DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Overview
Second Order Draft

5

2013 REVISEDSUPPLEMENTARY METHODSAND GOOD PRACTICEGUIDANCE ARISING FROM THE
KYOTO PROTOCOL6OVERVIEW

1
2
3
4

7

Draft KP Supplement

O.1

Overview

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

8

Authors

9
10
11

Takahiko Hiraishi (Japan), Thelma Krug (Brazil), Rizaldi Boer (Indonesia), Sergio Gonzalez (Chile), Jim
Penman (UK), Robert Sturgiss (Australia), Washington Zhakata (Zimbabwe), Kiyoto Tanabe (Japan), and Nalin
Srivastava (India)

12

Review Editors

13

William Irving (USA) and Lingxi Zhou (China)

O.2

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Overview
Second Order Draft

Contents

14

15

Overview

16

1

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 417

2

Background ..................................................................................................................................................... 5

18

3

The need to update Chapter 4 of GPG LULUCF ............................................................................................ 6

19

4

Structure and content of the KP Supplement .................................................................................................. 920

5

Policy Relevance ........................................................................................................................................... 12

21

Tables22

23
24

Table 1 Changes in the treatment of LULUCF in the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol
pursuant to Decision 2/CMP.7 ................................................................................................................ 625

Table 2 Table of Contents of the KP Supplement ........................................................................................ 10

26

Draft KP Supplement

O.3

Overview

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
27

1 INTRODUCTION

28
29
30
31
32

The 2013 Revised Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol (KP
Supplement) provides supplementary methods and good practice guidance for measuring, estimating andreporting anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and removals resulting from land use, land-use change andforestry (LULUCF) activities under Article 3.3 and Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol (KP) for the second
commitment period, 2013-2020.

33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41

The KP Supplement was requested by the Decision1 on LULUCF of the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties
Serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the KP, taken in Durban in 2011. The KP Supplement updates Chapter 4of the Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry2 (GPG-LULUCF), which provides
supplementary methods for LULUCF activities for the first commitment period, 2008-2012. The structure andwording of Chapter 4 have been maintained wherever possible. Consistent with the decision of the IPCC
Plenary3, the KP Supplement does not update Section 4.3 of GPG-LULUCF, which concerns LULUCF projects
hosted by Parties listed in Annex B of the Kyoto Protocol (Joint Implementation projects), and Afforestation or
Reforestation projects hosted by Parties not listed in Annex I of the UNFCCC (Clean Development Mechanism
projects).

42
43
44
45
46
47
48

Under the provisions of Article 7.1 of the KP, Parties include, in their annual greenhouse gas inventories andnational inventory reports, supplementary information relating to anthropogenic emissions by sources andremovals by sinks of CO2 and other greenhouse gases associated with LULUCF activities under Articles 3.3 and3.4 of the KP. 4 The activities included under Article 3.3 are Afforestation (A), Reforestation (R) andDeforestation (D) since 1990. For the second commitment period activities under Article 3.4 are Forest
Management (FM), which is mandatory, and elective activities, namely Revegetation, Cropland Management,
Grazing Land Management, and Wetland Drainage and Rewetting.5

1

Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1.

2

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2003). Penman J., Gytarsky M., Hiraishi T., Krug, T., Kruger D.,
Pipatti R., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T., Tanabe K., and Wagner F (Eds). Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, landUse Change and Forestry IPCC/IGES, Hayama, Japan.

3

Decision of the IPCC Panel at its 35th Session.

4

See Articles 3.3, 3.4, 3.7, 6 and 12 of the Kyoto Protocol (http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf) and Decisions
16/CMP.1, 18/CMP.1, 22/CMP.1 as contained in FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3, and 2/CMP.7 contained in
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1.

5

LULUCF related requirements are contained in Decision 16/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) and Decision
2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in documents FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1, and
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.13 respectively. Decision 2/CMP.6 establishes that for the second commitment period
definitions of forest, afforestation, reforestation, revegetation, forest management, cropland management and grazing land
management shall be the same as in the first commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol. The activities are defined asfollows:“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.

O.4

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Overview
Second Order Draft

49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56

The KP Supplement builds on methods and guidance provided by the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2006 IPCC Guidelines). The 2006 IPCC Guidelines were themselves prepared in
response to an invitation from the Parties to the UNFCCC, and are now agreed for use for reporting from 2015
by Annex I Parties to the UNFCCC and the KP6. The 2006 IPCC Guidelines build upon IPCC’s previously
developed Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories7 (1996 IPCC Guidelines)
which, together with the Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories 8 (GPG2000) and the GPG-LULUCF, provide the internationally agreed 9 methodologies thatcountries currently use to estimate greenhouse gas inventories to report under the UNFCCC and the KP.

57

2 BACKGROUND

58
59

The UNFCCC Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol at its
seventh session (CMP 7), held in December 2011 in Durban, South Africa, invited the IPCC to:

60
61
62
63
64

…review and, if necessary, update supplementary methodologies for estimating
anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks resulting fromland use, land-use change and forestry activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the
Kyoto Protocol, related to the annex to this decision, on the basis of, inter alia, chapter 4 of
its Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry10.

65
66
67

The Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice at its thirty-sixth session (SBSTA 36) invited the
IPCC to consider completing the work on the KP Supplement within a revised time frame, by October 2013, toallow for adoption of a decision on this matter by the CMP at its ninth session (CMP 9).

68
69
70
71
72
73

In response to the UNFCCC’s invitation, the need to update Chapter 4 was considered at the IPCC Scoping
Meeting to consider the Invitation from UNFCCC CMP 7 that took place in Geneva in May 201211. The Scoping
Meeting concluded that, whilst much of the structure and the content of Chapter 4 remains relevant and useful,
there was a need for significant updating to take account of the Decision 2/CMP.7 (LULUCF), other relevant
decisions by COP and CMP, the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, IPCC’s work on wetlands12, and other IPCC products,
and developments in the scientific literature.

74
75

The IPCC at its 35th Session decided to produce the KP Supplement by the revised target date of October 2013
and agreed Terms of Reference, a Table of Contents and a Workplan13. The Workplan envisaged completion in“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.
6

Decision 15/CP.17 contained in document FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.2 and Decision 4/CMP.7 contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1.

7

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (1997). Houghton J.T., Meira Filho L.G., Lim B., Tréanton K.,
Mamaty I., Bonduki Y., Griggs D.J. and Callander B.A. (Eds). Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Inventories. IPCC/OECD/IEA, Paris, France.

8

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2000). Penman J., Kruger D., Galbally I., Hiraishi T., Nyenzi B.,
Emmanuel S., Buendia L., Hoppaus R., Martinsen T., Meijer J., Miwa K., and Tanabe K. (Eds). Good Practice Guidanceand Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. IPCC/OECD/IEA/IGES, Hayama, Japan.

9

See the Report of the Fourth Session of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice(FCCC/SBSTA/1996/20), paragraph 30; decisions 2/CP.3 and 3/CP.5 (UNFCCC reporting guidelines for preparation ofnational communications by Parties included in Annex I to the Convention, part I: UNFCCC reporting guidelines onannual inventories), decision 18/CP.8, revising the guidelines adopted under decisions 3/CP.5, and 17/CP.8 adopting
improved guidelines for the preparation of national communications from Parties not included in Annex I to theConvention, and subsequent decisions 13/CP.9 and Draft Decision /CP.10.

10

Seeparagraph
8ofDecision(http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/cmp7/eng/10a01.pdf)

2/CMP.7

in

FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1

11

See http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/newsdoc/120611TORetc.pdf

12

IPCC TFI is also producing The 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories:
Wetlands (Wetlands Supplement) that provides methods for estimating anthropogenic emissions and removals ofgreenhouse gases from wetlands (lands that are saturated by water for all or part of the year). This work is due to becompleted in October 2013 (http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/home/wetlands.html).

