Outcomes: BOG Emissions from Soil
IPCC Expert meeting for Technical Assessment of IPCC Inventory Guidelines:
follow-up on specified issues from the 2015 expert meetings
25-26 April 2016
Wollongong, Australia

Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

Discussion Issues• Mineral soils under Cropland: Carbon stock change factors• Mineral soils under Grassland: Carbon stock change factors• Direct N2O Emissions from Managed Soils: Evaluation of EF1 andoptions for stratification

Presentations• Cropland and Grassland carbon stock change estimation: Experience andlesson learnt in Japan (Atsushi Sato, Japan)• Alternative methods to estimate C balance in soils of Croplands andGrasslands (Anna Romanovskaya, Russia)• Estimation of C stock change in mineral soils under Cropland and/or Grasslandin the Tropics (Fahmuddin Agus, Indonesia)• Tier 1b Mineral Soil C Method (Stephen Michael Ogle, USA)
• Disaggregated Direct Soil N2O Emission Factors (Stephen Michael Ogle, USA)

Expected Outcomes• Assessment of feasibility of other potential simpler methodology for Cropland• Consideration of implications in all land-use categories if there is a methodology
change for Cropland, and applicability of the method in other land-use
categories• Consideration of data availability to update default C stock change factors formineral soils under Cropland and Grassland• Evaluation of EF1 and options for disaggregation (e.g. climate zone)

Participants• Total 16 experts• Co-facilitators: Fahmuddin Agus (Indonesia) and Maria Jose Sanz Sanchez(Spain)• Rapporteur: Douglas MacDonald (Canada)Issues

BOG conclusions

Does the issue
If YES, what kind of refinements are recommended? [e.g.
update or addition of defaults; elaboration of existing guidance;need to beaddressed in a development of new guidance] What are available sources ofnew
data/information?
Methodology
Report(s) torefine the 2006
IPCC
Guidelines?
[Yes/No]

Assessment offeasibility of other Alternative methodologies werepotential simpler presented and considered.
Modified gains-loss or hybrid gains-loss
methodology

approach. They were not more simple orless data intensive. However, they may fit
better with certain national data
Yes, alternative-This requires the development of new guidance.
availability and circumstances.
methodologies
Development would be based on methods currently being
should beused by countries or developed in the scientific literature.
This would only be considered if default explored in a-Authors should consider the comparability of the existing
factors can be developed, activity data is methodology
Tier 1 method with any alternative Tier 1 methodology.
available and the method is verified.
report.

Mineral soils
underCropland:
Carbon stockchange factors Consideration ofimplications in allland-usecategories if there
is a methodology
change, andapplicability of themethod in otherland-use
categories

The current methodology would be
retained an be an option for countries touse if it is more appropriate for theirnational circumstances.
Yes, these
Updates and addition of default factors is required.
Changes to carbon stock change factors will changes will
Factors that require exploration are the time of transition for carbon
have implications on land-use change
have implications following land-use change in different ecosystems. The use of a twocategories and also other land-use categories. for other land-use stage transition, as applied in the wetland supplement wasElaboration on the use of higher Tier methods categories.
discussed, and the use of different transition periods for different
is required and the application of different
climates and different management practices.
higher Tier methods among different land-use
Special emphasis should be placed on integrating information about
categories.
tropical land-use changes.
Guidance should be developed to provide approaches to develop
carbon stock change estimates for land-use transitions when using
different Tier 1 or higher Tier methodologies for different land-use
categories.

Issues

Mineral soils
underCropland:
Carbon stockchange factors

Consideration ofdata availability toupdate default C
stock change
factors for mineralsoils

BOG conclusions

Does the issue If YES, what kind of refinements are recommended? [e.g. updateneed to beor addition of defaults; elaboration of existing guidance;
addressed in a development of new guidance] What are available sources ofnew
data/information?
Methodology
Report(s) torefine the 2006
IPCC
Guidelines?
[Yes/No]

There is evidence that default factors in the current guidance could
be updated. In particular new defaults for tropical regions andtropical land-use change can be developed based on recentresearch. Other factors such as the tillage stock change factor also
requires revision based on recent research.. Other factors within thecurrent guidance should be reviewed in light of new research.
The elaboration required to applying the present guidance would
require clear instructions on applying increasing amounts ofinformation (activity data) on soil carbon management in the present
method. A guide to continuous improvement of the application of theTier 1 methodology (prioritization of application of management
Yes, there isfactors). For example the compiler should use at least the land-use
Currently the current methodology is not being adequtechange effects, followed by addressing management and input
used widely due to the complexity of the current evidence to take factors.
guidance. It is necessary to revise this
this to amethodology
guidance.
This should include clear guidance, as well, on how and why it isreportimportant to move to higher Tier methods.
Links should be made between spatial representation approaches
and the collection of information on soil management throughmechanisms such as expert information sureys.Issues

Assessment offeasibility of otherpotential simpler
methodology

Mineral soils
underGrassland:
Carbon stockchange factors

BOG conclusions

The same approach as proposed forcropland should be explored forgrasslands.

Consideration of
The same considerations would beimplications in allconsidered for grassland as croplandland-use categories
if there is amethodology
change, andapplicability of themethod in otherland-use categories

Does the issue need to be If YES, what kind of refinements are recommended? [e.g.
addressed in a new
update or addition of defaults; elaboration of existing
Methodology Report(s) to guidance; development of new guidance] What are
refine the 2006 IPCC
available sources of data/information?
Guidelines? [Yes/No]

This requires the development of new guidance.
Yes, this subject should be
Development would be based on methods currently
addressed in abeing used by countries or developed in the scientificmethodology report
literature.

see cropland above

see cropland above

Consideration ofdata availability to
update default C
stock change factors Grassland methodology requires thesame elaboration of guidance in its
for mineral soils

application as cropland C.

Yes, there is adequte
The majority of evidence of changes in C evidence to take this to astock changes factors is in the cropland methodology reportcategory, but new research should bereviewed to evaluate if similar changes
could be made to grassland factors.

Elaborate on guidance, a step-by-step guide to continuous
improvement of methodology.
Review C-stock change factors, in light of recent research.

Issues

Evaluation of EF1 andDirect N2O
Emissions from options fordisaggregation (e.g.
Managed Soils: climate zone)
Evaluation ofEF1 and options
for stratification

BOG conclusions

Does the issue need to be addressed If YES, what kind of refinements are recommended?
in a new Methodology Report(s) to[e.g. update or addition of defaults; elaboration ofrefine the 2006 IPCC Guidelines?
existing guidance; development of new guidance]
What are available sources of data/information?
[Yes/No]

Evidence is solid that there
can be further
disaggregation of theseemission factors. At thisYes, there is adequte evidence to takepoint it is not possible tothis to a methodology report
evaluate how far we can goin disaggregation and whatfactors could beconsidered.

The refinements recommended include the updateof defaults with new data, and the elaboration ofexisting guidance, based on further disaggregation,
specifically for climate factors. It is important tonote that the current default non-disaggregatedmethod would be retained. Further guidance andcase examples could be included for movement tohigher Tiers.

Thank you

Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories