon fromcropland management. The Tier 1 method described in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Section 5.3.3 Soil carbon),for mineral soils assumes that a change in land-use/land management has an impact on carbon emissions andremovals for a duration of 20 years; hence, in this approach and if a change in management has taken place since1970, the net carbon stock change in 1990 has to be calculated taking this change into account. If area andactivity data are available for 1970 to 1990, the net carbon stock change during the 1990 base year can beestablished using the default carbon emission and removal factors. For organic soils, the inventory time period istreated the same a long-term cropped organic soils, with Tier 1 emission factors provided in Table 5.6 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines.

5192
5193
5194

The duration of impact may be shorter or longer than 20 years. If data on the duration of impact are available, it
is good practice to use the appropriate time period, based on country-specific data and measurements (see Tier 2
and Tier 3 approaches in Section 2.9.3).

5195
5196
5197
5198

If area and activity data are not available for 1970 to 1990, countries can establish the 1990 carbon stock using
the most appropriate of the following options, in a manner consistent with guidance provided in 2006 IPCC
Guidelines, Volume 1, Section 5.3.1 (Issues with data availability). It is good practice to use a long time period(e,g., 20 years) as close to 1990 as possible. The net carbon stock change for 1990 could be estimated:

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.159

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
5199
5200



if data are available for the time series between 1990 and 2010, based on the trend in carbon stock for thetime series between 2010 and 1990;

5201
5202



if data for the time series between 1970 and 1990 or 1990 and 2010 are incomplete, using the available
data to extrapolate a trend through 1990.

5203
5204
5205
5206
5207
5208
5209

The results of accounting on a net-net basis depend not just on changes in land management activities, but also
partly on where the base year and commitment period years fall within the temporal dynamics of carbon
sequestration processes. As noted above, carbon stock change resulting from land use and land managementchanges on mineral soil tends to persist for about 20 years, after which the cropland carbon levels approach a
new equilibrium carbon stock. The rate of carbon sequestration in cropland following a change in managementin which carbon additions increase or carbon losses decline tends to be high in the first decades and then decline
over time, as illustrated in Figure 4.2.12. This will be reflected in net sinks and sources in the accounting.

5210

2.9.2

5211

Choice of methods for identifying lands subject tocropland management activities

5212
5213
5214

General guidance on consistent representation of lands is provided in Chapter 3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines
with additional guidance about identification of lands subject to cropland management provided in Sections 1.1,
1.2, 2.1, and 2.2 of this report.

5215
5216
5217
5218
5219
5220
5221
5222

Under the Marrakesh Accords (Decision 15/CMP.1, Annex, paragraph 6), the geographical location of theboundaries of the area that encompass land subject to cropland management needs to be reported annually, alongwith the total land areas subject to this activity. The geographical location of boundaries may include a spatially
explicit specification of each land subject to cropland management, but does not have to. Instead, the boundaries
of larger areas encompassing smaller lands subject to cropland management may be provided, along withestimates of the area subject to cropland management in each of the larger areas. In either case, the land subject
to cropland management and the management thereon need to be tracked through time because the continuity
and duration of management practices and changes affects carbon emissions and removals.

5223
5224
5225
5226
5227
5228
5229
5230

If a Party estimates a change in cropland carbon pools resulting from a change in management practice using
default emissions or removal factors that assume continuity of the practice, such as the values provided in Table
5.5 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines, it is good practice to demonstrate that the land has remained continuously under
the practice. This could be achieved by tracking each land subject to cropland management from 1990 until theend of the commitment period (e.g. see Section 2.9.1 Definitional issues and reporting requirements).
Alternatively, countries could develop statistical sampling techniques, consistent with the advice in 2006 IPCC
Guidelines Annex 3A.3, which allow the management transitions on cropland management land to be
determined (see also Section 2.4.1 Developing a consistent time series).

5231
5232
5233
5234
5235
5236

If it is not demonstrated that a management practice occurs continuously on the same land, a Party may use
statistical sampling techniques to estimate the duration and proportion of the management practice of interest. In
this case, country-specific emission and removal factors (Tier 2) or modelling (Tier 3) approaches can be
developed to represent the duration and proportion of the practice over the time series. More information about
statistical sampling methods is provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, for example in Annex 3A.3.3 Sampling
Design.

5237
5238
5239
5240
5241
5242

At the national level, it is good practice to identify criteria that could be relevant to subdivision for the purposeof stratification when setting up a sampling strategy. Stratification criteria may include relatively static
biophysical characteristics, such as climate and soil type, as well as management practices that tend to be more
dynamic drivers of change in emissions and removals from the carbon pools. Guidance on stratifying land tomatch data needs for estimating emissions and removals is provided in Section 3.3.2 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines.

5243

Management factors that may be useful in establishing a national stratification include:

5244



Degree of soil disturbance (e.g. tillage frequency and intensity)

5245



Level of input of crop biomass or organic carbon (e.g. plant litter, roots, manure, other amendments)

5246



Frequency of fallow practices

5247



Inclusion of woody biomass in the cropping system (e.g. shelterbelts, orchards, other perennial plantations)

5248



Temporary use for livestock grazing

5249



Lands converted to croplands since 1990 (land-use change) that are not in any other land-use category.

2.160

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

5250
5251
5252
5253

For all resulting subcategories under cropland management, the areas derived from the conversion of forests (i.e.,
deforestation) since 1990 need to be tracked separately as these will be reported as units of lands subject todeforestation under Article 3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol. At higher tiers further subdivision of the cropland
management area may be necessary.

5254

Methods to identify croplands with adequate disaggregation may include:

5255
5256
5257
5258



National land-use and management statistics: in most countries, the agricultural land base including
croplands is surveyed regularly, providing data on distribution of different land uses, crops, tillage practiceand other aspects of management, often at sub-national regional level. These statistics may originate, in part,from remote sensing methods.

5259
5260



Inventory data from a statistically based, plot-sampling system: land-use and management activities aremonitored at specific permanent sample plots that are revisited on a regular basis.

5261

Links to related methods for cropland area are given in Box 2.9.3 below:

5262

Box 2.9.3

5263

LINKS WITH CHAPTER 2 OR 3 OF THIS REPORT

5264
5265

Section 2.3.2 (Three Approaches): Croplands that remain croplands or any conversion that leads tocroplands in Chapter 2 (except forests to croplands).

5266

LINKS WITH THE IPCC GUIDELINES

5267

Section 3.3.1 (Three Approaches), Volume 4, 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

5269

Choice of methods for estimating carbon stockchanges and non-CO 2 greenhouse gas emissions

5270
5271

For croplands, the 2006 IPCC Guidelines identify two ways of assessing sources or sinks of CO2 fromagricultural soils:

5272
5273



Net changes in organic carbon stocks associated with changes in land use and management on mineral soil
(Chapter 5)

5274



Emissions of CO2 from cultivated organic soils (Chapter 5)

5275
5276
5277

Total annual emissions and removals of CO2 are calculated by summing emissions and removals from the two
subcategories (mineral and organic soils) using methods outlined in Chapter 5 and Equation 2.24 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines.

5278
5279
5280
5281
5282
5283

In most croplands, the main soil carbon flux associated with changes in land-use and management for cropland
management activities is from changes in soil organic carbon in soils. Crop biomass carbon from herbaceous andannual crops is assumed to cycle annually (biomass gains are assumed to equal biomass losses in a single year)
and is not estimated. Carbon stock changes associated with perennial crop biomass (e.g., trees, shelterbelts andorchards) is estimated for the aboveground and belowground biomass, litter and dead wood pools using guidance
provided in the afforestation/reforestation or forest management sections (see Table 2.9.1).

5284
5285
5286
5287
5288
5289

If cropland management is a key category, the inventory compiler should determine if certain subcategories,
such as mineral soil or organic soil or aboveground biomass, are particularly significant. The 2006 IPCC
Guidelines (Volume 1, section 4.2) suggests ranking subcategories according to their contribution to theaggregate key category. Those subcategories that collectively contribute more than 60 percent to the key
category should be treated as significant. It may be appropriate to focus efforts towards methodologicalimprovements of these most significant subcategories.

5268

2.9.3

5290

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.161

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
5291
TABLE 2.9.1
SECTIONS WHERE METHODOLOGIES CAN BE FOUND FOR ESTIMATING DIFFERENT CARBON POOLS ASSOCIATED WITH
CROPLAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

Pools to be estimatedSection where methodologies can be found

Aboveground biomass

Section 2.5 (Afforestation and Reforestation) and Section 2.7 (Forest Management)

Belowground biomass

Section 2.5 (Afforestation and Reforestation) and Section 2.7 (Forest Management)

Litter and dead wood

Section 2.5 (Afforestation and Reforestation) and Section 2.7 (Forest Management)

Soil C

Section 2.9.3 (here)

Non-CO2

2006 IPCC Guidelines, Chapter 11 and Section 2.9.3.4

5292
5293
5294
5295
5296
5297
5298
5299
5300

The Marrakesh Accords specify that a Party may choose not to account for a particular pool if it can verifiably
demonstrate that the pool is not a source. Requirements for reporting excluded pools and documenting that apool is not a source can be found in Section 2.3.1 (Pools to be Reported).It is possible that countries will use
different tiers to prepare estimates for individual subcategories of soil C (e.g., soil organic C stocks changes inmineral soils and organic soils). Since different methods may yield different estimates with different levels of
uncertainty, it is good practice to use the same tier and methodology for estimating carbon emissions andremovals from each subcategory and pool for the full time series, for example, in 1990 and during thecommitment period.

5301
5302
5303

Methods for estimating cropland carbon emissions and removals for the base year and the commitment period
are provided in Chapter 3 and the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, as outlined in Box 2.9.4. The following sections of thisreport highlight aspects of these methods specific to the Kyoto Protocol.

5304

Box 2.9.4

5305

LINKS WITH CHAPTER 2 OR 3 OF THIS REPORT

5306

Section 3.3.1.1

Change in carbon stocks in living biomass

5307

Section 3.3.1.2

Change in carbon stocks in soils

5308

LINKS WITH THE 2006 IPCC Guidelines

5309

Section 5.2.1 Biomass

5310

Section 5.2.2 Dead Organic Matter

5311

Section 5.2.3 Soil Carbon

5312

Section 5.2.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Biomass Burning

5313

Section 5.3 Land Converted to Cropland

5314

Section 5.5 Methane Emissions from Rice Cultivation

5315

2.9.3.1

M INERAL SOILS

5316
5317

Methods for estimating mineral soil carbon stock changes resulting from changes in cropland management fall
into one of three methodological tiers described in Volume 4, Sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.3 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

5318
5319

METHODS FOR ESTIMATING CARBON STOCK CHANGES IN MINERAL
SOILS

5320
5321
5322
5323

The decision tree in Figure 2.9.1 should be used to decide which tier to use for estimating carbon stock changes
associated with changes in cropland management under the Kyoto Protocol. It is good practice to use Tier 2 orTier 3 methods 3 for reporting carbon stock changes from mineral soils if cropland management is a key
category.

5324
5325
5326
5327
5328

Tier 1The Tier 1 method for estimating carbon stock changes in mineral soils is described in 2006 IPCC Guidelines
Volume 4, Sections 2.3.3.1 (Tier 1 Approach: Default Method) and 5.2.3 (Soil carbon): default soil carbon
factors, which assume continuous practice for a 20-year period are provided in Table 5.5; default reference soilorganic carbon stocks for mineral soils are given in Table 2.3.

2.162

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

5329
5330
5331
5332
5333

Section 5.2.3.4 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines Volume 4 outlines the steps for estimating average annual rates ofcarbon stock change of cropland mineral soils using the default reference carbon stocks (Tables 2.3), carbon
stock change factors (Table 5.5) and Equation 2.25 of the guidelines. The Tier 1 method can be used to estimate
carbon flux resulting from changes in land-use, cropland management or the level of carbon input across a rangeof temperature and moisture regimes and soil types.

5334

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.163

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
5335
5336
5337

Figure 2.9.1

Decision tree for selecting the appropriate tier for estimating carbon stockchanges in mineral soils under cropland for Kyoto Protocol reporting (seealso Figure 3.1.1)

Are data
available tocalculate regional orcountry-specific carbon stockchanges associatedwith changes in management
practices?

Are
CO2 emissions
from croplands
on mineral soil
a key category?

No

No

Yes
Yes
Obtain data from regional or
national measurement/ research
programmes or other reliable
sourcesIs therea national carbon
inventory system
available that allows CM
activities to beaccounted forby dynamic
drivers?

No

Yes

Use Tier 3(Note 3)

Use Tier 2(Note 2)

Use Tier 1(Note 1)

Note 1: Use the matrix/database of default values.
Note 2: Use regionally specific parameters, soil data and duration of impact.
Note 3: Use more sophisticated modelling techniques, often linked to geographical databases.

5338
5339

2.164

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

5340
5341
5342

Since the Tier 1 default methods assume continuity of practice on the land subject to the cropland management,
it is good practice to follow continuously the land subject to cropland management from the base year throughthe commitment period. Methods for continuously tracking land are described in Section 2.9.2.

5343
5344

CALCULATION OF CARBON STOCK CHANGE RESULTING FROMCROPLAND MANAGEMENT

5345
5346
5347
5348

The carbon stock change estimated using Equation 2.25 from 2006 IPCC Guidelines Volume 4 can be used to
calculate a yearly emission/removal of carbon resulting from cropland management activities (a carbon stockchange factor) by multiplying the carbon stock change factor by the cropland area to which the managementchange has been applied as follows:

5349
5350
5351

EQUATION 2.9.1
ANNUAL SOIL CARBON EMISSIONS/REMOVALS FROM CROPLAND MANAGEMENT∆CCM SOC = CSF ● A

5352
5353

Where:

5354∆CCM SOC = annual change in carbon stock in soil organic carbon, Mg C yr-1 (= ∆CMineral in Eq. 2.25)

5355

CSF

5356

A

= carbon stock change factor, Mg C ha-1 yr-1

= area, ha

5357
5358
5359
5360

For net-net accounting, the calculation shown in Equation 2.9.1 has to be performed for the base year and eachyear of the commitment period. For discussion of how to estimate the cropland management area, see Section
1.2 (General rules for categorization of lands areas under Articles 3.3 and 3.4).

5361
5362
5363
5364
5365
5366

Tier 2

5367
5368
5369
5370
5371
5372

To ensure that regionally-specific carbon stock change factors are better than default factors at representing
actual carbon stock change in a given region, rigorous criteria must be applied to demonstrate that the more
specific factors do not lead to under- or overestimation of the soil carbon change. Regional or country-specificfactors should be based on verified soil carbon model estimates or measurements that are conducted frequently
enough and over a long enough time period and with sufficient spatial density to reflect variability of theunderlying biochemical processes, and documented in accessible publications.

5373
5374
5375

For Tier 2 approaches, it is good practice to replace the 20-year default with a value that reflects national orregional information about the duration of changes in cropland management on soil carbon emissions andremovals.

5376
5377
5378
5379

An asymptotic model can also be fitted to data of soil carbon stock changes. (Figure 2.9.2). Using this method,
the higher carbon factors applied immediately after a land-use or management change gradually diminish, so thatstock changes are not underestimated soon after a change (“a” on Figure 2.9.2), or overestimated as the soil
approaches the new equilibrium (“b” on Figure 2.9.2).

The Tier 2 method also uses the methodology described in Volume 4, Chapter 5 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines,
but now the default factors are replaced with more reliable country- or region-specific values. It is good practice
to obtain region- or country-specific emissions factors from literature values, long-term experiments or the local
application of well-calibrated, well-documented soil carbon models. Region-specific data for soil carbon content(such as that available from national soil inventories) can also be used.

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.165

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
Figure 2.9.2

Schematic representation of a change in soil carbon stocks after a carbonsequestering management change is imposed represented by a broken-stickmodel of stock change (as used in the IPCC Guidelines where the time to a
new equilibrium is 20 Years) and by an asymptotic curve (for definitions ofSoil C content

5380
5381
5382
5383

b.
a.
Time to new equilibrium

Broken stick
Asymptotic

Management
Change

Time

5384
5385
5386
5387
5388
5389
5390
5391
5392
5393
5394

At Tier 2, default factors (e.g., input factors) associated with a different land-use or land-management change
can be replaced by more detailed relationships between the intensity of a practice (e.g., the amount of an organic
amendment applied to the soil) and a change in the yearly soil carbon emissions/removals. For example, in
Europe, Smith et al. (2000) have developed such relationships (e.g., average yearly soil carbon stock change(tonnes C ha-1) = 0.0145 x amount of animal manure (tonnes dry matter ha-1 yr-1) added; recalculated from data
in Smith et al., 1997; R2 = 0.3658, n = 17, p < 0.01). Similar relationships could be derived from long-term datafor different soil types in different climatic regions. Alternatively, well-calibrated and well-evaluated models ofsoil carbon change (e.g., CENTURY (Parton et al., 1987), RothC (Coleman and Jenkinson, 1996)) could be used
to generate either stock change factors, or the intensity relationships described above, for different soils in
different climatic regions.

5395
5396
5397
5398
5399
5400
5401

Rigorous criteria must be applied so that any carbon stock change is not under- or overestimated. It is goodpractice that stock change factors be based on experiments sampled according to the principles set out in Section
5.3 of GPG-LULUCF, and to use the experimental values if they are more appropriate than the default values tothe region and management practice. Factors based on models should only be used after the model has beentested against experiments such as those described above and any model should be widely evaluated, welldocumented and archived. It is good practice to provide confidence limits and/or uncertainty estimates associatedwith regional, country-specific or local stock change factors.

5402
5403
5404
5405
5406
5407
5408
5409
5410
5411
5412
5413
5414
5415
5416
5417

Tier 3Tier 3 methods generally encompass a range of methodologies, more elaborate than Tier 2 and usually based on
sophisticated modeling techniques, often linked to geographical databases. Tier 3 methods that can be used forthe national UNFCCC inventory (as described in 2006 IPCC Guidelines Chapter 5 (Cropland), Section 5.3.3.1(Choice of method) and taking into account the generic guidance for Tier 3 methods in Chapter 2, Secion 2.5(Additional generic guidance for Tier 3 methods)) are also likely to be used for cropland management
accounting under the Kyoto Protocol. Compared with the static matrix used at Tiers 1 and 2, Tier 3 can represent
the management history of a land that facilitates calculation of soil carbon changes resulting from multiplechanges in management practices over time. Tier 3 (like Tier 2) methods can also take into account longer
duration to reach equilibrium than 20 years. Current computing power makes it possible to link spatiallydisaggregated (stratified) land data to management practice data. The analytical system can track carbon stockchanges over time by linking equations describing the rate of change in soil carbon under specific management
practices with carbon contents, initialised at some point and cross-checked periodically. Tier 3 methods can also
be based on repeated statistical sampling consistent with the principles set out in Annex 3A.3 (Sampling) of2006 IPCC Guidelines. The sampling protocol should be of sufficient density to capture the soil types, climatic
regions and management practices.

5418

2.166

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

5419

CHOICE OF CARBON STOCK CHANGE FACTORS FOR MINERAL SOILS5420

The carbon emission/removal factors used at each tier are described briefly in the following sections.

5421
5422
5423
5424
5425
5426
5427
5428
5429

Tier 1

5430
5431
5432
5433
5434
5435
5436
5437
5438

Tier 2

5439
5440
5441
5442
5443
5444
5445

Tier 3

5446
5447
5448
5449
5450
5451
5452

In all cases, rigorous criteria must be applied so that any change in carbon stocks is neither under- noroverestimated; models used to estimate carbon stock changes should be well-documented and should be
evaluated using reliable experimental data for conditions and practices to which the models are applied. It isgood practice to provide estimates of confidence limits or uncertainty according to the description in section
5.2.3.5 and 5.3.3.5 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Default carbon stock change factors may also be replaced byvalues generated as part of national/regional carbon accounting systems (see Section 2.7.3 Choice of methods for
estimating carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions subject to Forest Management, of this report).

5453

CHOICE OF MANAGEMENT DATA FOR MINERAL SOILS

5454
5455
5456

Area data on land uses and practices need to be available in accordance with Approach 2 or Approach 3 as
described in Section 3.3.1 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines and guidance given in Section 2.2.4, of this report. The dataon management required for each of three tiers are outlined briefly here.

5457
5458
5459
5460
5461
5462
5463
5464
5465
5466
5467
5468
5469

Tier 1

5470
5471
5472
5473

If area and activity data are not available for 1970 and 1990, countries can derive the area and activity data using
the most appropriate of the following options, in a manner consistent with guidance provided in Chapter 5(Section 5.3.1, Issues with data availability), Volume 1 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines. It is good practice to use along time period (e,g. 20 years) as close to 1990 as possible.

At Tier 1, average yearly carbon stock changes in mineral soils are calculated from default values by dividing the
20-year stock change by 20, as set out in Chapter 2, Equation 2.25 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines Volume 4. Default
reference (under native vegetation) soil organic C stocks (SOCREF) for mineral soils, full details of default
relative stock change factors for land use (FLU), input (FI) and management (FMG) factors (over 20 years) can befound in Table 2.3 (for SOCREF) and table 5.5 (for FLU, FI and FMG) of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines Volume 4
respectively, respectively. Management practice is assumed to influence stocks to a depth of 30 cm. For asummary of the steps and a sample calculation, see Section 3.3.1.2.1.1, Choice of method (mineral soils), of
GPG-LULUCF.
At Tier 2, some or all of the default values for carbon stock change (Tier 1) are replaced by values shown to be
more reliable. These new values may be based on literature values, measured changes in carbon stocks, on
simple carbon models, or a combination of these. (See ‘Choice of management data for mineral soils’ below forsome examples). It is good practice to derive relative stock change factor values for a higher resolution
classification of management, climate and soil types if there are significant differences in the stock change
factors among more disaggregated categories based on an empirical analysis. Reference soil organic C stocks(SOCREF) can also be derived from country-specific data in a Tier 2 approach. Additional guidance is provided in
Chapter 2, Section 2.3.3.1 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines Volume 4.
For mineral soils, Tier 3 carbon stock change factors are country-derived, and may be calculated using complex
models. The carbon models used for Tier 3 are generally more complex than those in Tier 2, taking into accountsoil (e.g., clay content, chemical composition, parent material), climate (e.g., precipitation, temperature,
evapotranspiration), and management factors (e.g., tillage, carbon inputs, fertility amendments, cropping system).
Good practice requires that the models be calibrated using measurements at benchmark sites, and that model andassumptions used are described transparently.

Using the 2006 IPCC Guidelines Volume 4, impacts of land-use or land management change are assumed, by
default, to have an impact for 20 years. If area and activity data are available for 20 years prior to the base year, a
net carbon removal/emission for the base-year can be established using the default carbon stock change factors
described above. The land-use changes and management practices at Tier 1 are the same as those given in the2006 IPCC Guidelines: differing cultivation, differing tillage, and differing input levels. Within these specificland-use or land-management changes, activities are defined semi-quantitatively, e.g., low, medium, highwithout manure, and high with manure input levels, full, reduced and no-till systems. Land-use or management
systems are not subdivided into finer levels of detail than this. Areas may be obtained from international data
sets (e.g., FAO), though some of these sources lack the spatial explicitness needed for reporting and may only be
helpful for cross-checking data. If area and activity data are available for 1970 and 1990, a 1990 baseline net
carbon stock change can be established using the default carbon stock change factors described above and thearea and activity data for 1970 and 1990.

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.167

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
5474
5475



if the area and activity data are available for the time series between 1990 and 2010, by calculating the trend
in area and activity data using the time series between 1990 and 2010;

5476
5477



if the area and activity data for the time series between 1970 and 1990 or 1990 and 2010 are incomplete,using the available data to extrapolate a trend through 1990.

5478
5479
5480
5481
5482
5483
5484
5485
5486
5487

Tier 2

5488
5489
5490
5491
5492

Tier 35493

2.9.3.2

5494
5495

For carbon stock changes in organic soils, the following decision tree (Figure 2.9.3) should be used to decide
which tier to use for reporting under the Kyoto Protocol.

Tier 2 approaches are likely to involve a more detailed stratification of management systems than in Tier 1 if
sufficient data are available. This can include further subdivisions of annual cropping input categories (i.e., low,
medium, high, and high with amendment), rice cultivation, perennial cropping systems, and set-asides. It is goodpractice to further subdivide default classes based on empirical data that demonstrates significant differences insoil organic C storage among the proposed categories. In addition, Tier 2 approaches can involve a finer
stratification of climate regions and soil types. Tier 2 methods may require area descriptions of higher resolution
than those in Tier 1. In any case, rigorous criteria must be applied so that emissions in the base year andremovals in the inventory year are not overestimated, emissions in inventory year and removals in the base year
are not underestimated. This criterion may result in a conservative estimate of net soil carbon stock change.
Management data used in the more complex Tier 3 methodologies need to be consistent with the level of detailrequired by the model. It is good practice to use management data at a spatial resolution appropriate for themodel, and to have, or be able to estimate reliably, quantitative measures of the management factors required by
the model.

2.168

C ARBON STOCK CHANGES IN ORGANIC SOILS

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

5496
5497

Figure 2.9.3

Decision tree for selecting the tier at which to report carbon stock changes inorganic soils under the Kyoto Protocol

Are data
available tocalculate regional orcountry-specific carbon stockchanges associatedwith changes in management
practices?

Are
CO2 emissions
from croplands
on organic soil
a key category?

No

No

Yes
Yes
Obtain data from regional or
national measurement/ research
programmes or other reliable
sourcesIs therea national carbon
inventory system
available that allows CM
activities to beaccounted forby dynamic
drivers?

No

Yes

Use Tier 3(Note 3)

Use Tier 2(Note 2)

Use Tier 1(Note 1)

Note 1: Use the matrix/database of default values.
Note 2: Use regionally specific parameters, soil data and duration of impact.
Note 3: Use more sophisticated modelling techniques, often linked to geographical databases.

5498
5499

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.169

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
5500
5501

METHODS FOR ESTIMATING CO2 EMISSIONS/REMOVALS FROMORGANIC SOILS

5502
5503
5504
5505
5506
5507
5508
5509
5510
5511
5512

When organic soils are converted to or managed for agriculture, they are typically drained, tilled and fertilized,
resulting in on-site CO2 emissions to the atmosphere as well as to waterborne carbon losses that lead to off-site
CO2 emissions. Countries may use methods of different tier level for on-site and off-site CO2 emissions fromorganic soils. The rate of CO2 release will depend on, inter alia, climate, the degree of drainage, depth of the peat
layer, nutrient status and practices such as fertilisation and liming. Oxidation of organic soils results in land
subsidence and CO2 emissions will continue until the organic soil layer is depleted or until further lowering of
the drainage base is not feasible. In addition to on-site and off-site CO2 emissions, drainage will result in CH4emissions from ditches (see Section 2.9.3.3). Drained organic soils under Cropland management can be (partially)
rewetted while remaining under Cropland management. Guidance on (partially) rewetted organic soils can befound in Chapter 2.12 on Wetland drainage and rewetting. For all tier levels it is good practice to follow themethods for on- and off-site CO2 emissions set out in Chapter 2 of the 2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplement.136

5513
5514
5515
5516
5517
5518

Tier 2

5519
5520
5521
5522
5523

Tier 3
A Tier 3 approach may involve estimation of CO2 and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions in an integrated way.
However, the non-CO2 emissions should be reported in the Agriculture sector, and double counting and omission
should be avoided. It is good practice to use models that are calibrated using measurements at benchmark sites,
and to describe models and assumptions used transparently.

5524
5525

CHOICE OF CARBON EMISSION/REMOVAL FACTORS FOR ORGANIC
SOILS

5526
5527

For all tier levels it is good practice to follow the guidance on emission/removal factors on-site and off-site CO2
emissions set out in Chapter 2 of the 2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplement.

5528
5529
5530
5531
5532
5533

Tier 2

5534
5535
5536
5537
5538
5539

Tier 3For organic soils, CO2 and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions or emissions/removals may be estimated using amodel or measurement based approach. Time-dependent emission/removal factors capture more accurately theeffects of land-use and management changes. Dynamic models should capture the influence of (changes in) land
use and management practices, particularly the effect of variable drainage levels. Before such models are applied
they should be thoroughly tested and evaluated country- or region-specific field data.

5540

CHOICE OF MANAGEMENT DATA FOR ORGANIC SOILS

5541
5542

The same considerations apply as for management data for cropland management activities on mineral soils, as
described earlier in Section 2.9.3.

If more reliable country- or region-specific data is available on CO2 emissions from organic soils it is goodpractice to use these instead of Tier 1 defaults. Any data used should be shown to be more reliable andrepresentative for the national conditions than defaults. It is good practice to use a finer classification for climate
and management practices, in particular drainage classes, if there are significant differences in measured carbon
loss rates among the proposed classes.

For organic soils, it is good practice to replace the default values identified in Chapter 2 of the 2013 IPCC
Wetlands Supplement with country- or region-specific factors. It is good practice to use country- or regionspecific emission/removal factors derived from measurements or experiments within the region that are welldesigned and with adequate sampling and coverage. It is good practice to provide confidence limits and/or
uncertainty estimates associated with any country- or region-specific emission/removal factors.

136

The IPCC is currently preparing the 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories: Wetlands (the 2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplement) in parallel to this document. The 2013 IPCC
Wetlands Supplement provides guidance on estimating emissions and removals on lands with drained andrewetted organic soils in Chapters 2, 3 and 4 and general issues on wetlands are addressed in Chapters 1 and 7.
The guidance given here will be updated to reflect the development of the 2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplement
through its review by experts and governments and its approval by the IPCC. The second Government andExpert Review of the 2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplement will be held between 11th February and 7th April, 2013(see http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/home/wetlands.html).

2.170

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

5543
5544
5545

Area data on land uses and management practices need to be available in accordance with Approach 2 orApproach 3 (Section 2.2.2), and guidance given in Section 2.2.4. The data on management required for each of
the three tiers are outlined briefly here.

5546
5547
5548
5549
5550
5551

Tier 1

5552
5553
5554
5555
5556
5557
5558
5559
5560

Tier 2

5561
5562
5563
5564
5565

Tier 35566

2.9.3.3

5567
5568

Supplementary data provided for the Kyoto Protocol includes CO2 emissions from liming of croplands only if
cropland management is elected.

5569
5570
5571
5572
5573
5574

Liming is used to reduce soil acidity and improve plant growth in managed systems, particularly agriculturallands and managed forests. Adding carbonates to soils in the form of lime (e.g., limestone (CaCO3), or dolomite(CaMg(CO3)2) leads to CO2 emissions as the carbonate limes dissolve and release bicarbonate (2HCO3-), which
evolves into CO2 and water (H2O). CO2 emission rate will vary according to soil conditions and the compoundapplied. Repeat applications are made every few years but can be averaged out over time and the average annual
rate is the basis for inventory calculations.

