IPCC Expert Meeting for Technical Assessment of IPCC Inventory Guidelines(AFOLU Sector)
São Paulo, Brazil, 13 – 16 July 2015
Co-Chairs Summary
1. In accordance with the IPCC Trust Fund programme and budget for the year 2015 (approved by the IPCC at its 40th
Session), the IPCC Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (TFI) is implementing technicalassessment of IPCC Inventory Guidelines. This work is to assess where science and data availability havedeveloped sufficiently since the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2006 IPCC
Guidelines) to support the refinement or development of methodological advice for specific categories and gases,
with a view to identifying any specific areas or issues to be prioritized. Another aim is to conduct technicalassessments on cross-sectoral issues, including improvement of user-friendliness of other inventory tools of the
IPCC with a view to contributing to capacity development programmes.
2. This technical assessment is being undertaken through a combination of an on-line questionnaire survey and two
expert meetings. The on-line questionnaire survey was conducted from 30 January to 27 February, and 243 experts
submitted a total of 987 comments to the Technical Support Unit for the IPCC TFI (TFI TSU). Out of these 987
comments, 380 were about the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) Sector.
3. The São Paulo expert meeting was the second of the two expert meetings following the on-line questionnaire survey.
The São Paulo meeting covered AFOLU Sector. In particular it aimed to:•assess the maturity of scientific advances and the availability of new data (but not an exact scientificexamination of new methodology or data);•

identify any specific areas or issues that should be prioritized in TFI’s future work; and•consider associated cross-sectoral issues identified in the survey.

4. The meeting considered comments submitted by experts in response to the on-line questionnaire survey,
particularly on the issues identified as high priorities through the prior analysis made by the TFI TSU. This was witha view to making recommendations to the Bureau of TFI (TFB) on the following:•

Categories for which the science is sufficiently mature and data are available to recommend refinement ordevelopment of inventory guidance;•

Where such refinement or development on the basis of this new information would lead to a noticeable
improvement of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and the 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands (Wetlands Supplement);•

Specific type of refinement or updating that is needed for those categories; and•How these refinements could be made (i.e., suggested possible way(s) to address issues).

5. The issues were considered and discussed through two break-out groups (BOGs), taking significance &prioritization criteria (see Box 1) into account. The BOGs were:•

BOG on Agriculture covering categories 3A and 3C(Co-facilitators: Ms. Annette Freibauer and Ms. Hongmin Dong, Rapporteur: Mr. Adrian Leip)•

BOG on FOLU covering categories 3B and 3D(Co-facilitators: Mr. Jim Penman and Mr. Nijavalli H. Ravindranath, Rapporteur: Mr. Christopher Woodall)

1

6. Some issues relating to soils on Cropland and Grassland (categories 3.B.2 and 3.B.3) were considered by both
BOGs.

Box 1: Significance and prioritization criteria (previously agreed in the Terms of Reference forthis work)•

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

•

Availability of relevant new scientific results.

•

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

Emergence of new sources or gases meeting these criteria

8. Taking account of the discussion by each BOG, the meeting participants agreed to forward the recommendations
based on the elements mentioned in paragraph 4 above to the TFB as summarized in Tables 1-2 below.
9. The following issues were identified as potential elements/areas for refinements to be made by producing a
Methodology Report(s).

Category 3.A•

Improvement of parameters based on different feeding strategies for ruminants (Category 3.A.1, CH4)•

Refinement of parameters based on new science (Category 3.A.2, CH4)•

Development/update of guidance on how to deal with avoided methane emissions due to biogas
production (Category 3.A.2, CH4)•

Reconsideration of method of estimating nitrogen excretions (Category 3.A.2, N2O)•

Update of emission factors for N2O (Category 3.A.2, N2O)

Category 3.C•

Evaluation of EF1 and options for stratification (Category 3.C.4, N2O)•

Evaluation of EF3 as 2% of the N applied to soils, pasture, range and paddock by grazing animals(Category 3.C.4, N2O)•

Derivation of new emissions factors 1 for indirect N2O, both the amount of leaching/runoff and volatilization,
as well as the indirect emission factor (Category 3.C.5, N2O)•

Update of emission factor (N2O) from rice cultivation based on country-specific publications (Category
3.C.7, N2O)

Category 3.B•

Update of default values for litter and develop default values for deadwood (Category 3.B.1, CO2)•

Update of values for BEF/BCEF, harvest losses and root/shoot ratio, average biomass stocks and averagebiomass/volume increments, emissions factors (Category 3.B.1, CO2)

1 This wording was used in the report from the break-out group, but it may be rephrased as “evaluation” or “update”. Thoughdifferent language is being used, in all cases, the science underlying the emission factors will be reexamined.

2•Update of guidance on activity data (including natural disturbances), for land representation to link land
classification system with digital maps (remote sensing and/or GIS data) and also stratified by climate, soil
and land use (Category 3.B, CO2, CH4 and N2O)•

Update/development of guidance on mineral soils under Cropland, particularly on carbon stock change
factors (Category 3.B.2, CO2)•

Update/development of guidance on mineral soils under Grassland, particularly on carbon stock change
factors (Category 3.B.3, CO2)•

Update/development of methods to estimate emissions and removals from flooded land (Category 3.B.4,
CO2, CH4 and N2O)

10. It was agreed that refinements of frequently asked questions (FAQs) on the website, and of the emission factor
database (EFDB) can start as soon as practicable no matter how the BOGs judged the priority is on each issue.
11. The meeting also considered and raised some cross-sectoral issues as listed below.
•

The IPCC Inventory Software needs to be updated to reflect substantial refinements, and a record ofsoftware updates should be maintained on the TFI website.

•

The usability of EFDB needs to be improved.

•

The FAO estimates of GHG emissions from AFOLU Sector are a useful source of reference data for
QA/QC.

•

Modifications to the glossary should be included in the Methodology Report(s) if necessary.

12. Recommendations from this meeting are forwarded to TFB for consideration to reflect in the draft TFI’s work
programme for 2016 and onwards. The draft work programme should be submitted to the IPCC for consideration atits 42nd Session in October 2015.

3

Table 1: Recommendation on issues on categories 3A & 3C as well as 3.B.2 & 3.B.3 (from BOG on
Agriculture)
Category
Type of refinement and explanation of issue(and Gas)
Issues on livestock (Category 3.A)
Improve parameters based on different feeding strategies
High
Enteric
Fermentation for ruminants.
- CH4 from enteric fermentation is a significant source.
(3.A.1)
Feeding strategies are changing and mitigation
strategies are rising in importance.
- Feed intake for cattle seems to be fine in theguidelines.
Priority

Suggested possibleway(s) of refinement

Methodology Report

Particularly, as to methane conversion rates for dairy andother cattle:- Refinement for CH4 mitigation options by feed
additives and feed quality. There is a lot of newliterature available, including developed countries andAfrica. The approach to be taken would be to relate
CH4 conversion rates to feed components,
quantitatively define what low and high quality feedmeans (this choice is most critical), derive a refined
Tier 2 table for methane conversion rates and thencheck, and update if appropriate, the Tier 1 factors.
The analysis has to be carefully consider the
representativeness of feeding strategies for regionaland global conditions.
- The main concern is that different models produce
different methane conversion rates so that guidanceon model applications is needed. Additional guidanceis also needed how to derive a time series of methane
conversion rates and corresponding activity data.
Check whether scaling factors or time series of thedefaults are feasible. It is important to add quantitative
uncertainty estimates to the default factors.