13

See http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/home/2013KPSupplementaryGuidance_inv.html.

Draft KP Supplement

O.5

Overview

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
76
77
78
79
80

time for adoption and acceptance at the 37th session of the IPCC, in October 2013, in accordance with the revised
timeframe as requested by SBSTA 36. The Terms of Reference specified that the revision of Chapter 4 of the
GPG-LULUCF should be consistent with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and with decisions of the COP and CMP. It
should not revise or replace the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and maintain the structure and content of the existing
Chapter 4 of the GPG-LULUCF.

82

3 THE NEED TO UPDATE CHAPTER 4 OF GPG
LULUCF

83
84
85
86

Chapter 4 of the GPG-LULUCF provides supplementary methods and good practice guidance related to
LULUCF activities based on the general greenhouse gas inventory guidance provided in other chapters of the
GPG-LULUCF and the rules governing the treatment of LULUCF activities in the first commitment period of
KP14. The need to review and update Chapter 4 of the GPG-LULUCF arises because:

87
88

firstly, the rules for LULUCF for the second commitment period under the KP differ in some respects from therules for the first commitment period.

89
90
91

secondly, since Chapter 4 of GPG-LULUCF was intended to be used with the latest IPCC guidance on LULUCF,
updating is needed in the light of the CMP decision to use the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for the second commitment
period under the KP15.

92
93
94
95
96

The new rules for the treatment of LULUCF in the second commitment period of KP agreed by CMP 7 contain,
amongst other things, new provisions on Forest Management, emissions associated with natural disturbances inforests, harvested wood products (HWP), and Wetland Drainage and Rewetting, which are not covered in theexisting Chapter 4 of the GPG-LULUCF. Table 1 provides details of the important changes in the treatment of
LULUCF activities in the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol under Decision 2/CMP.7.

97

The changes required for KP Supplement can be classified as follows:

98
99



Changes stemming from the use of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. These include the changes needed to makethe general GHG inventory-related guidance in Chapter 4 consistent with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

100Changes pursuant to Decision 2/CMP.7. These include:

81

101

(i)

General consequential changes such as:

102oMaking reference to the “second commitment period” and updating references to CMP decisions;

103
104
105

o

Changes reflecting the mandatory nature of FM activity; inclusion of wetlands drainage andrewetting (WDR) as an elective activity under Article 3.4; and inclusion of HWP pool for mandatory
reporting.

106
107
108

(ii)

Substantive changes reflecting the revised rules governing the treatment of LULUCF in the second
commitment period of KP. These are summarized in Table 1. The changes involve adding new
guidance and updating the existing guidance including decision trees and figures.

109
TABLE 1
CHANGES IN THE TREATMENT OF LULUCF IN THE SECOND COMMITMENT PERIOD OF THE KYOTO PROTOCOL PURSUANT TODECISION 2/CMP.7
Element

2/CMP.7

16/CMP.1

Forest management
(FM)









14

FM shall be mandatorily accounted for alongwith Art. 3.3 activities and Art. 3.4 activities
elected in the first commitment period.
Accounting for FM shall be done on the basisof the reference level (FMRL) given in the
appendix to the Decision 2/CMP.7.
Annex
I
Partiesshalldemonstrate
methodological consistency between the FMRLFM is an elective activity under
Article 3.4.
Accounting of FM is to be done on
a “gross-net” basis.

Decision 16/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3.

15

Decision 4/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1.