5575

METHODS FOR ESTIMATING CO 2 EMISSIONS FROM LIMING

5576
5577
5578

Methods for estimating CO2 emissions from liming, using Tier 1, 2 or 3 approaches, are provided in the 2006
IPCC Guidelines, Volume 4, Chapter 11. A decision tree is provided in Figure 11.4 to assist inventory compilers
with selection of the appropriate tier to estimate CO2 emissions from liming.

5579
5580
5581

Tier 1

5582
5583
5584
5585

Tier 2

Drainage of organic soils results in immediate and ongoing emissions that are not restricted to a 20 year time
period, but are determined by subsidence rates, thickness of the peat and technical possibilities of deepening of
the drainage base in subsiding land. Net carbon emission/removal from the soil in the base year can beestablished based on data from the base year only. The land-use changes and management practices at Tier 1 are
the same as those for mineral soils.
It is good practice to disaggregate data on management practices by drainage depth, nutrient status of the organicsoil, land use intensity, and peatland type if appropriate emissions factors for on-site and off-site CO2
emissions/removals are available. In many instances standard drainage depths are used in management practices
and disaggregation is not useful in improving accuracy of the emission/removal estimates. Where significant
variation in drainage depth exists for different management practices, and where appropriate emissions factors
exist, it is good practice to improve the accuracy of an inventory by separating out drainage classes. Tier 2
methods may require area descriptions of higher resolution than those in Tier 1. It is good practice to apply
rigorous criteria so that any change in emissions or removals is neither under- nor overestimated.
Management data used in the more complex Tier 3 methodologies need to be consistent with the level of detailrequired by the model. It is good practice to use management data at a spatial resolution appropriate for themodel, and to have, or be able to estimate reliably, quantitative measures of the management factors required by
the model.

CO 2 EMISSIONS FROM LIMINGThe Tier 1 method for estimating CO2 emissions from liming is identical to that described as equation 11.12 in
Chapter 11 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines, Volume 4.
A Tier 2 method for liming uses country-specific data to derive emission factors in place of the default
coefficients described in Chapter 11 (Section 11.3.1) of 2006 IPCC Guidelines, Volume 4 for CO2 emissions
from liming, where these are shown to be more reliable.

5586
5587
5588
5589

Tier 3

5590

CHOICE OF CARBON EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIMING

5591
5592
5593

Tier 1

Tier 3 methods use more sophisticated models or measurement procedures. If sufficient data and understandingof inorganic carbon transformation for specific climate-soil conditions are available, specific emission factors
could be derived. It is good practice to use such methods if they have been well-documented and evaluated.

Default emission factors (EF) are 0.12 for limestone and 0.13 for dolomite as defined in Chapter 11 of 2006
IPCC Guidelines, Volume 4.

5594

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.171

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
5595
5596
5597
5598
5599
5600
5601

Tier 2Derivation of emission factors using country-specific data could entail differentiation of sources with variable
compositions of lime and account for the proportion of carbonate-C from liming that is emitted to theatmosphere as CO2. Country-specific emission factors can be derived if there are sufficient data andunderstanding of inorganic carbon transformations, in addition to knowledge about transport of aqueous Ca, Mg,
and inorganic C. It is good practice to document the source of information and method used for deriving countryspecific values in the reporting process.

5602
5603
5604

Tier 35605

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY DATA FOR LIMING

5606
5607
5608
5609
5610
5611
5612
5613

Tier 1

Tier 3 approaches are based on estimating variable emissions from year to year, which depends on a variety ofsite-specific characteristics and environmental drivers.

If soil application statistics for carbonate lime are available, use the statistics data and default emission factors
recommended by 2006 IPCC Guidelines in Chapter 11 of Volume 4 to estimate CO2 emissions from liming. If
there are no statistics for soil application of carbonate lime, the amount of carbonate lime applied to soil can be
estimated based on annual sales of carbonate lime or lime availability on an annual basis according to thedescription in Chapter 11, volume 4 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines. It is good practice to average data records overthree years (current year and two most recent) if emissions are not computed on an annual basis for reporting
purposes.

5614
5615
5616

Tier 2

5617
5618
5619
5620

Tier 35621

2.9.3.4

5622
5623
5624

Most N2O and CH4 emissions from cropland management, as listed below, are accounted under the Agriculture
sector and are therefore not accounted under the LULUCF sector. The same list applies to grazing land
management, revegetation and wetlands drainage and rewetting. These include:

5625



Tier 2 may incorporate information on the purity of carbonate limes as well as site-level and hydrologicalcharacteristics to estimate the proportion of carbonate-C in lime application that is emitted to the atmosphere.
For Tier 3 model-based and/or direct measurement-based inventories, it is likely that more detailed activity data
are needed, relative to Tier 1 or 2 methods, but the exact requirements will be dependent on the model ormeasurement design.

N ON -CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES

Direct N2O emissions from agricultural soils due to

5626

(iii)

Use of synthetic fertilisers,

5627

(iv)

Use of animal excreta as fertiliser,

5628(v)Biological nitrogen fixation due to cultivation of legumes and other nitrogen fixing crops,

5629

(vi)

5630

(vii)

5631

(viii) N in mineral soils that is mineralised,

5632

(ix)

5633



Crop residue and sewage sludge application,
Cultivation of soils with high organic content,
Urine and dung N deposited by grazing animals on pasture, range and paddock

Indirect N2O emissions from nitrogen used in agriculture, including emissions from

5634
5635

(x)

Volatilisation and subsequent atmospheric deposition of NH3 and NOx (originating from theapplication of fertilisers and manures),

5636

(xi)

Nitrogen leaching and runoff

5637



CH4 emissions from rice cultivation;

5638



CH4 emissions from ditches in organic soils

5639



Non-CO2 emissions from burning of vegetation;

5640



CH4 from enteric fermentation;

2.172

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

5641



5642
5643
5644
5645
5646
5647
5648

Parties that do not elect cropland management under Article 3.4, nevertheless report the N2O and CH4 emissions
listed above as emissions from sources listed in the Annex A to the Kyoto Protocol. Parties that elect cropland
management should also report these emissions in the agriculture sector and not include them under Article
3.4137. The exception is CH4 emissions from drainage ditches in organic soils. The 2013 IPCC Wetlands
Supplement of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Wetlands provides updated methodologies for drained and wetorganic soils. Further guidance on non-CO2 emissions related to land management on organic soils is given in
Chapter 2.12 on Wetland drainage and rewetting.

5649
5650
5651
5652
5653
5654

Non-CO2 emissions/removals on deforested lands converted to cropland (Article 3.3) which are not reported
under Agriculture need to be reported separately from those under cropland management (Article 3.4). If nonCO2 emissions/removals on deforested land cannot be determined directly, they may be estimated as a fraction of
total non-CO2 emissions/removals from cropland, corresponding to the area of total cropland on deforested land.
For example, if 10% of the cropland area is on deforested land, then 10% of total cropland non-CO2
emissions/removals would be ascribed to lands that have been subject to deforestation since 1990.

5655
5656
5657

Some management practices adopted to increase soil carbon may also influence the emissions of non-CO2 gases.
Many of these effects are included in Chapter 5 and Chapter 11 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, Volume 4, butthere may be other effects on non-CO2 gases not considered (see examples presented in Box 2.9.5).

5658



CH4 and N2O emissions from manure management.

137

According to the Marrakesh Accords estimates of emissions from sources and removals by sinks from for Article 3.3 and3.4 activities are to be clearly distinguished from anthropogenic emissions from the sources listed in Annex A to the Kyoto
Protocol (cf. paragraph 5 in the Annex to Decision 16/CMP.1 (Article 7), contained in document FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.3,p.22).

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.173

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
5659
5660
5661

BOX 2.9.5
EXAMPLES OF POSSIBLE INFLUENCES OF CARBON STOCK CHANGES ON EMISSIONS OF NON-CO2 GASES

5662

Example 1: Influence of reduced tillage on N2O emission.

5663
5664
5665
5666
5667
5668
5669
5670
5671
5672
5673
5674

Adoption of reduced or no-tillage often increases soil carbon in croplands. However, at the sametime it may also alter N2O emissions, through effects on porosity (and the fraction of the porosity
occupied by water) (Ball et al., 2008), N and C cycling (Six et al., 2004; Drury et al., 2006;
Ahmad et al., 2009; Six et al., 2004), temperature (Singurindy et al., 2009), and other factors (Leeet al., 2009). The observations are inconclusive, with some studies showing higher N2O emission
under no-till than under tilled systems (Six et al., 2004; Liu et al., 2006; Ball et al., 2008; Rochette
et al., 2008; Ahmad et al., 2009; Suddick et al., 2011), and others showing little effect or lower
N2O emissions (Venterea et al., 2005; Helgason et al., 2005; Elder and Lal, 2008; Gregorich et al.,2008; Petersen et al., 2008; Chirinda et al., 2010; Bhatia et al., 2010). The available data suggestthat this variable response depends on interactive effects of soil and climate, and that wetter
environments with poorer aeration, in which N2O emissions generally tend to be highest, are also
associated with higher emissions under no-till than under conventional tillage (Ball et al., 2008).

5675

Example 2: Links between organic matter turnover and N2O emission.

5676
5677
5678
5679
5680
5681
5682

Organic matter in soil is continually decomposing, resulting in the release of ammonia, and of
nitrate. A portion of this ‘available’ N may be converted to N2O. Consequently, practices that
increase the rate of organic matter decomposition may stimulate N2O emissions (Millar et al.,
2004; Rochette and Janzen 2005; Ruser et al., 2006; Chantigny et al., 2007; Thomsen et al., 2010).
In contrast, re-planting grasslands and reducing ‘fallow’ frequency may reduce N2O emissions(Millar et al., 2004). The significance and magnitude of these effects, however, are not wellunderstood and it may not be possible to quantify them reliably at this stage.

5683

Example 3: Effect of cropland management on CH4 oxidation.

5684
5685
5686
5687

Some practices that enhance soil carbon in croplands may also influence the rate of CH4 oxidation
in soils, negatively or positively (Wegener et al., 2008; Ussiri et al., 2009; Oremland, 2010;
Nielsen et al., 2012). Often these effects are smaller than those on N2O when expressed in units ofCO2-equivalence.

5688
5689
5690

The effects on non-CO2 emissions of these and other management practices may be included in higher tiermethods for cropland. Where estimated, they should still be reported with cropland, to avoid double counting.
Examples of how these effects could be estimated include:

5691



Direct measurement of the non-CO2 greenhouse gases at representative sites;

5692



Estimation of emission rates based on literature values taking into account management, soil and climate.

5693
5694

2.10 GRAZING LAND MANAGEMENT

5695

2.10.1

5696
5697
5698
5699
5700
5701
5702
5703
5704

‘Grazing land management’ is the system of practices on land used for livestock production aimed atmanipulating the amount and type of vegetation and livestock produced (Footnote: Paragraph 1(h) in the Annex
to Decision 16/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry).Lands under grazing land management are
predominantly used for production of herbaceous perennial vegetation (introduced or indigenous) for harvest by
grazing, cutting, or both. In order to ensure a comprehensive coverage, it is good practice to include all of thefollowing management activities in the grazing land management category: grazing, burning, cutting for forage
or bedding material as well as fertilizing/manuring, liming, irrigation, reseeding, and application of organic
amendments or agrochemicals to control productivity. Note that not all grasslands are necessarily included undergrazing land management.

5705
5706
5707
5708

Given the potential overlap with other activities, it is good practice for countries to specify what types of lands
are included under other activities under Article 3.3 (afforestation/reforestation) and Article 3.4 (forest
management, revegetation – if elected, cropland management – if elected). This will enhance the comparabilityof reporting across countries and ensure there is no double-counting of greenhouse gas emissions/removals.

2.174

Definitional issues and reporting requirements

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

5709
5710
5711
5712
5713

Where treed lands meet the definition of a forest land and the trees have been established since 1990, the lands
are included under the afforestation/reforestation category. Forest lands that are only temporarily used for
grazing shall be included under forest land management. Lands that meet the definition of forest land can be
included under GM, if grazing is the most important activity and the land is not included under forest land
management, based on the criteria established by the country.

5714
5715
5716
5717

Permanent grasslands, pastures, rangelands or savannahs on which trees and shrubs are grown are included undergrazing land management if growing of forage crops or grazing is the most important activity on the area.
Protected lands, such as those subject to permanent cover programmes are also included under grazing land
management, if they are also used for livestock production.

5718
5719
5720
5721
5722
5723
5724
5725

Lands that are only temporarily used for grazing, as part of a cropping rotation, would normally be included
under cropland management (see Section 2.9 cropland management of this report). If Cropland Management is
not elected, such land can be included under grazing land management, subject to national criteria consistently
applied. If grazing land management is elected with Cropland Management, it is good practice to include all
cropland (see Section 2.2 Land-use categories of the GPG-LULUCF) under Cropland Management andgrassland (see Section 2.2 Land-use categories of the GPG-LULUCF) used for livestock production under
Grassland Management. The criteria used to distinguish between land under cropland management and grazing
land managemnt needs to be explicitly stated and applied consistently based on national definition.

5726
5727
5728

If GM is elected with RV (see Section 2.11 Revegetation of this report), the criteria used to distinguish between
land under RV and GM needs to be explicitly stated and applied consistently based on national definition. It isgood practice to include revegetated land that is used predominantly for production of livestock under GM.

5729
5730
5731
5732
5733
5734
5735
5736

The aim of the accounting exercise is to identify and report trends in the carbon stocks resulting from grazing
land management over time. The methodology for estimating CO2 emissions/removals is based on the premisethat changes in carbon stocks over time occur following changes in management that influence the rates of either
carbon additions to, or carbon losses from soil. If no change in management practices occurs, the carbon stocks
are assumed to be at equilibrium, and hence the change in carbon stocks is deemed zero. Countries areencouraged to use methods that show systematic changes in the carbon pools rather than inter-annual variability
and short-term temporal dynamics. Another factor that may mask the carbon trend or signal is the occurrence of
natural disturbances on grassland.

5737
5738
5739
5740

It is good practice to have information sharing between national systems for national inventory and accountingof KP activities to have consistency among data. Information sharing for ensuring consistency include: grazing
animals consistent with those under agricultural sector for enteric fermentation and PRP N2O, mass balance oforganic soil amendment application on lands under grazing land management and other lands, and land areas.

5741
5742
5743
5744
5745
5746
5747
5748
5749

To use the proposed methodology for determining carbon stock change on those lands, the total grazing landarea needs to be subdivided into areas under various sets of management practices (which may overlap both intime and space) for the base year and each of the years in the commitment period, such as those provided inTable 6.2 of the 2006 IPCC Guideline. Broad families of practices under grazing land management that affectcarbon stocks include stocking rate, fertility management, irrigation management, species composition and fire
management (2000 IPCC Special report on LULUCF). The carbon stock change factors depend on both thecurrent and previous management. Some areas may be emitting CO2, others may be sequestering carbon, others
may be in equilibrium and this may change if management changes. Further detail can be found in Chapter 3 of
the GPG-LULUCF and Chapter 6 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. See also Section 2.10.2 below.

5750
5751
5752

Countries should aim for consistency and completeness across activities. For example, all lands that were forest
land on 31 December 1989 and that are subject to grazing land management in the reporting year need to be
identified, tracked and reported as a separate category under deforestation (see Section 2.6 Deforestation).

5753

1990 BASE YEAR

5754
5755
5756
5757
5758

See Section 2.9.1.1 Definitional issues and reporting requirements. It is good practice to use calendar year datawhenever data are available. If calendar year data are unavailable, then other types of annual year data (e.g., noncalendar fiscal year data e.g., April – March) can be used provided that it is used consistently over the time series
and the collection period for the data is documented (See 2.2.3 Adapting data for inventory use of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines, Volume 1).