MediumEnteric
Fermentation(3.A.1)

Low

Enteric
Fermentation(3.A.1)

Low

Enteric
Fermentation(3.A.1)ManureManagement(3.A.2), CH4High

As to methane conversion rates for sheep, buffalo, yaks,
availability of new data is unclear.
Develop new models based on breed/geographicallocation.
- Geographical location is covered above.
- Breed is beyond a Tier 1 method and could be
included in the EFDB.
Improve parameters for non-ruminants.
- Maybe an update of feed intake is needed for pigs.
- The BOG had no specific expertise to assess new
evidence. Comments on camelids (from responses toon-line questionnaire survey) could be included in the
EFDB.
Add new animal categories (deer).
- No reference provided, only possible for higher Tiers
Refine parameters based on new science.
- Temperature dependence of CH4 can be updated. Tier
1 should still use annual mean temperature ranges for
the MCFs. Higher tiers may use seasonaltemperatures rather than annual means, and typicaltemperatures in manure stores.

4

About geographicallocation, see theprevious row.
About breed, EFDBEFDBNo action, EFDB if
possible
Methodology report:
re-evaluate and update
where appropriate allparameters and EFs,
including further
stratification for
countries with better

-

High

ManureManagement(3.A.2)High toMediumManureManagement(3.A.2), N2O

Storage time is an important driver to be considered in
MCFs.
- A good background documentation of the developmentof the new default MCFs is required to support
countries in producing higher Tier values consistent
with the defaults.
- The current guidance on C and N from bedding isinconsistent. The current emission factors could,
however, already include the bedding. Additional
guidance for higher tiers could be included suggesting
to consider carbon from bedding in the VS estimate.
- The effect of natural crusts on CH4 emissions fromslurry storage may need to be re-evaluated based on
new findings.
- B0 for cattle and swine seems to be different in global
regions (feed characteristics!) and may be further
stratified.
Develop/update guidance on how to deal with avoided
methane emissions due to biogas production.
- New data and methodological experience is available
from several world regions, including the MCF.
- CH4 from barn + farm prior to storage is missing.

Reconsider method of estimating nitrogen excretions.
- Re-evaluate and update, if appropriate, the default N
excretion rates for applicability in world regions.
- Clarify the animal categories (e.g., rabbit values are formother+children).
Emission factors for N2O: new data available.
- Table 10.21 in Vol.4 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines contains
a lot of expert judgement. EFs can be re-evaluatedand updated, if appropriate, with new measured data,in particular for treatment systems.

Low in terms Manureof inventory
Management
compilation,(3.A.2)high in termsof supporting
the reevaluation
and update of
the 2006
IPCC
Guidelines

N2O estimation from liquid manure storage based on
surface area of manure storage.
- Surface area is inconsistent with the available activity
data in most countries and does not suit for a lower tiermethod.
Illustrate conceptual models of dairy systems, beef
production systems, swine production systems, and poultry
productions systems and resulting GHGs from entericfermentation and housing and manure management
systems to facilitate communication of sources of GHGs
and interrelationships between sources.
- This may be very useful additional illustration. The
EMEP Guidebook likely contains a flow scheme. This
would need to be combined with the methodologicalsteps in the IPCC guidelines to link the N flow to theemission calculations.
- The Task Force on Reactive Nitrogen Expert Panel on5

activity data.

Methodology report:
cross-cutting issue todevelop, complete andupdate the equation(Table 10.17 in Vol.4 of2006 IPCC Guidelines)
and parameters, that iscross-cutting between
energy, waste andagriculture for biogas,
including all substrates(manure, waste,biomass).
Methodology report:
1) Verification andplausibility checks
for the default N
excretion rates if
possible.
2) Re-evaluate andupdate Table 10.21
EFs if appropriate.
Note: The updateshould not result in new
methodologies andanimal categories but
rather improve theexisting tables.
Technical BulletinNitrogen Budgets is providing relevant guidance
documents for N budgets in various sectors.
- Several other sources are available.
Issues on aggregate sources and non-CO2 emissions sources on Land (Category 3.C)
Evaluate N2O EF1.
Low toDirect N2O
Methodology Report:
Evaluate EF1 and- There are a lot of new high-quality measurements
MediumEmissions
include an option foravailable. Evaluate those whether the EF1 could befromstratification by climate if
Managedstratified by climate zone as an option for countries
appropriate and theSoils (3.C.4)
with data on fertilizer use by climate zone.
change would be- New findings are available to be considered in higher
significant.
Tiers, e.g. a non-linear N O response to fertilizers.
2-