O.6

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Overview
Second Order Draft

Accounting of
harvested wood
products (HWP)














Treatment of
naturaldisturbancesand reporting for FM during the second
commitment period, including in area
accounted for; the treatment of HWP andaccounting of any emissions from natural
disturbances.
Parties shall make technical corrections, if
necessary, to ensure consistency between
FMRL and reporting of FM in the commitment
period, including applying IPCC methods for
ensuring time-series consistency.
Technical corrections shall be applied after
adoption of the FMRL if the reported data used
to establish the reference level are subject torecalculations, to include in accounting theeffect of the recalculations.
HWP from a Party’s forest shall be accounted
for by the Party itself and imported HWP shallnot be accounted by the Party.
Accounting of HWP shall be on the basis of
instantaneous oxidation.
Notwithstanding the above, if transparent andverifiable activity data (AD) for the specified
categories is available, accounting of HWP
shall be using first-order decay (FOD) withdefault half-lives provided in the Decision
2/CMP.7 (based on GPG-LULUCF). In thecase of projected FMRL, instantaneousoxidation is not applicable.
Parties may also use country-specific half-lives(if transparent and verifiable AD is available)
or methodologies and definitions from the mostrecently adopted IPCC Guidelines if transparent
and verifiable AD is available and these are atleast as detailed and accurate as the above.
HWP resulting from deforestation, solid waste
disposal sites (where accounted separately) andwood used for energy purposes shall be
accounted for on the basis of instantaneousoxidation.
Emissions from HWP in the second
commitment period from HWP removed fromforests in the first commitment period shall also
be accounted for but excluding those alreadyaccounted for using instantaneous oxidation in
the first commitment period.
For FM, Parties can choose not to account for
HWP from forests before the second
commitment period if FMRL is based on
projections but consistency of treatment
between FMRL and the reporting of FM shallbe maintained.



HWP pool not accounted, or
equivalently assumed to beinstantaneously oxidised.

Natural disturbances are non-anthropogenic
events or non-anthropogenic circumstances.
For the purposes of this decision, these eventsor circumstances are those that causesignificant emissions in forests and are beyond
the control of, and not materially influenced by,a Party. These may include wildfires, insect anddisease infestations, extreme weather events

All emissions and subsequent
removals from natural disturbanceson (units of) lands subject to an
activity (ARD or FM) are to beaccounted for under that activity16.

16

The emissions and subsequent removals from natural disturbances are to be estimated using relevant methodologicalguidance provided in GPG LULUCF.

Draft KP Supplement

O.7

Overview

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft












Treatment ofemissions fromharvest andconversion of forest
plantations to nonforests1717

and/or geological disturbances, beyond thecontrol of, and not materially influenced by, aParty. These exclude harvesting and prescribedburning.
Parties can choose to exclude from accountingof ARD and FM (either annually or at the endof second commitment period) emissions fromnatural disturbances that in any single year
exceed the FM background-level (including
margins if any) of emissions. (In the case ofFM, this background level is to be included in
its FMRL).
Background level has to be derived without
expectation of net debits or credits including
the use of margins, if needed.
Subsequent removals from lands affected by thenatural disturbance shall also be excluded.
Partiesshallprovidecountry-specificinformation in their National Inventory Report(NIR) for 2015 on estimation of theirbackground level and how the expectation of
net credit/debit has been avoided including theuse of margins.
Parties shall account for emissions from salvage
logging and shall not exclude the emissions
from natural disturbances if followed by landuse change.
Parties shall provide transparent informationon: Identification of the lands subject to natural
disturbance (geo-referenced location, year
and types of natural disturbance);
 Estimation of annual emissions resulting
from natural disturbance.
Parties shall also provide transparent
information demonstrating: No land-use change has occurred andmethods and criteria for identifying any
future land use changes;
 Occurrences were beyond the control ofand not influenced by the Party;
 Efforts made to rehabilitate the lands;
 Inclusion of salvage logging emissions.

Parties may include in its accounting under
Article 3.4 (FM) emissions/removals fromharvest and conversion of forest plantations
provided the following conditions are met:
 The plantation was first established before
1 January 1990 or re-established after 1
January 1960 by direct human-induced
planting and/or seeding of non-forest land; A new forest of at least equivalent area andthe potential to reach equivalent C stocks inthe normal harvesting cycle as theharvested plantation at the time of harvest isestablished on a non-forested land by direct
human-induced planting and/or seeding onland that did not contain forest on 31
December 1989.