5759

2.10.2

5760
5761
5762

Choice of methods for identifying lands subjected tograzing land management

General guidance on identification of lands relevant to grazing land management is provided in Sections 1.1, 1.2,
2.1, and 2.2. According to Decision x/CMP.8, Annex II, paragraph 2), the geographical location of the

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.175

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
5763
5764

boundaries of the area that encompass land subject to grazing land management need to be reported annually,
along with the total land areas subject to this activity.

5765
5766
5767
5768
5769
5770
5771
5772

The geographical location of the boundaries may include a spatially explicit specification of all land subject tograzing land management, but does not have to. This is analogous to the case for cropland management as
discussed in Section 4.2.9.1 (Definitional issues and reporting requirements). It is good practice to follow
continuously the management of land subject to grazing land management. This could be achieved either bycontinuously tracking each land subject to grazing land management from 1990 until the end of the commitment
period (see Section 2.9.1), or by developing statistical sampling techniques consistent with the requirements ofSection 5.3 that allow the management transition on grazing management land to be determined (see also Section
2.4.1 Developing a consistent time series).

5773
5774
5775
5776
5777
5778

At the national level, it is good practice to identify criteria that could be relevant to subdivision for the purposeof stratification when setting up a sampling strategy. Stratification criteria may include relatively static
biophysical characteristics, such as climate and soil type, as well as management practices and natural
disturbances which tend to be more dynamic drivers of change in emissions and removals from the carbon pools.
Management factor and disturbance information which may be useful in establishing a national stratification
include:

5779
5780



Level of input of crop biomass or grassland productivity, organic amendments (e.g., vegetation growth,manure/compost, other amendments)

5781



Grazing intensity (stocking rate, frequency, seasonality)

5782



Prescribed fire

5783



Re-seeding

5784



Irrigation management

5785



Inclusions of woody biomass (shrubland, shelterbelts, orchards, other perennial plantations)

5786



Lands converted to grazing-lands since 1990 (land-use change) that are not in any other activity.

5787
5788
5789

For all resulting subcategories under grazing land management, the area derived from conversion of forests (i.e.,
deforestation) since 1990 need to be tracked separately as these will be reported as units of lands subject todeforestation (See Section 2.6 Deforestation).

5790
5791
5792

At higher tiers further subdivision of the area subject to grazing land management may be necessary. Methods toidentify lands subject to grazing land management with necessary disaggregation available in some Annex I
countries include the following:

5793
5794
5795

National land use and management statistics: the agricultural land base including land subject to grazing land
management is surveyed in most countries on a regular basis. These may be derived, in part, from remotesensing of pasture/rangeland and soil surface condition and changes in stocking rate.

5796
5797

Inventory data from a plot, statistically based, plot-sampling system: land use and management activities aremonitored at specific permanent sample plots that are revisited on a regular basis.

5798
5799
5800
5801
5802

Information on these areas would have to be compiled either for all lands subject to grazing land management orsummarised as estimates for all the strata (defined by the boundaries of the areas of grazing land management)that a Party chooses to apply for the reporting of its land use statistics. Further good practice guidance on
identifying land areas is given in Chapter 2 of the GPG-LULUCF (Basis for consistent representation of land
areas).

5803
5804

Links to methods for area identification in other chapters of the GPG-LULUCF and the 2006 IPCC Guidelines
are given in Box 2.10.1.

5805

Box 2.10.1

5806

LINKS WITH CHAPTER 2 OR 3 OF THIS REPORT

5807
5808
5809

Section 2.3.2 (Three approaches): Grasslands (unmanaged or managed) that become managed
grasslands or any conversion that leads to managed grasslands in Chapter 2 (except forests tograsslands), provided that these managed grasslands are subject to grazing land management.

5810

LINKS WITH THE 2006 IPCC GUIDELINES VOLUME 4

5811
5812

Not available in a format that meets requirements in the Marrakesh Accords for geographicallocation of the boundaries.

5813

2.176

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

5815

Choice of methods for estimating carbon stockchanges and non-CO 2 greenhouse gas emissions

5816
5817

As with cropland management, the 2006 IPCC Guidelines identify three sources or sinks of CO2 fromagricultural soils subject to grazing land management.

5818
5819



Emissions of CO2 from liming. These, however, shall be reported in the Agricultural sector (see Section
11.3 CO2 emissions from liming of the 2006 IPCC Guideline Volume 4).

5820
5821



Net changes in organic carbon stocks of mineral soils (see Section 6.2.3 Soil carbon of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines Volume 4)

5822



Emissions of CO2 from organic soils (see Section 6.2.3 Soil carbon of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines Volume 4)

5823
5824

Total annual soil emissions/removals of CO2 are calculated by summing up these sources excluding CO2
emissions from liming (see Chapter 6 Grasslands, Section 6.2.3 and 6.3.3 in 2006 IPCC Guidelines:

5825
5826
5827
5828
5829
5830
5831
5832
5833
5834

Carbon stock changes in other pools (aboveground and belowground biomass, litter, and dead wood) are
estimated if applicable. For lands subject to grazing land management with no woody vegetation, carbon stockchange in herbaceous biomass can be neglected. Carbon in biomass of woody vegetation on lands subject tograzing land management need to be accounted for unless an Annex I Party to the Kyoto Protocol provides
verifiable information that carbon stocks are not decreasing (see Section 4.2.3.1 Pools to be reported). Methods
for estimating carbon stock change in aboveground and belowground biomass, litter and dead wood are identicalto those for cropland management (see Table 4.2.8 of this report). For guidance in estimating carbon
emissions/removals in pools other than in the soil and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions, see Box 4.2.13 andTable 4.2.8 of this report. Figure 2.2 in Chapter 2 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines provides further guidance on
selecting appropriate methods.

5814

2.10.3

5835
5836

Box 2.10.2

5837

Links with Chapter 4 of the GPG 2000

5838

Section 4.5 CH4 and N2O emissions from savannah burning

5839
5840

Links with chapter 2 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines

5841

Section 2.3.1Change in carbon stocks in living biomass

5842

Section 2.4 Non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions

5843
5844

Links with Chapter 6 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines VOLUME 45845

Section 6.2.1 and 6.3.1 Biomass

5846

Section 6.2.2 and 6.3.2 Dead organic matter

5847

Section 6.2.3 and 6.3.3 Soil carbon

5848

Section 6.2.4 and 6.3.4 Non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions from biomass burning

5849
5850

2.10.3.1

M INERAL SOILS

5851
5852

The decision tree used for selecting the appropriate tier for estimating carbon stock changes in mineral soils
under grazing land management is analogous to the one used for cropland management (see Figure 2.9.1).

5853
5854

METHODS FOR ESTIMATING CARBON STOCK CHANGES IN MINERAL
SOILS

5855
5856
5857

The methods used for estimating carbon stock changes in mineral soils under grazing land management are
identical to those used for cropland management. See the methods under Tiers 1, 2 and 3 described in Section
2.3.3 (Mineral soils) and also in Chapter 6 (Sections 6.2.3 and 6.3.3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines). Same as

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.177

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
5858
5859
5860
5861
5862

cropland management all methods require that the lands subject to grazing land management are tracked
continuously through time. At Tier 1, the database of default annual stock change factors in Annex 4A.1 , isapplicable also for grazing lands (see Section 2.3.3 Mineral soils). It is good practice to use Tier 2 or Tier 3 forestimating carbon stock changes in mineral soils if CO2 emissions from grazing land management are a key
category (see Figure.2.9.1).

5863

CHOICE OF CARBON STOCK CHANGE FACTORS FOR MINERAL SOILS

5864
5865
5866
5867
5868
5869
5870
5871
5872
5873

The choice of carbon stock change factors at each tier follows the same lines as described under cropland
management (see Equation 3.3.3 of the GPG-LULUCF). The carbon stock change factors are held within thesame database (see Annex 4A.1). At higher tiers, same as cropland management, carbon stock change factors
can be calculated from literature values (e.g., Follett et al., 2000), long-term experiments and model runs. It isgood practice to replace carbon stock change factors or to use dynamic models derived from experiments thatare well designed, with adequate sampling to give adequate statistical power. Any factors based on models shall
only be used after the model has been tested against experiments such as those described above, and any model
shall be widely evaluated, well-documented and archived. It is good practice to provide confidence limits and/or
uncertainty estimates associated with any stock change factors. Carbon stock change factors shall be shown torepresent local conditions or practice, based on measurements or experiments within the region.

5874

CHOICE OF MANAGEMENT DATA FOR MINERAL SOILS

5875
5876
5877
5878
5879

As with cropland management, if area and management data are available for 1970 through 1990, a base year
(1990 or other) net carbon emission/removal can be established using the default carbon stock change factors
described above. If area and management data are not available for 1970 through 1990 the options available arethose already described for cropland management (see Section 2.9.1.1 Base year). Here only the activity datarequired for each of three tiers are outlined briefly.

5880
5881
5882
5883
5884
5885
5886
5887
5888
5889
5890
5891

Tier 1

5892
5893
5894
5895
5896
5897
5898
5899
5900
5901
5902
5903
5904
5905

Tier 2

5906
5907
5908
5909
5910
5911

Tier 3The management practices at Tier 1 are the same as those given in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines volume 4. The
different management impacts defined there are: clearing of native vegetation with conversion to cultivatedcrops or pasture; land abandonment; shifting cultivation; differing residue addition levels; differing tillage
systems; agricultural use of organic soils for grazing. Within these specific land-use or land-managementchanges, practices are defined semi-quantitatively, e.g., “high input” vs. “low input” systems. Land-use andmanagement systems are not subdivided to finer levels of detail than this. Areas may be obtained frominternational data sets (e.g., FAO). If area and management data are available for 1970 through 1990, the 1990
base year net carbon stock change can be established using the default carbon stock change factors describedabove. If area and management data are not available for 1970 through 1990 the options available are thosedescribed above for cropland management (see Section 4.2.9.1.1 Base year). If grazing land management isdeemed a key category, then it is good practice to use a Tier 2 or 3 methods (see Figure 2.9.1).
The management practices considered at Tier 2 are the same as those given in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines,
volume 4 and at Tier 1. To make them country-specificsome practices may be subdivided, or new ones may be
added. For example, within the agricultural management systems described in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines,
volume 4 management data includes descriptors such as “high input” and “low input”; these descriptors could be
replaced at Tier 2 by more explicit descriptors; for example, high grazing level, medium grazing level, lowgrazing level, and zero grazing. Further subdivision of activities may also be necessary; for example, different
forms of grazing. An alternative to the use of more detailed descriptor categories is the use of relationships
relating the intensity of a practice (e.g., grazing level) with a change in the carbon emission/removal factor.
Alternatively, well-calibrated and well-evaluated models of soil carbon change, e.g. RothC (Coleman andJenkinson, 1996; Shirato et al. 2004, or others) can be used to generate either default carbon stock change factors,
or to generate the intensity relationships for each activity, for different soils in different climatic regions. These
examples show how, at Tier 2, activities can be made more country-specific, but other refinements are also
possible. Rigorous criteria must be applied so that any increase in the sink size is not under- or overestimated.
Management data used in the more complex Tier 3 approaches are likely to be subdivided as described for Tier 2
above. For application of dynamic models (e.g., CENTURY (Parton et al., 1987), RothC (Coleman andJenkinson, 1996; Shirato et al. 2004, or others), measured/estimated activity data based on national statistics (e.g.,
herbage yield, input level of organic amendment), detailed data of the combination of climate, soil andmanagement are needed.

2.178

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

5912

2.10.3.2

CO 2 EMISSIONS FROM ORGANIC SOILS

5913
5914
5915
5916
5917
5918
5919
5920
5921

The decision tree for use with organic soils under grazing land management is identical to that from cropland
management, cf. Figure 4.2.13. The methods described under Tiers 1, 2 and 3 for cropland also apply to grazing
land, cf. Section 2.9.3.2 (Carbon stock changes in organic soils of this report) and also Chapter 3 (Sections
3.3.1.2 and 3.4.1.2). As for croplands, non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions/removals from organic soils are also
important, with some emissions (i.e., methane, CH4) decreasing as CO2 losses increase with soil drainage. It is
important when calculating changes in carbon emissions/removals from organic soils to also consider non-CO2
greenhouse gas emissions, bearing in mind that, as a rule, these are covered in the Agriculture sector. However,note that the 2006 IPCC Guidelines assume that all carbon is emitted as CO2; if this assumption is departed from,it must be justified by scientifically sound and well-documented data.

5922
5923

CHOICE OF CARBON EMISSION/REMOVAL FACTORS FOR ORGANIC
SOILS

5924
5925

For guidance on factors for on-site and off-site CO2 emission/removal from organic soils refer to the equivalentsubsection for cropland management (Section 2.9.3.2 Carbon stock changes in organic soils)

5926

CHOICE OF MANAGEMENT DATA FOR ORGANIC SOILS

5927

Management data for organic soils are as for IPCC Guidelines as described and amended above for mineral soils.

5928

2.10.3.3

5929
5930
5931

Non-CO2 emissions on lands under grazing land management are by rule reported in the Agriculture sector in an
analogous way to non-CO2 emissions on lands under cropland management (see Section 2.9.3.4 of this reprot).
Note that these non-CO2 emissions are reported under agriculture even if grazing land management is not elected.

5932
5933
5934

Non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions from deforested lands converted to grazing land (Article 3.3) need to bereported separately from those under grazing land management (Article 3.4). For further guidance, seecorresponding section on cropland management (Section 2.9.3.4).

5935
5936
5937

Management practices on lands subjected to grazing land management that increase soil carbon stock may
influence the emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases from soils and should at Tier 3 be reflected in reporting
under Agriculture.

N ON -CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES

5938
5939

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.179

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
5940
5941

2.11

REVEGETATION

5942

2.11.1

Definitional issues and reporting requirements

5943
5944
5945

Revegetation is a direct human-induced activity to increase carbon stocks on sites through the establishment ofvegetation that covers a minimum area of 0.05 hectares and does not meet the definitions of afforestation andreforestation [in paragraph 1(e) in the appendix to Decision 16/CMP.1].

5946
5947
5948
5949
5950

Land should be classified as revegetation if it meets the revegetation definition and takes place after 1 January 1990
(see the decision tree Figure 2.5.1 in this report for further guidance). Revegetation typically affects theaboveground carbon pool significantly and may also have a significant impact on belowground carbon pools
through increases in soil carbon stocks. Area for area, revegetation is likely to have a lower impact thanreforestation. (Akala & Lal, 2000; Cowie et al., 2007; Gessesse, 2009).

5951
5952
5953
5954
5955
5956
5957
5958
5959
5960
5961
5962
5963

Revegetation implies that vegetation is established to replace the previous (sometimes minimal) ground cover that
had followed a land disturbance. For example, activities such as reclaiming/restoring herbaceous ecosystems on
degraded or carbon-depleted soils, establishment of vegetation cover on disturbed construction sites or minedlands, planting of trees, shrubs, grass or other non-woody vegetation various types of lands including urban areas,
might qualify as revegetation (see table 2.11.1). Tree planting may not qualify for afforestation/reforestation
because it does not meet the requirements set for a forest in paragraph 1(a) in the annex to decision 16/CMP.1 or
because the consistent application of spatial configuration criteria (see 2.2.6 of this report) excludes it. In such acase it may qualify as revegetation. Revegetation does not necessarily entail a change in land use, in contrast toe.g. afforestation or reforestation. Revegetation activities must be clearly differentiated from natural, non-humandriven revegetation processes. For example, the natural revegetation on forest topsoil and subsoil along roadsides
in boreal forest (Skrindo et al., 2008) or a passive revegetation leading to the restoration of coastal plain
depression wetlands (De steven et al., 2006) should not been qualified as revegetation because these are notdirect human-induced activities in the context of the Kyoto Protocol.