MediumMediumDirect N2O
EmissionsfromManagedSoils (3.C.4)

Direct N2O
EmissionsfromManagedSoils (3.C.4)

High

Direct N2O
EmissionsfromManagedSoils (3.C.4)

High

Indirect N2O
EmissionsfromManagedSoils (3.C.5)

There is not enough evidence yet to change themethodology for N2O from N input by crop residues.
Consider improved means for estimating crop management
impacts in cropland N2O fluxes, including tillage andaccount for asymbiotic fixation.
- There is evidence that no-till increases N2O emissions
over some period of time, which may decline later on.
It seems to be worth synthesizing the existing
evidence including long-term effects of no-till and soil
texture and climate, taking into account the quality
criteria for measurements set out in the EFDB.
- There is not enough scientific evidence for impacts offertilizer placement.
- Asymbiotic fixation cannot be separated in the N2O
measurements, so it is implicitly included in the EF.
Not enough evidence for any action.
Develop factors for nitrification inhibitors.
- EFs would need to distinguish between fertilizer types
because nitrification inhibitors only work withammonium-based fertilizers. New practices would beTier 2 or Tier 3 level. The evaluation of practices
should consider the full nitrogen cycle andmeasurements long enough to capture delayedemissions. It seems to be worth synthesizing theexisting evidence.
Evaluate the EF3 as 2% of the N applied to soils, pasture,
range and paddock by grazing animals.
- The preliminary data suggest that the current EF3 is
too high. It would be more logical that the EF3 issimilar to the EF1, which includes organic manure
application. EF3 should be re-evaluated based on
clear quality criteria for the studies. Care has to betaken that the measurements cover a long enoughphase to allow for decomposition of the dung. The EF3
should still relate to the sum of urine and dung.
Derive new emissions factors for indirect N2O, both theamount of leaching/runoff and volatilization, as well as theindirect emission factor.
- New evidence on N volatilization is captured in the linkto EMEP guidebook, EF is OK.
- Leaching/runoff: there is new scientific evidence to beconsidered in the guidelines.
- EFs have to be seen in combination with the leaching
factor, FracLEACH. There is a major methodologicalissue that the N leached from the root zone is currently

6

EFDB:
Include review by Van
Kessel et al. 2012, GCB
19: 33 of existing
evidence of no-till
effects in the EFDB. A
Canadian data set is in
the process of inclusionin the EFDB.
No additional action.

EFDB:
One review is available
and a second one inprocess. They should be
included in the EFDB.
No additional action.

Methodology Report/
EFDB:
Encourage input of
preliminary evidence tothe EFDB.
Methodology report to
finally elaborate the new
EF3.

Methodology Report/
FAQ:
The indirect N source issignificant and would
require some change inmethodology and EF.
Scientific evaluation isneeded. Science on N
retention in ground- andsurface waters has to be
stimulated and matured.

Low

Rice
Cultivations(3.C.7)High

Rice
Cultivations(3.C.7)

Low

Residueburning(cropland)assumed to entirely enter the ground- and surface
waters. This neglects significant N loss bydenitrification along the N pathway.
- The methodology description is not transparent
regarding the simplifications. Indirect N2O also occurs
in the waste sector (waste effluent). The approach has
to be the consistent across sectors.
- N2O hotspots may also occur in riparian zones, which
are not included in the methodology.
- EFr: surface waters: new studies suggest higher EF
for rivers with high N load, but the measurements are
related to the N that finally reaches the rivers, not the
N leached, which is used in the equation.
- EF5g: groundwaters: OK, supported by new studies.
- EF5e: estuaries; no new studies.
Update emission factor (CH4) based on country-specificpublications.
- CH4 source is significant. New data and parameters
are available since 2006, in particular also information
on effects of management strategies that affect thescaling factors (water regime, fertilizers, organic
amendments, straw burning, variety).
- A first assessment suggests that the current
methodology and default parameters are still valid.
- New practices such as alternating wet and dry
practices are becoming more widespread and could beincorporated in terms of new data and knowledge (Tier2). A meeting in late autumn 2015 (2015 EFDB
meeting) will likely bring about additional information.
China has intensive monitoring programmes.
Update emission factor (N2O) based on country-specificpublications.
- The source is significant. The current EF by N input
does not consider management practices. New
management strategies, in particular alternating wetdry may clearly alter (increase) N2O emissions.
- New data is available from many important riceproducing countries to improve and refine anddisaggregate the existing EF.
- Evaluate and update the EF based on new literature.
Additional guidance on activity data is needed how toallocate fertilizer fractions to the different rice
management regimes, consistent with the guidance on
CH4 from rice, including an aggregated EF if no further
stratification by management regime is possible.
Update emission factors for non-CO2 greenhouse gases
emission from agricultural crop residues burning.
- Data concerning with non-CO2 greenhouse gases
emission from agricultural crop residues burning has
been reported.
-

The GHG source is not significant and often residue
burning is banned. There are working groups onemissions from residue burning and new data andmethodologies could be included in the EFDB.

Issues on CO2 from soils under Cropland and Grassland (Categories 3.B.2 & 3.B.3)

7

FAQ to better explain
the concept of indirect
N2O leaching/runoff
pathways.
Methodology Report orappendix on
methodologicalimprovements
accounting for N
retention in thederivation of EFs or toreconcile themeasurements in rivers
with N leached fromagricultural systems.

EFDB
FAQ could highlight
new information fromthe autumn 2015
meeting (2015 EFDB
meeting).

Methodology Report

EFDB

Low

Cropland(3.B.2)High(because thecurrent
carbon stockchangefactors (notill, organic
input) may
overestimate
carbonstocks. The
default
should be
related to areal effect(so that theright
incentives
are set formeasuresthat reallymitigate
CC)).

Cropland(3.B.2)

Depends on
cropland

Grassland(3.B.3)

Low

Cropland(3.B.2) &Grassland(3.B.3)Update data of mineral soil reference C stocks by land-use
category for land-use changes- ISRIC World Soil Information (http://www.isric.org/)
has constantly updated improved data by soil region
and climate link to there.
- Check whether new data would substantially change
the defaults of reference C stocks- Only if really substantial changes occur it would be
worth considering an update. This may occur inparticular for rarely sampled pedons. Updates aremost relevant for tropical regions and regions wherecountries are using the defaults.
- Alternatively, adjust transition time to the time soils
need to really do the full change- Rather a research project first?
Update/develop guidance on mineral soils under Cropland:
Carbon stock change factors.
- Main difficulty is to find necessary activity data. Maybe
it is useful to show alternative methods to getnecessary data (consistent with 3.D) or to use them ina refined alternative methodology (gain-loss; C input
minus C losses; Russia has experience, Stephen Ogle
suggests equilibrium model runs). The methodology
would somehow be less data-intensive than thecurrent methodology (simpler). But methodologies
have to be consistent across land-uses and in the timeseries.
- Tillage: a lot of new research; no-till effect does notwork everywhere, so the defaults may imply an impact
which does not happen everywhere. Check how muchinformation comes from tropics and regions where thedefault method is commonly used.
- Productivity: new data, in particular on cover crops.
Highlight that residue etc. data is available from N
input estimate in 3.D. Strive for internal consistency
and highlight this here
- Organic input: new data available, factor was very
uncertain. Highlight that organic manure data isavailable from N input estimate in 3.D. Strive forinternal consistency and highlight this here.
Update/develop guidance on mineral soils under
Grassland: Carbon stock change factors.
- C stock change factors in 2006 IPCC Guidelines weremade on a small data base; several more are available
and could make a difference, which cannot be
assessed by the expert group; defaults, e.g. linked to
production, could be more robust. An update of the EF
is probably not a big effort, since the overall
information is relatively scarce. Would also help toimprove burning estimates.
Update data on organic soils under Cropland andGrassland: Better integration with Wetlands Supplement.
- Most recent updates in Wetlands Supplement areconsidered sufficient and reflecting important
processes. N fertilizer is estimated independent on
what type of soil it is applied on. Other management
effects could be included in higher Tiers. Recent