Emissions/removals from harvestand conversion of forest plantations
are to be accounted for underdeforestation (D) activity.

The Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion provisions

O.8

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Overview
Second Order Draft

Inclusion of wetland
drainage andrewetting (WDR) as
an elective activity
under Article 3.4








Other changes

A debit under Art 3.4 is generated if the
newly established forest does not reach atleast the equivalent carbon stock.
All lands and pools associated with theprovisions continue to be identified, monitored,
reported (including geo-referenced location andthe year of conversion) and accounted for underFM.

WDR was added as a new elective activity
under Art. 3.4 by Decision 2/CMP.7.
“Wetland drainage and rewetting” is a systemof practices for draining and rewetting on landwith organic soil that covers a minimum area of
1 hectare. The activity applies to all lands thathave been drained since 1990 and to all lands
that have been rewetted since 1990 and that are
not accounted for under any other activity as
defined in this annex where drainage is the
direct human-induced lowering of the soil
water table and rewetting is the direct humaninduced partial or total reversal of drainage.
Estimation methodology for WDR shall bebased on the most recently adopted IPCC
guidelines and any subsequent clarifications.
Accounting for WDR shall be done on a “netnet” basis.



WDR is not part of the elective
activities under Article 3.418.

Parties shall report and account for all
emissions from conversion of natural forests toplanted forests.

Reporting and accounting for all
emissions from conversions of
natural forests to planted forests is
to be included under FM activity.

111

4 STRUCTURE AND CONTENT OF THE KP
SUPPLEMENT

112
113
114
115
116

KP Supplement maintains the structure and general content of Chapter 4 in GPG-LULUCF. Wherever necessary
it replaces references to the GPG-LULUCF by those to 2006 IPCC Guidelines, and adds additional material toexisting sections or adds new sections where required by the new rules. It updates Chapter 4 of the GPGLULUCF to be consistent with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines but does not revise or replace the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines.

117
118

There are two chapters in the KP Supplement corresponding to the first two main sections of Chapter 4 of the
GPG-LULUCF:

119
120
121
122

Chapter 1: Introduction

110This chapter deals with overview of steps to estimate and report supplementary information for Article 3.3 and3.4 activities; general rules for categorisation of lands under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 activities; and relationshipbetween Annex I national inventories and Article 6 projects. Updates include:

123
124
125

(i)

Changes to steps for reporting supplementary information and the general rules for categorisationof lands under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 lands including the reporting hierarchy of activities, due to FM
being made a mandatory activity and inclusion of WDR as an elective activity under Article 3.4;

126

(ii)

Updating all decision trees and figures to reflect Decision 2/CMP.7.

127
128

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, measurement, monitoring and reporting of
LULUCF activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4

18

Wetlands subject to drainage and rewetting since 1990 could potentially be included in any other Article 3.3 or 3.4 activity
under the rules in the first commitment period (see Sections 1.1, 1.2 and 2.12).

Draft KP Supplement

O.9

Overview

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
129
130
131
132
133

This chapter includes generic and activity-specific methodological guidance on area identification, stratification
and reporting; and estimation of carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions and removals. Some new sections
have been added and the existing guidance in Chapter 4 of GPG LULUCF has been extensively revised andexpanded to reflect the changes stemming from Decision 2/CMP.7 and the use of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
Main changes include:

134
135
136

(i)

Revision of the section on “Disturbances” (Section 2.3.9; Section 4.2.3.6 in Chapter 4 of GPGLULUCF) in the light of the new rules regarding the treatment of emissions from natural
disturbances in ARD and FM lands;

137
138

(ii)

Addition of new sections on Forest Management Reference Levels (FMRL) (Section 2.7.5),
Technical Corrections (Section 2.7.6) and Carbon Equivalent Forests (Section 2.7.7);

139

(iii)

Addition of a new section on Harvested Wood Products (HWP) (Section 2.8);

140

(iv)

Addition of a new section on Wetland Drainage and Rewetting (WDR) (Section 2.12).