5964
5965

Any revegetation on set-aside lands likely to return to cropland under the national conditions for set-aside should
be counted as cropland).

5966
5967
5968

It is good practice for Parties electing revegetation to provide documentation (a) describing how the included
areas meet the definition of revegetation; (b) indicating the plant species or life forms selected for the activity;and (c) explaining the restoration methods and procedures to be used.

5969
5970

The following general guidance is provided in order to ensure a reasonably transparent, consistent, complete andaccurate reporting of revegetation activities:

5971
5972

(1) It is good practice to stratify lands subject to revegetation by either land-use category or land-use
change type, by kind of revegetation activity, and final land-use if different from the initial one.

5973
5974
5975
5976
5977

(2) It is good practice to further disaggregate each land-use category to be revegetated into subcategories
characterised by available information on most relevant climate, soil and relief features, whatever ismost relevant for stratifying land according to the activity effects on carbon stocks and carbon stockchanges. This characterisation would aid selecting suitable revegetation options and activity tracking;i.e. species, planting design, and soil preparation (to name just a few).

5978
5979

(3) Lands subjected to revegetation and each of its subcategories (if any) must be clearly identified as totheir individual locations and areas (see section 2.11.2 in this report).

5980
5981

Some revegetation activities are exemplified in the following box 2.11.1

2.180

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

5982

BOX 2.11.1

5983

4

5984
5985
5986

Iceland: The conversion of eroded or desertified land from Other land or less vegetatedsubcategories of grassland to Grasslands (as defined by a vascular vegetation cover of 20% or
larger) or grasslands with more vegetation cover.

5987

Japan: Plantation of trees in parks and green spaces in both public and private urban areas.

5988
5989
5990

Romania: Plantation of trees on degraded croplands: outside forestlands under administrative
stewardship; roadsides; shelterbelts; around cities; and erosion-prone lands. All revegetated lands
are classified as Croplands remaining croplands.

Revegetation activities

5991

138

5992

1990 BASE YEAR

5993

See Section 2.9.1.1 (Definitional issues and reporting requirements) in this report.

5994

2.11.2

5995
5996
5997
5998

Land areas subject to revegetation can be represented with data obtained with either Approach 2—provided there
is additional spatial information—or Approach 3 (§3.3.1139) It is good practice that the particular Approachchosen be consistent with the one used for identifying and tracking the lands of other Kyoto Protocol activities,
be they mandatory (Art. 3.3) or elected (Art. 3.4).

5999
6000
6001

Generally, all lands subject to revegetation since 1 January 1990 should be tracked in agreement with thenational criteria that establish a hierarchy among Article 3.4 activities (if applicable) as explained in section 1 inthis report.

6002
6003
6004
6005
6006
6007
6008
6009
6010
6011
6012

The geographical location of area boundaries may or may not include a spatially explicit specification of eachpatch of land subject to revegetation. In case the location of boundaries is not explicitly specified the location ofa larger area within which patches of land subject to revegetation are included must be provided. In either case,the lands subject to revegetation and the management thereon need to be tracked continuously through time.
Continuity in monitoring/reporting of management of revegetated land could be achieved either by continuously
tracking each land subject to revegetation from 1990 until the end of the commitment period [(e.g., see section
2.9.2 for cropland management) and section 2.10.2 for grazing land management or section 3.3 in Ch. 3, vol. 4 in2006 IPCC Guidelines for land-use categories in general, or by developing statistical sampling techniques (seeannex 3A.3 in ch. 3, vol. 4 in 2006 IPCC Guidelines) that allow the transition of different types of management
on revegetation land to be determined (see section 2.4.1 Developing a consistent time series in the current
guidelines) and section 3.3 in ch. 3, vol. 4 in 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

6013

Links to pertinent methods in this report and in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines are provided in Box 2.11.2

Choice of methods for identifying lands

6014

138

As described in each Party’s NIR for 2011. See
http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_GHG_inventories/national_inventories_submissions/items/6598.php
139

The notation §N.M.O refers to section M.O in chapter N of volume 4 in 2006 IPCC Guidelines

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.181

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
6015

Box 2.11.2

6016

LINKS WITH CHAPTERS 2 AND 3 OF 2006 IPCC Guidelines

6017

Section 2.3.2 (Three Approaches): No information on revegetation area in Chapter 2 approaches.

6018
6019
6020

Requires country-specific criteria on what constitutes revegetation. Should include all transitions
between 1990 (or 1970, where required for base year estimate) and 2008, and in later inventory
years transitions on an annual basis.140

6021
6022

LINKS WITH THE 2006 IPCC GUIDELINES VOLUME 46023

Revegetation is not specifically addressed in the IPCC Guidelines.

6024
6025
6026
6027
6028
6029
6030
6031
6032
6033
6034

Methods for monitoring revegetation lands depend on the kind of land-use at the start and termination of arevegetation activity. As common criterium, the minimum area of 0.05 hectares has to be detected and all carbon
pools have to be considered unless they are demonstrated not to be a source. If revegetation were done withherbs or grasses, monitoring should use methods appropriate for monitoring grazing land management (seesection 2.10 in this report). If revegetation were done with tree species, monitoring methods should be same withthose used for monitoring afforestation/reforestation activities (see section 2.5 in this report) or forest
management activities (see section 2.7 in this report). For designing revegetation activities on settlements it isgood practice to use tree inventories (if available), cadastral information on parks and green spaces, brownfields
and any other spatial information on areas amenable to revegetation. A clear definitional distinction with respect
to afforestation or reforestation is required.

6035

2.11.36036

Choice of methods for estimating carbon stockchanges and non-CO 2 greenhouse gas emissions

6037
6038
6039
6040
6041
6042

Methods for estimating changes in aboveground biomass, belowground biomass, litter and dead wood carbon
pools in a revegetation activity are those appropriate for the land uses involved in it. Those are the good practiceones described in chapters 4 to 9 in volume 4 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines. The biomass carbon pool is likely to be
the carbon pool most affected by revegetation. Countries are encouraged to use higher tier methods for reporting
C stock changes in biomass. It is good practice to use Tier 2 or Tier 3 for estimating carbon stock changes frombiomass if revegetation is a key category.

6043
6044
6045
6046
6047

For estimating carbon stocks in mineral soils and organic soils, and for estimating CO2 emissions from liming
revegetation lands, methods and tier structures are those good practice ones corresponding to the land uses
involved in a particular revegetation activity. Relevant methods and approaches can be found in chapters 4 to 9
and 11 in volume 4 of in 2006 IPCC Guidelines. For urban soils, methods are described for settlements in 2006
IPCC Guidelines Volume 4.

6048
6049
6050
6051
6052
6053
6054
6055

In the case of a revegetation activity involving cropland or grassland, guidance on choice of methods (Tier 1)
stock changes in mineral soils is in can be found in Sections 2.9.3.1 and 2.10.3.1 of this report. It is goodpractice to use Tier 2 or Tier 3 for estimating carbon stock changes from mineral soils if revegetation is a key
category. A decision tree for selecting the tier for estimating carbon stock changes in mineral soils underrevegetation can be derived mutatis mutandis from the one used for croplands – see Figure 2.9.1 of this report.
At higher tiers, carbon stock change factors can be obtained from relevant literature (e.g., Akala & Lal., 2000),
long-term experiments and models. Further guidance on the use of Tier 3 models can be found in section 2.5,
chapter 3, Volume 4 in in 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

6056
6057
6058
6059
6060
6061

The decision tree for methodologies for emissions from organic soils under revegetation is analogous to the one
drawn for cropland management, cf. Figure 2.9.3of this report) if the revegetation activity did involve either
cropland management or grazing land management. The methods described under Tiers 1, 2 and 3 for either
cropland or grazing land or forest management also apply to revegetation activities involving either croplands or
grasslands or treed lands, (cf. sections 2.10,2.7) and section 2.9 and chapters 7 to 9 in volume 4 of 2006 IPCC
Guidelines for other land- use categories.
140

If more than one land conversion happens on the same unit of land in the transition period of the matrix, then the transition
periods may have to be shortened to account for these transitions.

2.182

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

6062
6063
6064
6065

For the estimation of CO2 emissions from liming revegetated lands, the good practice methods developed for
either cropland management or grazing land management or forest land management can be used based on theannual amount of lime application. For general good practice guidance on the estimation of CO2 emissions fromliming see section 11.3 in volume 4 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

6066
6067

For urban soils, methods are described in Annex 3B of GPG-LULUCF Chapter 3 or see literature (PavaoZuckerman, 2008)]

6068
6069
6070

Box 2.11.3
LINKS WITH CHAPTER 2 2006 IPCC GUIDELINES

6071

Section 2.2

Change in biomass

6072

Section 2.4

Change in carbon stocks in soils

6073
6074

LINKS WITH THE 2006 IPCC GUIDELINES VOLUME 4

6075

4

Non-CO2 greenhouse gases

6076

5A

Changes in forest and other woody biomass stocks (grasslands / tundra)

6077

5C

Abandonment of managed lands (grasslands / tundra)

6078

5D

CO2 emissions and removals from soils

6079
6080

5E
Other (e.g., dispersed trees that are managed but do not constitute a forest such asagroforestry, also referred to as “managed trees outside forests”)

6081(not all five pools are included: belowground biomass and litter are missing)6082

2.11.3.1

C HOICE OF CARBON STOCK CHANGE FACTORS

6083
6084
6085
6086
6087
6088
6089
6090
6091

Estimation of revegetation is more dependent on national definitions than is the case for other Art 3.4 activities.
In case Tier 1 methodologies are used it is good practice to provide national information substantiating theyadequately represent a Party’s the national circumstances (Section 2.3, and Ch. 5 to 9 in volume 4 of 2006 IPCC
Guidelines contain methodologies that may be relevant) It is good practice for a Party electing revegetation toprovide values for stock change in each carbon pool. If Tier 1 default values are missing country-specific values
need to be used. In the case of pools not reported, it is good practice to provide verifiable information todemonstrate that these pools are not a source of carbon and other greenhouse gases (see Equations 2.2 and 2.3 involume 4 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines). If revegetation is deemed a key category, then it is good practice to use
Tier 2 or 3 methods.

6092
6093
6094
6095

At Tier 2, it is good practice to provide verifiable methods and documentation to show how the carbon stockchange has been estimated for each pool elected under a revegetation activity. For any carbon pool not reported,
it is good practice to provide verifiable information to demonstrate that it is not a source of greenhouse gas
anthropogenic emissions (see paragraph 6(e) in the annex to decision 15/CMP.1)

6096
6097
6098
6099

At Tier 3 ecosystem carbon cycle models, parameterised for the relevant plant functional types and soils
included in the selected revegetation area, could be used to estimate annual carbon and other greenhouse gas
emissions and removals. These models need to be calibrated and validated against field observations that
represent the national circumstances, be fully documented and archived.

6100

2.11.3.2

6101
6102
6103
6104
6105

Activities such as reclaiming/restoring herbaceous ecosystems on carbon-depleted soils, environmental plantings,
planting of trees, shrubs, grass or other non-woody vegetation on various types of lands including urban areas,
which qualifying as revegetation can be considered. Area data on land uses and practices need to be available inaccordance with Approach 2 or Approach 3 (Section 2.2 in this report), and guidance given in Section 2.2.3 ofthis report. The data on revegetation management required for each of three tiers are outlined briefly here.

6106

TIER 1

6107
6108

Using the 2006 IPCC Guidelines Volume 4 impacts of land-use change or land management change under arevegetation activity are assumed, by default, to fully develop at the end of 20 years. The choice of default

C HOICE OF MANAGEMENT DATA

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.183

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
6109
6110
6111

emission factors influenced by management factors depends on the particular land uses involved in a particularrevegetation activity. As minimum the six broad land use categories and changes between these categories need
to be specified and different types of revegetation activities separated.

6112

TIER 2

6113
6114
6115

For Tier 2 some management practices for revegetation may be either subdivided or new ones may be added tomake them country-specific, depending of the land-uses involved in a revegetation activity. It is good practicethat those subdivisions reflect close relationships between management practices and changes in carbon pools.

6116

TIER 3

6117
6118
6119
6120

Management data used in the more complex Tier 3 methodologies need to be consistent with the level of detailrequired by the model or models used to describe a particular revegetation activity. It is good practice to use
management data at a spatial resolution appropriate for the model, and to have, or be able to estimate reliably,
quantitative measures of the management factors required by the model.

6121
6122

It is good practice to provide detailed documentation specifying the practices included under revegetation andthe carbon emission/removal factors associated with each practice for each pool elected.

6123

2.11.3.3

6124
6125
6126
6127
6128

The methods for estimating N2O and CH4 emissions from a revegetation activity depend on the land-use
categories and their particular management (e.g. biomass burning or nitrogen fertilisation, as the case might be).
Methods can be looked up in relevant chapters in volume 4 of in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Part of the non-CO2
emissions on lands subject to revegetation are by rule reported under the Agriculture Sector (see Sections 2.9.3.4
and 2.9.10.4 of this report) and double-counting should be avoided.

6129
6130
6131
6132

Methodologies for estimating N2O and CH4 emissions are given in chapters 4 to chapter 11 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines Volume 4 or section 2.9, 2.10 in this report. For revegetation activities that involve biomass burning,
non-CO2 GHG emissions can be estimated with the methods described in §5.2.4—no land-use change—or in§5.3.4 (land-use change)]

6133
6134
6135
6136

For mineral soil, organic soilsand urban soils], methods for estimating N2O and CH4 emissions may be different.
Methodologies for estimating emissions of non-CO2 gases from biomass burning in grasslands or forests are
given in 2006 IPCC Guidelines Volume 4 or obtained from the scientific literature (e.g. Pickup et al., 2012;
Worrall et al., 2011).

6137
6138
6139

These emissions should not be reported under revegetation but as emissions in the Agriculture sector fromsources listed in Annex A to the Kyoto Protocol, and they should clearly be distinguished from emissions fromrevegetation reported under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol.

6140
6141
6142
6143
6144
6145
6146
6147
6148

For revegetation activities involving nitrogen fertilisation of soils N2O emissions should be estimated with thegood practice methodology described in §11.2. Revegetation activities where liming and/or urea were used
would produce CO2 emissions; these emissions should be estimated with the good practice methodologies
described in §11.3 (liming) and/or in §11.4 (urea application). These emissions should not be reported underrevegetation but as emissions in the Agriculture sector from sources listed in Annex A to the Kyoto Protocol, andthey should clearly be distinguished from emissions from revegetation reported under Article 3.4 of the Protocol.
These emissions should clearly be distinguished from emissions from revegetation reported under Article 3.4 of
the Protocol. Double-counting of N2O emissions from nitrogen fertilisation in the Agriculture section and fromliming in other Art. 3.3 and 3.4 activities is to be avoided.

6149
6150
6151

Non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions/removals on deforested lands subject to revegetation (Article 3.3) which are
not included under Agriculture need to be reported separately from those under revegetation (Article 3.4). For
further guidance, see corresponding section under cropland management (see Section 2.9.3.4 in this report).