8

FAQ/Technical
Bulletin:
TSU will, in consultation
with experts, ask ISRIC
to check whether new
data would substantiallychange the defaults ofreference C stocks for a
future scoping meetingfor re-evaluation with
better knowledge.
Result to be publishedas FAQ or technicalbulletin that the data isavailable.
Methodology Report:
If there is amethodology change incroplands, this has
implications in all landuse categories.
Assess the potential
other, simpler
methodology forcroplands forapplicability in otherland-use categories.

In line with changes incropland. (See above.)

EFDB:
It is upon UNFCCC to
decide on the use of2006 IPCC Guidelines
versus Wetlands
Supplement.
Any new EFs could beliterature would not substantially change the EFs in the
Wetlands Supplement. However, the Wetlands
Supplement separates and adds sources, in particular
the peat burning. It has to be clarified that the EFs in
the 2006 IPCC Guidelines include peat fires andoxidation, and are mainly based on Armentano andMenges and a few other studies (mainly subsidence),and do not differentiate between the various C loss
pathways.

9

included in the EFDB.

Table 2: Recommendation on issues on categories 3B & 3D (from BOG on FOLU)

Category (andType of refinement andGas)
explanation of issue
Issues for Methodology Report and/or Expert Meetings
Update values for litter and develop
High
Forest Landdefault values for deadwood; update(3.B.1), CO2values for BEF/BCEF, harvest losses
and root/shoot ratio, averagebiomass stocks and averagebiomass/volume increments,
emissions factors that have been
provided in the 2013 Wetlands
Supplement, and other parameters.
Reconsider or improve methods toHighForest Landestimate emissions and removals(3.B.1), CO2from forests.
PriorityHigh

Land (3B), CO2,CH4 and N2O

Low toMedium (Soilissue)

Land (3B)

Low and High
(See thecolumn on
suggestedpossibleway(s) of
refinement)

Cropland (3.B.2),
CO2 and N2O

Update guidance on activity data(including natural disturbances).
- Guidance on land representation
should be updated to link land
classification system and digitalmaps (remote sensing data or
GIS data) and should allow for
aggregation of relevant classes
into the main six IPCC Land
Categories defined in the IPCC
Good Practice Guidelines. Also
stratified by climate, soil andland use type.
Update default values for soil organiccarbon, examples of international
land cover dataset can be extended.
(This issue was considered with BOG
on Agriculture.)
Add guidance on conversion ofcroplands to either rice wetlands or topermanent wetlands.
Refine emission factor to reflect
relationship between N fertilizer andN2O, refine stock change factors forsoil carbon for soil tillage.

10

Suggested possible way(s) of
refinement

Expert meeting/Methodology Report:
updating issues and adding new default
values. There is a cross cutting issue ontime series because defaults over time.
Update EFDB as well.

1) Merge consideration of BEF/BCEFs
with the issue in the previous row.
2) FAQ followed by Methodology
Report which clarifies guidanceassociated with forest management
practices in forests (includes collateral
damage issue) and guidance onemissions from soils related to
management practices.
3) Merge treatment of disturbances with
the issue in the next row.
Methodology Report:
Update references in Chapter 3 in Vol.4 of2006 IPCC Guidelines (including list of RS
datasets). Update guidance, (including ondata organization, use of reference data,and integrating frameworks) referring tomaterial elsewhere (FAO emissions
database, GFOI, GOFC-GOLD, FFPRI
REDD+ Cookbook).

Expert Meeting (or Consultation withexperts):
TSU in consultation with experts consult
with ISRIC to determine extent to which
new pedons in ISRIC database and othernew sources make a significant difference
to defaults.
Methodology Report (only on 3
below):
1) No action in respect to conversion ofcroplands.
2) Low priority: review science on link
between N and carbon factors
3) High priority: revise carbon stockchange factors and consider
possibility of gain loss method (part of
Methodology Report) – see therelevant row in Table 1 above.
May be considered in conjunction with theExpert Meeting on issues in the first andsecond rows in this table.

High in termsofdevelopmentof FAQs
Low in termsof remainder:(recognizingthat this issue
will bediscussed at
UNFCCC
duringSBSTA46.)
See theprevious row
on HWP.

Harvested Wood
Products (3.D.1),
CO2

Improve usability of HWP guidanceconsidering 2013 KP Supplement.

Expert Meeting and FAQ:
- Short term: Expert meeting leading to
FAQ and consideration of ways
forward to improve usability andaccess to information with respect toreporting requirements andmethodological issues. Retain all
approaches in 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
- Decisions on way forward taking
account of SBSTA46 (in 2017).
- Confer with HWP experts.

Land (3B), CO2

Consider as part of the issue on HWP in
the previous row.
Consider linkage to energy sector.

High

Wetlands (3.B.4):
Flooded Land,
CO2 N2O andCH4

Update guidance in Appendix 1 in
Vol.4 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines: CO2
Removals in Residual Combustion
Products (charcoal): Basis for Future
Methodological Development.
Revise emission factor taking into
consideration issues such as thefollowing:- quantity and type of carbon poolflooded;- management activities prior toflooding and during reservoir
management;- inflow/outflow rates anddrawdown area;- upstream watershed anderosional estuarine exchange;- other new scientific literature.
Develop a methodology forconstructed wetlands, particularly
those that occur in regions of salinity>15ppt where methane flux is
minimal, carbon sequestration using
surface elevation tables and eddy
covariance.
Develop a methodology for biochar C
immobilization via soil improvement.

Add or improve methods (equations)– degradation/REDD+.

FAQ:
FAQ on the relationship between 2006
guidelines and REDD+, degradation.
FAQ (associated with the issue in thesecond row in this table):
FAQ which clarifies guidance associatedwith forest management practices inforests (includes collateral damage issue)and guidance on emissions from soils
related to management practices.
FAQ:
Identify sources of training materials (withdisclaimer).
FAQ or Technical Bulletin:
Integration of various data sources.

Low

Wetlands (3.B.4):
Flooded Land,
CH4

Low

Land (3B), CO2

Issues for FAQs
High
REDD+
High

REDD+

Reconsider or improve methods toestimate emissions and removals
from forests

High

Land (3B), CO2,CH4 and N2O

Update guidance on activity data(including natural disturbances).
See the issue in the third row in thistable.

11

Expert Meeting/Methodology Report:
Expert Meeting with a view to providing
advice to the scoping meeting on thedevelopment of a Methodology Report to
update and complete methods in the 2006
IPCC Guidelines to estimate emissions
and removals from flooded lands.

Expert Meeting:
Convene an expert meeting to consider
whether science sufficient 2-7 years fromnow.

Expert Meeting:
Convene an expert meeting onsequestration of C by biochar.
Consider linkage to IPPU/energy sector insome cases.