141

Table 2 shows the Table of Contents of the KP Supplement. The new sections are shown by an asterisk (*).

142
TABLE 2TABLE OF CONTENTS OF THE KP SUPPLEMENT
ChapterContents

Chapter1:
Introduction

1.1 Introduction
1.2 Overview of steps to estimating and reporting supplementary information for activities
under Articles 3.3, 3.4 and 6
1.2 General rules for categorisation of land areas under Articles 3.3 and 3.4
1.3 Relationship between Annex I Parties’ national inventories and Article 6 LULUCF projects

Chapter 2: Methods
for estimation,measurement,
monitoring andreporting of
LULUCF activities
under Articles 3.3
and 3.4

2.1
Relationship between UNFCCC land-use categories and Kyoto Protocol (Articles 3.3
and 3.4) land-use categories
2.2
Generic methodologies for area identification, stratification and reporting
2.2.1
Reporting requirements
2.2.2
Reporting Methods for Lands subject to Article 3.3 and Article 3.4
activities
2.2.3
Reporting Methods for Lands subject to Additional Accounting Provisions
for CP2 and beyond*
2.2.4
Relationship between Approaches in Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines and Reporting methods in Section 2.2.2
2.2.5
Choice of Reporting Method
2.2.6
How to identify lands in general
2.3
Generic Methodological Issues for Estimating Carbon Stock Changes and Non-CO2
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
2.3.1
Pools to be reported
2.3.2
Years for which to estimate carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhousegas emissions
2.3.3
Correct implementation of C stock change estimation methods when areas
are changing*
2.3.4
Relationship between measurement and reporting intervals
2.3.5
Interannual Variability*
2.3.6
Choice of method
2.3.7
Factoring out indirect, natural and pre-1990 effects
2.3.8
Reference Levels*
2.3.9
Disturbances
2.4
Other generic methodological issues
2.4.1
Developing a consistent time series
2.4.2
Recalculation of Time Series*
2.4.3
Uncertainty assessment
2.4.4
Reporting and documentation
2.4.5
Quality assurance and quality control

O.10

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Overview
Second Order Draft

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

2.10

2.11

2.12

Draft KP Supplement

2.4.6
Verification
Afforestation and Reforestation
2.5.1
Definitional issues and reporting requirements
2.5.2
Choice of methods for identifying units of land subject to direct humaninduced Afforestation/ Reforestation
2.5.3
Choice of methods for estimating carbon stock changes and non-CO2
emissionsDeforestation
2.6.1
Definitional issues and reporting requirements
2.6.2
Choice of methods for identifying units of land subject to direct humaninduced Deforestation
2.6.3
Choice of methods for estimating carbon stock changes and non-CO2
emissions
Forest Management
2.7.1
Definitional issues and reporting requirements
2.7.2
Choice of methods for identifying lands subject to Forest Management
2.7.3
Choice of methods for estimating carbon stock changes and non-CO2
emissions
2.7.4
Methods to address natural disturbance*
2.7.5
Forest Management Reference Levels*
2.7.6
Technical Corrections for accounting purposes*
2.7.7
Carbon Equivalent Forests*
Harvested Wood Products (HWP)*
2.8.1
Initial steps to estimate HWP contribution*
2.8.2
Tier 1: “Instantaneous oxidation”*
2.8.3
Tier 2: First order decay*
2.8.4
Tier 3: Country-specific methods*
2.8.5
Consideration of the HWP pool in FMRLs*
2.8.6
Uncertainty assessment*
2.8.7
Quality assurance/Quality control*
Cropland Management
2.9.1
Definitional issues and reporting requirements
2.9.2
Base year
2.9.3
Choice of methods for identifying lands subject to Cropland Management
activities
2.9.4
Choice of methods for estimating carbon stock changes and non-CO2
greenhouse gas emissions
Grazing land management
2.10.1 Definitional issues and reporting requirements
2.10.2 Base year
2.10.3 Choice of methods for identifying lands subjected to Grazing Land
Management
2.10.4 Choice of methods for estimating carbon stock changes and non-CO2
greenhouse gas emissions
Revegetation
2.11.1 Definitional issues and reporting requirements
2.11.2 Base year
2.11.3 Choice of methods for identifying lands
2.11.4 Choice of methods for estimating carbon stock changes and non-CO2
greenhouse gas emissions
Wetland drainage and rewetting*
2.12.1 Definitional issues and reporting requirements*
2.12.2 Choice of methods for identifying lands*
2.12.3 Choice of methods for estimating greenhouse gas emissions and removals*