N ON -CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES

6152
6153

2.12 WETLAND DRAINAGE AND REWETTING

6154

2.12.1 Definitional issues and reporting requirements

6155
6156
6157

“Wetland drainage and rewetting” (WDR) is a system of practices for draining and rewetting on land withorganic soil that covers a minimum area of 1 hectare. The activity applies to all lands that have been drainedsince 1990 and to all lands that have been rewetted since 1990 and that are not accounted for under any other

2.184

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

6158
6159
6160
6161

activity, where drainage is the direct human-induced lowering of the soil water table and rewetting is the direct
human-induced 141partial or total reversal of drainage.142 Wetland drainage and rewetting can be implemented onorganic soils under any land-use category on Land Remaining Land or on Land converted to another land-use
category.

6162
6163
6164
6165
6166
6167
6168
6169

Drainage and rewetting refer to all practices in and outside the area with organic soil that directly affect thehydrological system, leading to a change in the water table and its seasonal pattern in the area with organic soil
[make this consistent with Wetlands Supplement]. The activity Wetland drainage and rewetting includes new
drainage of formerly undrained land, changing an existing drainage regime (water table level and its seasonalchanges), partial rewetting and complete rewetting to near-natural water regime or even beyond (cf. 2013 IPCC
Wetlands Supplement, Chapters 2 and 3), as far as these practices have taken place since 1990. Practices leading
to direct human-induced drainage or rewetting may include e.g. the installation of (additional) ditches, pipes,
wells or dams, and the implementation of pumping and groundwater extraction.

6170
6171
6172
6173
6174

Flooded land (refer to 2006 IPCC Guidelines, Vol.4, Section 7.3) is not included under this activity. Non-CO2
emissions from drainage and rewetting on agricultural land are reported in the Agriculture Sector. CO2 emissions
from rice cultivation are by rule reported under the cropland management activity, but may be included under
Wetland drainage and rewetting when organic soils are rewetted for rice cultivation, and cropland management
is not elected.

6175
6176
6177

As the activity includes only lands that are not accounted for under any other activity, most of the emissions andremovals due to drainage and rewetting practices on organic soils will be reported under the Kyoto Protocol
activities:

6178



Drainage and rewetting of forest land that remain forest land will be reported under forest land management

6179
6180



Drainage and rewetting resulting in a conversion to forest, or from forest to any other land use, will bereported under afforestation/reforestation/deforestation.

6181
6182
6183
6184



Lands drained and rewetted since 1990 that would meet the criteria for classification under cropland
management, grazing land management or revegetation, will be reported under wetland drainage andrewetting only when the above-mentioned activities are not elected but Wetland drainage and rewetting iselected.

6185
6186
6187

The guidance for estimating and reporting of emissions from drainage and rewetting is given in the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines and its supplement, 2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplement. The 2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplement
introduces updated emission/removal factors and a new source category for drained organic soils.

6188
6189
6190
6191

The base year for wetland drainage and rewetting is the same as for cropland management, grazing land
management and revegetation. Practical guidance for identification of land areas for wetland drainage andrewetting in the base year and during the commitment period is given in the Section Choice of Method for the
Identification of Lands below.

6192
6193
6194

Drainage and rewetting result in immediate changes of greenhouse gas emissions and removals so that there isno need to establish a land-use history prior to 1990. However, if higher-tier methodologies, that consider adynamic transition time are used, information for the period before 1990 may be needed.

6195

2.12.2 Choice of methods

6196
6197
6198
6199
6200
6201
6202

Wetland drainage and rewetting addresses lands with organic soils where changes in management which may beon relatively small areas and can lead to proportionally large changes in greenhouse gas emissions and removals
per hectare. Consequently, particular care must be taken to make accurate estimates of greenhouse gas emissions
and removals both in the 1990 base year and in the commitment period. It is good practice to use stratification
by land-use category (remaining or converted to the new land-use category) with subcategories according towater table. Updated methodological guidance is provided in Chapters 2 (drained organic soils) and 3(Rewetting), of the 2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplement.

6203
6204
6205

The provision that the Activity only concerns minimum areas of 1 hectare implies that not every individual linear
drainage element (ditch, canal) has to be monitored but only practises have to be accounted for that change thewater regime over an area larger than [100 x 100 m]. Changes affecting areas of [e.g. 10 x 1000 m (although

7

Durban decision 2/CMP.7, FCCC/KP/AWG/2011/L.3/Add.2, Annex, paragraph 1(b)Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.185

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
6206
6207

being 1 ha)] do not have to be reported. [consistency with e.g. geometry interpretation for minimum area inforest land management and revegetation.]

6208
6209

Figure 2.9.1
Decision tree for selecting the appropriate tier for estimating carbon stock changes in carbon
pools under wetland drainage and rewetting for Kyoto Protocol reporting6210[to be completed for second order draft]6211

2.12.3 Choice of methods for identifying lands

6212

2.12.3.1

6213
6214
6215
6216
6217
6218
6219
6220
6221

The activity “wetland drainage and rewetting” can only be applied to organic soils that are drained or rewetted
since 1990 and that are not included under any other accounted activity (see Section 2.1 for further guidance). As
rewetting and drainage of organic soils may also occur under other accounted land-use activities, the wetland
drainage and rewetting activity will always constitute a subset of the total area of organic soil in the country. As
drained organic soil oxidizes, the organic material layer becomes shallower. Over time the organic soil layer may
have become so shallow, that the area no longer complies does not comply with the criteria of an organic soil. It
is good practice to apply the activity only on land that still has an organic soil in the commitment period and to
exclude those lands that have changed from an organic soil into a mineral soil area between the base year and thecommitment period. These issues are illustrated in Box 2.12.1.

G ENERAL G UIDANCE FOR IDENTIFYING LANDS

6222

2.186

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

6223
6224
6225
6226
6227

BOX 2.12.1
WETLAND DRAINAGE AND REWETTING AREAS IN 1990 AND THE COMMITMENT PERIOD (NET-NET
ACCOUNTING)

6228
6229

6230
6231
The area of organic soils in the base year (a) is larger than the area in the commitment period (b) as
part of the organic soils have changed into mineral soils due to oxidation. The activity applies only
to lands that have been drained and rewetted since 1990 (c) but the lands may not be accounted forunder any other activity (d). The area that has to be reported under WDR (if elected) is thus thehatched area with the conditions: (b∩c) – (c∩d). This same area has to be accounted both in thebase year and in the commitment period year (net-net accounting).

6232
6233
6234
6235
6236
6237
6238
6239
6240
6241

The identification of land to be included under the WDR should follow a similar approach as described in
Section 2.9.1. The lands should be identified separately for areas drained since 1990 and areas rewetted since
1990.

6242

There are two ways of identifying lands subject to WDR:

6243
6244
6245
6246

3.

The ‘Difference approach’: Compare all organic soils in 1990 with all organic soils in the Commitment
Period. All lands on organic soils where a direct human induced change in water regime is observed whencomparing 1990 and the end of the Commitment Period and that are not included in any other activity, must
be included in wetland drainage and rewetting when the activity wetland drainage and rewetting is elected.

6247
6248
6249

4.

The ‘Change approach’: Identify directly the area of organic soil where a direct human induced change inwater regime has taken place since 1990. If these lands are not included in any other activity, they must be
included under wetland drainage and rewetting when the activity wetland drainage and rewetting is elected.

6250
6251
6252
6253
6254

For transparency drainage and rewetting areas should be reported and tracked separately. It is good practice toensure that lands drained and rewetted since 1990 are completely included and that supplementary information is
given about how completeness has been achieved. This could combine information from a specific land-use
matrix on organic soils and a detailed description of the method for identification of drainage and rewetting, its
spatial and temporal resolution and up-to-date-ness of water management information.

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.187

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
6255
6256

For transparency, it is good practice to explain what type of land-use and land-use changes are included in theactivity and why, in case some lands on organic soils are excluded, also to explain the reasons for exclusion.

6257

2.12.3.2

6258
6259
6260

A country that elects wetland drainage and rewetting must identify the geographical boundaries of all drainage
and rewetting events that are one hectare or larger, are directly human-induced, and do not fall under any otheractivity that takes precedence. Countries may use the following steps:

6261
6262
6263
6264
6265

Step 1: The first step produces the potential area for wetland drainage and rewetting. Identify the geographicalboundaries of organic soils and establish separate land-use matrices for organic soils and mineral soils. The areaof organic soils and mineral soils, respectively, needs to be constant over time unless it is demonstrated thatorganic and mineral soils are converted over time. The sum of the areas of organic and mineral soils also needs
to be constant over time and equal the total national land area , taking account of any areas that do not have soil..

6266
6267
6268

Step 2: Add spatial information to comply with the minimum area and land tracking requirements for activities
under the Kyoto Protocol (see Section 2.2 of this report?]. Approach 2 will result in a non-spatially explicit land
use matrix, while Approach 3 is spatially explicit.

6269
6270

Step 3: Identify the areas accounted under any other activity that takes precedence over wetland drainage andrewetting and exclude them from the spatial information in step 2 to avoid double-counting.

6271
6272
6273
6274
6275
6276
6277

Step 4: Identify areas on organic soils where drainage or rewetting has taken place since 1990, separately fordrained and rewetted areas. Drainage can occur on any land on organic soils regardless of whether it was
undrained, rewetted or drained in the base year, in the third case so long as it had been rewetted since thedrainage. Areas where since 1990 opposite practises have taken place (e.g. first drained, subsequently rewetted,
or the opposite) resulting in the same water regime (and emission/removal characteristics) in the base year and in
the commitment period also fall under the wetland drainage and rewetting. Information about drainage andrewetting systems is country-specific. Guidance about how to derive this information is given below.

6278
6279

It is good practice to demonstrate with national data the completeness with respect to (1) spatial coverage oforganic soils and (2) drainage and rewetting events since the base year.

6280
6281
6282
6283
6284
6285
6286
6287
6288

Approach 2 with supplementary information or approach 3 described in Chapter 3.3.1 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines can be chosen for land area identification. For approach 2, existing land-use databases and soil maps
may have relevant information. Additional spatially explicit data through sampling or otherwise geographicallyreferenced methods is likely to be necessary to delineate the occurring combinations of land-use categories, landuse changes and drainage and rewetting systems and their changes over time on organic soils. This
supplementary information allows creating a detailed non-spatially explicit land-use matrix for the wetland
drainage and rewetting activity that tracks changes in land use and drainage over time. The area under theactivity wetland drainage and rewetting is cumulative and includes all land that has been drained or rewetted
since 1990, independent of what the former or later drainage situation was.

6289
6290

Information sources about drainage and rewetting activities since 1990 with adequate disaggregation may
include:

6291
6292



National land use statistics, land use maps and soil maps, maps of water and nature conservation zones withrestrictions for water management, wetlands.

6293
6294
6295
6296
6297



National water management statistics: in most countries, the agricultural land base including croplands is
usually surveyed regularly, providing data on distribution of different land uses, crops, tillage practice andother aspects of management, often at sub-national regional level. These statistics may originate, in part,from remote sensing methods, from which additional information about wetness or periods with flooding
could be extracted.

6298
6299
6300
6301
6302



Inventory data from a statistically based, plot-sampling system of water table wells, ditches and surface
waters on organic soils: water table is monitored at specific permanent sample plots either continuously oron plots that are revisited on a regular basis. It has to be documented that the water data represent the watertable in the organic soil and for what land-use and drainage or rewetting activity or stratum and that the data
cover a representative period, which is robust to interannual variability in water table.

6303



Water management plans and documentation from water management installations.

6304



Drainage maps.

6305



Maps of rewetting projects including remote sensing.

2.188

G EOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

6306
6307
6308

The geographical boundaries of identification option 1 (the ‘difference approach’) include the whole area oforganic soils identified after step 3 described above in this section. Approach 2 with supplementary information
or approach 3 can be used for identification option 1.

6309
6310
6311
6312

The geographical boundaries of identification option 2 (the ‘change approach’) identify the areas on which
drainage or rewetting activities have occurred since 1990, equivalent to the area after step 4 described above inthis section. This included changes in land-use. Only spatially explicit data (approach 3) that allow land tracking
on one hectare minimum area is suitable for definition option 2.

6313

2.12.3.3

6314
6315
6316

Stratification options are in principle the same for identification options 1 and 2. Stratification needs to beconsistently applied in the base year and the commitment period. The following factors may be useful inestablishing a national stratification.

6317



Land use,

6318



Drainage regime (water level, seasonality), at least:

S TRATIFICATION

6319(xii) undrained / near natural water regime

6320
6321

(xiii) drained comparable to the typical water table range of 2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplement for drainedorganic soils (Chapter 2 of 2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplement),

6322
6323

(xiv) drained deeper than water level range of 2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplement for part or all of the year if
applicable,

6324
6325

(xv) drained more shallow than the water table range of 2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplement / partially drainedor rewetted for part or all of the year if applicable,

6326



Rewetting regime

6327(xvi) back to near-natural water regime (cf. Chapter 3 of the 2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplement)

6328
6329
6330

(xvii) flooding (maybe further stratified by seasonally flooded or flooded throughout the year) if applicable.
Flooding usually only occurs in a transitional period so that the area does not fall into the category offlooded land.

6331
6332
6333
6334

For all resulting subcategories where drainage and rewetting have taken place, the areas afforested, reforested ordeforested since 1990 need to be tracked separately as these areas will be reported as units of lands subject to theactivity afforestation, reforestation and deforestation. Similarly areas under Forest Management or any elected
activity shall be tracked and reported separately.

6335
6336

At higher tiers further subdivision of the area under wetland drainage and rewetting may be useful, e.g. by
seasonality of drainage management.

6337
6338

[Guidance to avoid double-counting with other KP activities when identifying land (decision tree, link to
Chapter 2.1, 2.2) and other sectors (e.g in agriculture) – to be elaborated]

6340

2.12.4 Choice of methods for estimating greenhouse gas
emissions and removals

6341[Text needs to be elaborated and reflect SOD of 2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplement, which is not yet available.]

6342
6343

Guidance on relevant methodologies for assessing soil GHG emissions and removals in commitment period andbase year6344

base year emissions and removals: methods, data, proxy approaches

6345
6346
6347

2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplement, drained organic soils: high intensity land use and associated deep drainage
assumed (= defaults are high emission). Rewetting deals with optimally rewetted situations (= default is noemission). May lead to overestimated accountable benefits.

6348
6349

Guidance on sufficiency of available Tier 2 methodologies: cf. guidance in 2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplement on
drainage intensity in drained lands and flooded rewetted lands.

6350
6351
6352

It is good practice to develop country specific emission factors by land-use category with an additional
stratification by drainage intensity, e.g. by including strata by land-use category drained and rewetted more,similar or less than the drainage levels given as defaults in the 2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplement, applicable to6339

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.189

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
6353
6354

the strata. Countries are encouraged to develop higher Tier methodologies that consider a dynamic transition
time to account for higher greenhouse gas emissions or removals in the years after drainage and rewetting.

6355
6356
6357

At minimum: national data to demonstrate the applicability of the default EFs in the 2013 IPCC Wetlands
Supplement in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and removals and drainage levels. And proxies for additional
stratification by drainage intensity.

6358

Carbon pools:

6359
6360
6361



woody biomass: reference to 2006 IPCC Guidelines, individual land-use sections and sections 2.x (FM), 2.9(cropland management), 2.10 (grazing land management) of this supplement. Consistency in reporting andemission factors across elected activities

6362



organic soils:

6363(xviii)drained: reference to Chapter 2 of 2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplement, tier 1 and higher tiers

6364(xix) partially rewetted: reference to Chapter 2 of 2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplement, higher tiers

6365(xx) fully rewetted to natural status: Chapter 3 of 2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplement, tier 1 and higher tiers

6366
6367
6368

(xxi) flooded: missing (methodology will differ from flooded land because of the transient nature and the reestablishment of vegetation; flooding is shallow compared to reservoirs), reference to Chapter 3 of2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplement, higher tiers

6369
6370



Dissolved organic carbon: reference to Chapter 2 and 3 of 2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplement, tier 1 andhigher tiers

6371



Fire: reference to 2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplement if applicable

6372
6373



Extracted peat: how to deal with it, imbalance for areas with peat cut for energy and horticulture: [to beelaborated]

6374

Excluding C pools from accounting: reference to LUCF 2003 GPS and section 2 of this supplement?