High

Land (3B)

High

Land (3B)

High

Land (3B)High

Harvested Wood
Products (3.D.1),
CO2Land converted
to Cropland(3.B.2.b.i), CO2,CH4 and N2O
Land (3B), CO2,CH4 and N2O

MediumMediumLow

Wetlands (3.B.4):
Flooded Land,
CO2 N2O andCH4Issues for EFDB
MediumForest Land
(3.B.1), CO2 andN2OMediumCropland (3.B.2),
CO2

Develop or elaborate guidance to
avoid incorrect implementation of thestock difference method during land
use area changes which may resultin significant mistakes in estimationof emissions (creates artefacts
especially for soils).
- 2006 IPCC Guidelines remain
unclear.
- A whole section dedicated to thisissue has been included in the2013 KP Supplement (section
2.3.3).
Clarify use of 20 year defaults in thepresence of longer time constants.
Develop or elaborate guidance on
treatment on land areas with slope in
the calculation of carbon stocks(different for soils versus biomass).
See the issue on HWP in the sixth
row in this table.

FAQ:
FAQ taking into account section 2.3.3 of
KP Supplement.

Improve user-friendliness of
guidance in relation to emissions
from deforestation.

FAQ

Develop or elaborate guidance onland conversion due to mining anddevelopment of non-renewableenergy resources to extract minerals
and fossil fuels occurs in many
countries.
Clarify how both the guidance fromthe 2006 IPCC Guidelines and theWetlands Supplement should beapplied together to develop estimates
for wetlands.

FAQ + inclusion in EFDB:
Consider potential linkage to the issue inthe fifth row (the issue relating to carbon
stock change factors) in this table.

Update EF with new research on fire,
both wildfire and prescribed burning,
on emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O
and changes in those terrestrial
pools, including burning during land
use conversions (Tables 2.4 and 2.5,
page 2.45 - 2.47 in Chapter 2 in Vol.
4 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines).
- Also add data on how to reduce
uncertainty when
updating/adding new emission
factors for wild fires andprescribed burning.
- Clarification needed on activity
data – link to the issue on
guidance on activity data in thethird row in this table.
Update values for C stock forperennial woody crops.
- Default C stock for perennial
woody crops of 63 ton C/ha

12

FAQ
FAQ (linked to the issue in the third row
in this table.)See the issue on HWP in the sixth row inthis table.

FAQ:
FAQ on joint use of Wetlands Supplementand 2006 IPCC Guidelines for creation ofnational GHG inventories.
Clarify guidance on reporting tables.
EFDB:
TSU in consultation with experts toconsider and literature and update or add
emission factors in the EFDB.
Collect and include relevant data into
EFDB.
If it is appropriate and necessary for them
to be recognized as updated or additional
default data, include them in a new
Methodology Report

EFDB:
TSU in consultation with experts to explore
literature with a view to differentiation
where necessary by species by ecological(Table 5.1, page 5.9, Chapter 5
in Vol.4 of 2006 IPCC
Guidelines) is too high, consider
revising.

MediumCropland (3.B.2),
CO2

Update values of biomass in annual
crops.
- Defaults on biomass in annual
crops not necessarily
representative.

Low

Peat Extraction
Remaining Peat
Extraction(3.B.4.a.i)

Update values of EFs for off-site
emissions associated with peat
extraction for temperate and boreal
zone.
- The default emission factor foroff-site emissions associatedwith peat extraction fortemperate and boreal zone is
not necessarily suitable forboreal conditions (Table 7.4
page 7.13 in Chapter 7 in Vol.4
of 2006 IPCC Guidelines).
- Further investigation is required
to include separate EFs fortemperate and boreal zones.
Consider describing existing
emission factor more in terms of
depth (e.g., BD and C content).

13

zone.
Collect and include relevant data into
EFDB.
If it is appropriate and necessary for them
to be recognized as updated or additional
default data, include them in a new
Methodology Report.
EFDB:
Collect and include relevant data into
EFDB by crop.
If it is appropriate and necessary for them
to be recognized as updated or additional
default data, include them in a new
Methodology Report.
EFDB:
Collect and include relevant data into
EFDB.
If it is appropriate and necessary for them
to be recognized as updated or additional
default data, include them in a new
Methodology Report.