6375
6376

N2O from drainage and rewetting: reference to 2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplement: reference to Chapter 2 and 3 of2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplement, tier 1 and higher tiers

6377
6378

CH4 from drainage ditches: reference to 2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplement: reference to Chapter 2 and 3 of 2013
IPCC Wetlands Supplement, tier 1 and higher tiers6379

CH4 from flooding: reference to Chapter 3 of 2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplement, higher tiers

6380
6381

Issues to be developed further:

6382

Links between KP and UNFCCC reporting (data, methodologies)

6383

Time series consistency since 1990

6384
6385

Interannual variability: should higher Tier methods use long-term or mid-term climate rather than annual climate?
Implications for e.g. drainage, yield/residues,… Reference to 2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplement?

6386
6387
6388
6389
6390
6391

It is good practice to include all carbon pools and associated gas emissions and removals reported under the
UNFCCC land-use categories and land conversion categories in estimating greenhouse gas emissions andremovals of the lands included in wetland drainage and rewetting. Reporting of non-CO2 emissions on lands
under wetland drainage and rewetting are often by rule reported under the Agriculture sector and doublecounting of the emissions should be avoided. Table 2.12.1 provides general guidance how to avoid doublecounting across Activities and sectors.

6392

2.190

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft
TABLE 2.12.1

UNFCCC landuse category or
Activity

Checks to avoid double counting and to ensure completeness

Agriculture

Non-CO2 emission for most parts agricultural soils and CO2 emissions from urea application andliming are reported under Agriculture.

Afforestation,
Reforestation,
Deforestation

All greenhouse gases are reported under Art. 3.3.

Forest Land

Forest Lands included in Forest Management: All greenhouse gases are reported under Forest
Management.
Forest Land on organic soils not included in Forest Management: All greenhouse gases are reported
under wetland drainage and rewetting.

CroplandN2O from drained organic soils and nitrogen input and CH4 from paddy rice are reported under
Agriculture.
Cropland included in Cropland Management: CO2 from drained organic soils, CH4 from drainage
ditches and CO2 from liming is reported under Cropland Management.
Cropland on organic soils not included in Cropland Management: CO2 from drained organic soils,
CH4 from drainage ditches and CO2 from liming is reported under wetland drainage and rewetting.

GrasslandN2O from drained organic soils and nitrogen input is reported in the Agriculture sector.
Grassland included in Grazing Land Management: CO2 from drained organic soils, CH4 fromdrainage ditches and CO2 from liming is reported under Grazing Land Management.
Grassland on organic soils not included in Grazing Land Management: CO2 from drained organicsoils, CH4 from drainage ditches and CO2 from liming is reported under wetland drainage andrewetting.

Wetlands

Peat extracted for energy is reported in the Energy sector.
All other greenhouse gas emissions including peat extracted for horticulture are reported under
wetland drainage and rewetting.

Settlements

All greenhouse gas emissions are reported under wetland drainage and rewetting.

Other Land

All greenhouse gas emissions are reported under wetland drainage and rewetting.

Revegetation

Revegetation is defined according to national specific criteria so that no general guidance can begiven.

6393
6394

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.191

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
6395

References

6396

COMMON TO THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT

6397
6398

IPCC (1997). Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Inventories - Vol 3 Chp 5 Land Use Change
and Forestry. IPCC/OECD/IEA, 76 p.

6399
6400
6401

IPCC (2003). Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry. In: Penman J., Gytarsky
M., Hiraishi T., Krug T., Kruger D., Pipatti R., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T., Tanabe K., Wagner F. (Eds).
Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC), IPCC/IGES, Hayama, Japan.

6402
6403
6404

IPCC 2006, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by the National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T. and Tanabe K.
(eds). Published: IGES, Japan.

6405
6406
6407

UNFCCC 2006. Decision 16/CMP.1: Land use, land-use change and forestry.FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3,
UnitedNations
Framework
Convention
on
ClimateChange,Bonn,Germany,
unfccc.int/resource/docs/2005/cmp1/eng/08a03.pdf

6408
6409
6410

UNFCCC 2011. Decision 2/CMP.6: The Cancun Agreements: Land use, land-use change and forestry.
FCCC/KP/CMP/2010/12/Add.1, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Bonn,
Germany, http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cmp6/eng/12a01.pdf#page=5

6411
6412
6413

UNFCCC 2012. Decision 2/CMP.7: Land use, land-use change and forestry. FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1,
UnitedNations
Framework
Convention
on
ClimateChange,Bonn,Germany,
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/cmp7/eng/10a01.pdf#page=116414

SECTION 1.1 THROUGH SECTION 2.4

6415
6416
6417
6418
6419

Allen C.D., Macalady A.K., Chenchouni H., Bachelet D., McDowell N., Vennetier M., Kitzberger T., Rigling A.,
Breshears D.D., Hogg E.H. (Ted), Gonzalez P., Fensham R., Zhang Z., Castro J., Demidova N., Lim J.-H.,
Allard G., Running S.W., Semerci A., Cobb N. (2010).l A global overview of drought and heat-induced treemortality reveals emerging climate change risks for forests. Forest Ecology and Management 259(4), 660684.

6420
6421

Batjes. N.H 2011 Soil organic carbon stocks under native vegetation - Revised estimates for use with the simple
assessment option of the Carbon Benefits Project system. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 142, 9.

6422
6423

Bebi P., Kulakowski D., Rixen C. (2009). Snow avalanche disturbances in forest ecosystems-State of researchand implications for management. Forest Ecology and Management 257(9), 1883-1892.

6424
6425
6426

Bentz B.J., Régnière J., Fettig C.J., Hansen E.M., Hayes J.L., Hicke J.A., Kelsey R.G., Negrón J.F., Seybold S.J.
(2010). Climate change and bark beetles of the western United States and Canada: direct and indirect effects.
Bioscience 60(8): 602-613.

6427
6428

Bokalo, M., S. J. Titus, and D. P. Wiens 1996. Sampling with partial replacement extended to include growth
projections. Forest Science, 42, 7.

6429
6430

Canadian Council of Forest Minister (2012a). Forest pest monitoring in Canada [electronic resource]: current
situation, compatibilities, gaps and proposed enhanced monitoring program.

6431
6432

Canadian Council of Forest Minister (2012b). Forest pest knowledge collection and exchange [electronic
resource]: Pest Strategy Information System.

6433
6434

Canadian Council of Forest Minister (2012c). National forest insect and disease diagnostic and taxonomic
resources and tools [electronic resource]: current situation and future considerations.

6435
6436

Congalton, R. G. A. K. G. 2009. Assessing the Accuracy of Remotely Sensed Data: Principles and Practices,
Boca Raton, CRC Press.

6437
6438
6439

Dymond, C.C., E.T. Neilson, G. Stinson, K. Porter, D.A. MacLean, D.R. Gray, M. Campagna, and W.A. Kurz,
2010, Future spruce budworm outbreak may create a carbon source in Eastern Canadian forests, Ecosystems
13: 917–931 DOI: 10.1007/s10021-010-9364-z.

6440
6441

Fleming, R. A., J. N. Candau and R. S. McAlpine (2002). "Landscape-scale analysis of interactions between
insect defoliation and forest fire in Central Canada." Climatic Change 55(1-2): 251-272.

6442
6443
6444

Fuller, R. M., G. M. Smith and B. J. Devereux (2003): "The characterisation and measurement of land coverchange through remote sensing: problems in operational applications?" International Journal of Applied
Earth Observation and Geoinformation 4(3): 243 - 253.

2.192

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

6445
6446

Girardin M.P., Ali A.A., Hély C. (2010). Wildfires in boreal ecosystems: past, present and some emerging trends.
International Journal of Wildland Fire 19, 991–995.

6447
6448
6449

Griffis T.J, T. A. B., K. Morgenstern, A. G. Barr, Z. Nesic, G. B. Drewitt, D. Gaumont-Guay and J. H.
Mccaughey 2003. Ecophysiological controls on the carbon balances of three southern boreal forests.
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 117, 19.

6450
6451
6452

Hicke, J.A., Allen, C.D., Desai, A.R., Dietze, M.C., Hall, R.J., Hogg, E.H., Kashian, D.M., Moore, D., Raffa,
K.F., Sturrock, R.N., and Vogelmann, J. 2012. Effects of biotic disturbances on forest carbon cycling in the
United States and Canada. Global Change Biol. 18(1): 7−34.

6453
6454
6455

Hirsch, K.G. and Fuglem, P., Technical Coordinators (2006). Canadian Wildland Fire Strategy: backgroundsyntheses, analyses, and perspectives. Canadian Council Forest Ministers, Natural Resources Canada,
Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre, Edmonton, AB.

6456
6457
6458
6459

IPCC 2003. Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from Direct Human-induced
Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types. In: Penman J., Gytarsky M., Hiraishi T.,
Krug T., Kruger D., Pipatti R., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T., Tanabe K., Wagner F. (Eds).
Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC), IPCC/IGES, Hayama, Japan.

6460
6461

IPCC 2010. Revisiting the Use of Managed Land as a Proxy for Estimating National Anthropogenic Emissions
and Removals. In: EGGLESTON H.S., S. N., TANABE K., BAASANSUREN J. (ed.). IGES, Japan.

6462
6463
6464

Kamijo T. & Hashiba K. (2003). Island ecosystem and vegetation dynamics before and after the 2000-Year
eruption on Miyake-jima island, Japan, with implications for conservation of the island's ecosystem. Global
Environmental Research, 7, 69-78.

6465
6466

Kato A. (2008). Characteristics for Sugi (Cryptomeria japonica D. Don) Stands and Trees with High Snow
Accretion Damage Risk in Toyama Prefecture. FORMATH, 8, 45-61. (in Japanese with English abstract)

6467
6468
6469

Kramer K., Vreugdenhil S.J., van der Werf D.C. (2008). Effects of flooding on the recruitment, damage andmortality of riparian tree species: A field and simulation study on the Rhine floodplain. Forest Ecology andManagement 255(11), 3893–3903.

6470
6471
6472
6473

Kurz, W.A., Dymond, C.C., White, T.M., Stinson, G. , Shaw, C.H., Rampley, G.J., Smyth, C., Simpson, B.N.,
Neilson, E.T., Trofymow, J.A., Metsaranta, J., Apps, M.J. (2009). CBM-CFS3: a model of carbon-dynamics
in forestry and land-use change implementing IPCC standards, Ecological Modelling 220: 480-504,
doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.10.018.

6474
6475
6476

Kurz, W.A, C.C. Dymond, G. Stinson, G. J. Rampley, E.T. Neilson, A. L. Carroll, T. Ebata, and L. Safranyik.
(2008). Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback to climate change, Nature 452:987-990,
doi:10.1038/nature06777.

6477
6478
6479
6480

Kurz, W.A. 2010. Large inter-annual variations in carbon emissions and removals, Invited background paper,
pages 41-48. In: IPCC 2010, Revisiting the Use of Managed Land as a Proxy for Estimating National
Anthropogenic Emissions and Removals, eds: Eggleston H.S., Srivastava N., Tanabe K., Baasansuren J.
Meeting Report, 5 -7 May, 2009, INPE, São José dos Campos, Brazil, Pub. IGES, Japan 2010

6481
6482
6483
6484

Kurz, W.A., Dymond, C.C., White, T.M., Stinson, G. , Shaw, C.H., Rampley, G.J., Smyth, C., Simpson, B.N.,
Neilson, E.T., Trofymow, J.A., Metsaranta, J., Apps, M.J. (2009). CBM-CFS3: a model of carbon-dynamics
in forestry and land-use change implementing IPCC standards, Ecological Modelling 220: 480-504,
doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.10.018.

6485
6486

Li, W., P. Zhang, J. Ye, L. Li and P.A. Baker. 2011. Impact of two different types of El Niño events on the
Amazon climate and ecosystem productivity. Journal of Plant Ecology, 4, 9.

6487
6488

Lilles and, T. M., R. W. Kiefer and J. W. Chipman 2008. Remote Sensing and Image Interpretation, New York,John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

6489
6490
6491
6492

Lindner M., Maroschek M., Netherer S., Kremer A., Barbati A., Garcia-Gonzalo J., Seidl R., Delzon S., Corona
P., Kolström M., Lexer M.J., Marchetti M. (2010). Climate change impacts, adaptive capacity, andvulnerability of European forest ecosystems, Forest Ecology and Management, Volume 259, Issue 4, 5
February 2010, Pages 698-709.

6493
6494

Martin, P. H., T. J. Fahey and R. E. Sherman (2011). "Vegetation Zonation in a Neotropical Montane Forest:
Environment, Disturbance and Ecotones." Biotropica 43(5): 533-543.

6495
6496

McCullough, D. G. (2000). "A review of factors affecting the population dynamics of jack pine budworm(Choristoneura pinus pinus Freeman)." Population Ecology 42(3): 243-256.

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.193

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
6497
6498
6499

Perry, D. A., P. F. Hessburg, C. N. Skinner, T. A. Spies, S. L. Stephens, A. H. Taylor, J. F. Franklin, B.
McComb and G. Riegel (2011). "The ecology of mixed severity fire regimes in Washington, Oregon, andNorthern California." Forest Ecology And Management 262(5): 703-717.

6500
6501
6502
6503
6504
6505
6506
6507
6508

Phillips O.L., Aragão L.E.O.C., Lewis S.L., Fisher J.B., Lloyd J., López-González G., Malhi Y., Monteagudo A.,
Peacock J., Quesada C.A., van der Heijden G., Almeida S., Amaral I., Arroyo L., Aymard G., Baker T.R.,
Bánki O., Blanc L., Bonal D., Brando P., Chave J., Alves de Oliveira Á.C., Dávila Cardozo N., Czimczik C.I.,
Feldpausch T.R., Freitas M.A., Gloor E., Higuchi N., Jiménez E., Lloyd G., Meir P., Mendoza C., Morel A.,
Neill D.A., Nepstad D., Patiño S., Peñuela M.C., Prieto A., Ramírez F., Schwarz M., Silva J., Silveira M.,
Sota Thomas A., ter Steege H., Stropp J., Vásquez R., Zelazowski P., Alvarez Dávila E., Andelman S.,
Andrade A., Chao K., Erwin T., Di Fiore A., Honorio C., Keeling E., Killeen H., Laurance T.J., Peña Cruz
W.F., Pitman A., Núñez Vargas N.C.A., Ramírez-Angulo P., Rudas H., Salamão A., Silva R., Terborgh N.,
Torres-Lezama J.A. (2009). Drought sensitivity of the Amazon rainforest. Science 323, 1344–1347.

6509
6510
6511

Raffa K.F., Aukema B.H., Bentz B.J., Carroll A.L., Hicke J.A., Turner M.G., Romme W.H. (2008). Cross-scale
drivers of natural disturbances prone to anthropogenic amplification: the dynamics of bark beetle eruptions.
Bioscience 58, 501–517.

6512
6513
6514
6515
6516

Richards, G. 2010. Background Paper to the IPCC Expert Meeting Revisiting the use of Managed Land as a
Proxy for Estimating Anthropogenic Emissions and Removals, pages 30-38. In: IPCC 2010, Revisiting theUse of Managed Land as a Proxy for Estimating National Anthropogenic Emissions and Removals, eds:
Eggleston H.S., Srivastava N., Tanabe K., Baasansuren J. Meeting Report, 5 -7 May, 2009, INPE, São José
dos Campos, Brazil, Pub. IGES, Japan 2010

6517
6518
6519

Rouault, G., J. N. Candau, F. Lieutier, L. M. Nageleisen, J. C. Martin and N. Warzee (2006). "Effects of drought
and heat on forest insect populations in relation to the 2003 drought in Western Europe." Annals Of Forest
Science 63(6): 613-624.

6520
6521

Smith P., Powlson D.S., Glendining M.J., Smith J.U. (1998). Preliminary estimates of the potential for carbon
mitigation in European soils through no-till farming. Global Change Biology, 4: pp. 679-685.

6522
6523
6524

Tate K.R., Scott N.A., Saggar S., Giltrap D.J., Baisden W.T., Newsome P.F., Trotter C.M., Wilde R.H. (2003).
Land-use change alters New Zealand's terrestrial carbon budget: uncertainties associated with estimates ofsoil carbon change between 1990-2000. Tellus, 55B: pp. 364-377.

6525
6526

Tomppo, E.,,Gschwantner, T., Lawrence, M., McRoberts, R.E. (Eds.) (2010): National Forest Inventories –Pathways for Common Reporting, Springer: USA, p. 612, ISBN978-90-481r-r3232-4.

6527
6528

Xiao, J. F. and Q. L. Zhuang (2007). "Drought effects on large fire activity in Canadian and Alaskan forests."
Environmental Research Letters 2(4).

6529
6530

Yamashita A., Sano J. & Yamamoto S. (2002). Impact of a strong typhoon on the structure and dynamics of an
old-growth beech (Fagus crenata) forest, southwestern Japan. Folia Geobotanica, 37, 5-16.

6531
6532

SECTION 2.5 THROUGH SECTION 2.7

6533
6534

Davis M.R. and Condron L.M. (2002). Impact of grassland afforestation on soil carbon in New Zealand: areview of paired-site studies. Soil Research 40: pp. 675-690

6535
6536

Guo, L.B. and Gifford R.M. (2002). Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta analysis. Global Change
Biology, 8: pp. 345-360.

6537
6538
6539
6540

IPCC 2010, Use of Models and Facility-Level Data in Greenhouse Gas Inventories (Report of IPCC Expert
Meeting on Use of Models and Measurements in Greenhouse Gas Inventories 9-11 August 2010, Sydney,
Australia) eds: Eggleston H.S., Srivastava N., Tanabe K., Baasansuren J., Fukuda M., GHG Pub. IGES,
Japan 2010.

6541
6542
6543

Merino A., Perez-Batallon P., Macıas F. (2004). Responses of soil organic matter and greenhouse gas fluxes tosoil management and land use changes in a humid temperate region of southern Europe. Soil Biology &Biochemistry 36:pp. 917–925

6544
6545
6546
6547

Paul K.I., Polglase P.J., Richards G.P. (2003). Predicted change in soil carbon following afforestation or
reforestation, and analysis of controlling factors by linking a C accounting model (CAMFor) to models offorest growth (3PG), litter decomposition (GENDEC) and soil C turnover (RothC). Forest Ecology andManagement 177: pp. 485–501

6548
6549

Post W. M. and Kwon K.C. (2000). Soil carbon sequestration and land-use change: processes and potential.
Global Change Biology 6: pp. 317-327

2.194

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

6550
6551

Schulp C.J.E., Nabuurs G., Verburg P.H. (2008). Future carbon sequestration in Europe—Effects of land usechange. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 127: pp. 251–264

6552
6553
6554

Tate K.R., Scott N.A., Saggar S., Giltrap D.J., Baisden W.T., Newsome P.F., Trotter C.M., Wilde R.H. (2003).
Land-use change alters New Zealand's terrestrial carbon budget: uncertainties associated with estimates ofsoil carbon change between 1990-2000. Tellus, 55B: pp. 364-377.

6555
6556

Vesterdal L., Ritter E., Gundersen P. (2002). Change in soil organic carbon following afforestation of former
arable land. Forest Ecology and Management 169: pp. 137-147

6557

SECTION 2.8

6558
6559
6560

Brown, S., Lim, B. and Schlamadinger, B. (1998). Evaluating Approaches for Estimating Net Emissions ofCarbon Dioxide from Forest Harvesting and Wood Products. IPCC/OECD/IEA Programme on National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories, 20 p.

6561
6562

Cowie, A., Pingoud, K. and Schlamadinger, B. (2006). Stock changes or fluxes? Resolving terminologicalconfusion in the debate on land-use change and forestry. Climate Policy 6: 161-179.

6563
6564
6565

European Union (2010). Specific guide for Life Cycle Inventory data sets. First edition March 2010.Publications
Office of the European Union, International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook, EUR
24709 EN, 142 p.

6566
6567

FAO (2009). Forest Products 2005-2009. FAO Yearbook, Forestry Series No. 44, Statistics Series No. 200, 337
p.

6568
6569

FAO (2012). FAOSTAT-Forestry Database [online]. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations(FAO) <http://faostat.fao.org/>

6570
6571

Forest Products Laboratory (2010). Wood Handbook: Wood as an Engineering Material. United States
Department of Agriculture, General Technical Report, FPL–GTR–190, 509 p.

6572
6573

Gjesdal, S.F.T., et al. (1996). A balance of use of wood products in Norway. Norwegian Pollution Control
Authority SFT, Report 96:04, 54 p.

6574
6575
6576

IPCC (2006). IPCC Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Inventories - Vol 4 Agriculture, Forestry and other Land Use.
In: Eggleston S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T., Tanabe K. (Eds). IEA/OECD, IPCC National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories Programme, Technical Support Unit, Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan.

6577

ISO (2006). Umweltmanagement - Ökobilanz - Anforderungen und Anleitungen. DIN EN ISO 14044:2006-10.

6578
6579

ISO (2006). Umweltmanagement - Ökobilanz - Grundsätze und Rahmenbedingungen. DIN EN ISO 14040:200610.

6580
6581

ISO (2008). Buildings and constructed assets - Service life planning - Part 8: Reference service life and service
life estimation. ISO 15686-8:2008(E).

6582
6583

ISO (2011). Buildings and constructed assets - Service life planning - Part 1: General Principles. ISO 156861:2011(E).

6584
6585
6586

Johannsen, V.K., Nord-Larsen, T. and Suadicani, K. (2011). Submission of information on forest management
reference levels by Denmark. Forest & Landscape Denmark, Forest & Landscape Working Papers No. 582011, 35 p.

6587
6588
6589

Kangas, K. and Baudin, A. (2003). Modelling and Projections of Forest Products Demand, Supply and Trade inEurope. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), Timber Section, ECE/TIM/DP/30, 206
p.

6590
6591

Karjalainen, T., Kellomäki, S. and Pussinen, A. (1994). Role of wood-based products in absorbing atmosphericcarbon. Silva Fennica 28(2): 67–80.

6592
6593

Marland, E., Stellar, K. and Marland, G. (2010). A distributed approach to accounting for carbon in wood
products. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 15(1): 71-91.

6594
6595

Pingoud, K., Perälä, A.L. and Pussinen, A. (2001). Carbon Dynamics in Wood Products. Mitigation and
Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 6(2): 91-111.

6596
6597
6598

Pingoud, K. and Wagner, F. (2006). Methane Emissions from Landfills and Carbon Dynamics of Harvested
Wood Products: The First-Order Decay Revisited. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change
11(5): 961-978.

6599
6600

Rüter, S. (2011). Projection of Net-Emissions from Harvested Wood Products in European Countries - For theperiod 2013-2020. Thünen-Institute of Wood Research, Report No: 2011/01, 63 p.

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.195

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst Order Draft
6601
6602

Rüter, S. and Diederichs, S. (2012). Ökobilanz-Basisdaten für Bauprodukte aus Holz. Thünen-Institute of Wood
Research, Report No: 2012/01, 316 p.

6603
6604

Skog, K. and Nicholson, G.A. (1998). Carbon cycling though wood products: the role of wood and paper
products in carbon sequestration. Forest Products Journal 48(7/8): 75-83.

6605
6606

Statistics Finland (2011). Greenhouse gas emissions in Finland 1990-2008: National Inventory Report under the
UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. 470 p.

6607
6608
6609

Tsunetsugu, Y. and Tonosaki, M. (2010). Quantitative estimation of carbon removal effects due to wood
utilization up to 2050 in Japan: effects from carbon storage and substitution of fossil fuels by harvested wood
products. Journal of Wood Science 56(4): 339-344.

6610
6611

Wilson, J.B. (2010). Life-Cycle Inventory of Particleboard in Terms of Resources, Emissions, Energy andCarbon. Wood and Fiber Science 42(1): 90-106.

6612
6613

Winjum, J.K., Brown, S. and Schlamadinger, B. (1998). Forest Harvests and Wood Products: Sources and Sinks
of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Forest Science 44(2): 272-284.

6614

SECTION 2.9 THROUGH SECTION 2.12

6615
6616

Akala V A. And Lal R..2000.Potential Of Mine Land Reclamation For Soil Organic Carbon Sequestration In
Ohio.Land Degrad. Develop. 11: 289-297.

6617
6618
6619
6620

Andreae, M O, Merlet, P. 2001. Emission of trace gases and aerosols from biomass burning. Global
Biogeochemical Cycles 15:955-966.Cofer III, W R, Levine, J S, Winstead, E L, Cahoon, D R, Sebacher, D I,
Pinto, J P, Stocks, B J. 1996. Source compositions of trace gases released during African savanna fires.
Journal of Geophysical Research D: Atmospheres 101:23597-23602.

6621
6622
6623

Cowie A L, Penman T. D, Gorissen L. Winslow M. D,Lehmann J., Tyrrell T. D. et al.2011.sustainable land
management in the drylands: scientific connections in monitoring and assessing dryland degradation, climatechange and biodiversity.Land Degrad. Develop. 22: 248–260

6624
6625
6626

Cowie A, Schneider U A, Montanarella L. 2007.Potential synergies between existing multilateral environmental
agreements in the implementation of land use, land-use change and forestry activities. Environmental scienceand policy,10,335 – 352

6627
6628

De Steven D, Sharitz R R, Singer J H,Barton C D. 2006.Testing a Passive Revegetation Approach for Restoring
Coastal Plain Depression Wetlands. Restoration Ecology,14(3): 452–460

6629
6630

Gessesse T A.Assessment of the impact of different revegetation methods on soil carbon stocks in iceland. Land
Restoration Training ProgrammeFinal project 2009

6631
6632
6633
6634

Hirata, R, Miyata, A, Mano, M, Shimizu, M, Arita, T, Kouda, Y, Matsuura, S, Niimi, M, Mori, A, Saigusa, T,
Hojito, M, Kawamura, O, Hatano, R. 2013. Carbon dioxide exchange at four intensively managed grassland
sites across different climate zones of japan and the influence of manure application on ecosystem carbon andgreenhouse gas budgets. Agricultural And Forest Meteorology (in review).

6635
6636

Holden J, Gascoign M, Bosanko N R. 2007.Erosion and natural revegetation associated with surface land drains
in upland peatlands Earth Surface Processes and Landforms .Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, 32, 1547–1557

6637
6638

IPCC Report on Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from Direct Human-induced
Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types

6639
6640

Jiang S.-C., He N.-P., Wu L. & Zhou D.-W. 2010. Vegetation restoration of secondary bare saline-alkali patches
in the Songnen plain, China .Applied Vegetation Science, 13: 47–55

6641
6642

Madej M A., Seney J, van Mantgem P.2012 .Effects of Road Decommissioning on Carbon Stocks, Losses, andEmissions in North Coastal California. Restoration Ecology, doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2012.00911.x

6643
6644

Mitchell A. Pavao-Zuckerman.2008.The Nature of Urban Soils and Their Role in Ecological Restoration in
Cities. Restoration Ecology,16(4),642–649

6645
6646

Muzzi E,Fabbri T.2007.revegetation Of Mineral Clay Soils: Shrub And Tree Species Compared.land Degrad.
Develop. 18: 441–451

6647
6648

Pavao-Zuckerman M A. 2008.The Nature of Urban Soils and Their Role in Ecological Restoration in Cities.
Restoration Ecology, 16(4): 642–649

6649
6650
6651

Pickup M, Wilson S, Freudenberger D, Nicholls N Gould L, Hnatiuk S, Delandre J.2012.Post-fire recovery of
revegetated woodland communities in south-eastern Australia. Austral Ecology, doi:10.1111/j.14429993.2012.02404.x

2.196

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reportingFirst Order Draft

6652
6653

Reid N B, M. Naeth A.2005.Establishment of a Vegetation Cover on Tundra Kimberlite Mine Tailings: 1. A
Greenhouse Study. Restoration Ecology, 13(4):594–601

6654
6655
6656

Shimizu, M, Hatano, R, Arita, T, Kouda, Y, Mori, A, Matsuura, S, Niimi, M, Jin, T, Desyatkin, A R, Kawamura,O, Hojito, M, Miyata, A. 2013. The effect of fertilizer and manure application on ch4 and n2o emissions
from managed grasslands in japan. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 59 (in press).

6657
6658
6659

Shirato, Y, Hakamata, T, Taniyama, I. 2004. Modified rothamsted carbon model for andosols and its validation:
Changing humus decomposition rate constant with pyrophosphate-extractable al. Soil Science and Plant
Nutrition 50, 149-158.

6660
6661

Sigurdsson B D,Snorrason A. 2000.Carbon sequestration by afforestation and revegetation as a means of limiting
net-CO2 emissions in Iceland.Biotechnol. Agron. Soc. Environ. 4 (4), 303–307

6662
6663

Simmers S M, Galatowitsch S M. 2010.Factors Affecting Revegetation of Oil Field Access Roads in Semiarid
Grassland .Restoration Ecology ,18(S1): 27–39

6664
6665

Skrindo, A.B. & Halvorsen, R. 2008.Natural revegetation on forest topsoil and subsoil along roadsides in boreal
forest .Applied Vegetation Science doi: 10.3170/2008-7-18552

6666

Smith P. 2004.Soils as carbon sinks: the global context. Soil Use and Management,20, 212-218

6667
6668
6669

Soini P, Riutta T, Yli-Pet¨ays M, Vasander H. 2010.Comparison of Vegetation and CO2 Dynamics Between a
Restored Cut-Away Peatland and a Pristine Fen: Evaluation of the Restoration Success.Restoration
Ecology ,18(6), 894–903

6670
6671

Tormo J, Bochet E, Garcı´a-Fayos P. 2007. Roadfill Revegetation in Semiarid Mediterranean Environments. Part
II: Topsoiling, Species Selection, and Hydroseeding. Restoration Ecology ,15(1):97–102

6672
6673

Tripathi K P, Singh B.2005.The Role of Revegetation for Rehabilitation of Sodic Soils in Semiarid Subtropical
Forest, India.Restoration Ecology, 13( 1):29–38

6674
6675

Worrall F, Rowson J. G., Evans M. G, Pawson R, Daniels S,Bonn A. 2011.Carbon fluxes from eroding peatlands– the carbon benefit of revegetation following wildfire.Earth Surf. Process. Landforms,36, 1487–1498

6676
6677

Young I W. R, Naguit C, Halwas S J, Renault S,and Markham J H. 2012.Natural Revegetation of a Boreal Gold
Mine Tailings Pond .Restoration Ecology,2012

Draft 2013 KP Supplement

2.197