O.11

Overview

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft*New sections added to the KP Supplement.

143

5 POLICY RELEVANCE

144
145

For Kyoto Protocol reporting, KP Supplement aims to provide policy-neutral scientific operationalization of theagreement set out in Decision 2/CMP.7. On some specific points, the KP Supplement:

146
147
148
149
150



Provides guidance on estimating and reporting anthropogenic emissions and removals. It does not deal withaccounting, which covers the rules by which the UNFCCC uses reported information to assess how Partiesare complying with commitments, except in so far as accounting rules need to be reflected in guidance onemissions and removals estimation and reporting. The Supplement aims to be consistent with Decisions of
the CMP but not to extend them. The word shall is therefore only used when Decisions are quoted directly.

151
152
153
154
155



Combines the concepts of units of land and land. Chapter 4 of the GPG-LULUCF uses the former in thecontext of Art 3.3 activities and the latter in the context of Art 3.4. This reflects the usage in Decisions
15/CMP.1 and 16/CMP1, but the methodological treatment of land identification in Chapter 4 of the GPGLULUCF is the same in both cases, so uniting the concepts simplifies the text and avoids the impression that
Parties need to treat the cases differently, which would increase costs.

156
157
158
159
160
161
162



Recognises that whilst the definition of forest adopted by 16/CMP.1 and taken over by 2/CMP.7 for thesecond commitment period, is based on area, tree height and canopy cover thresholds, in implementing thisdefinition many countries, consistent with information that they report to FAO, do not count as forested,
land which meets these definitions but is predominantly under agricultural or urban land use. The KP
Supplement provides guidance in the case that a pure threshold definition is applied, and also in the case that
predominant land use is taken into account. This guidance is to ensure transparency in the criteria adopted
for land identification, consistency in their application, and consistency with categories reported previously.

163
164
165
166



Also on definitions, the KP Supplement continues to use the date of 31 December 1989 in the definition of
Reforestation for the second commitment period, but recognises there are continuing discussions on thisquestion. The methodologies are flexible enough to accommodate possible outcomes of discussions on thisquestion.

167
168
169
170



Clarifies the guidance on hierarchies between Art 3.3 and 3.4 activities, but maintains the prioritisation in
the ordering of Deforestation under Art 3.3. This has the consequence (revealed by secondary classification)that Deforestation land can contain trees, if it has been subsequently reforested. The approach showstransparently the sequences that have occurred.

171
172
173
174



On the disturbance provisions, provides guidance that all emissions and removals on land affected would
need to be removed from accounting unless there is land-use change or salvage logging. This is consistent
with Decision 2/CMP.7 and reflects the difficulty in practice of separating on any particular land theemissions and removals due to a disturbance from other emissions and removals.

175
176
177



Avoids making judgements about rules beyond the second commitment period, for example concerning land
use change occurring after the end of the second commitment period on land to which natural disturbanceprovisions were applied, and hence emissions excluded, during the second commitment period.

178

O.12

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 1 Introduction
Second Order Draft

179

CHAPTER 1

180
181
182
183
184

INTRODUCTION

185
186
187
188

Coordinating Lead Authors

189

Werner A Kurz (Canada) and Chengyi Zhang (China)

190

Lead Authors

191
192
193
194

Bofeng Cai (China), Hilton Thadeu Zarate Couto (Brazil), Hongmin Dong (China),
Sandro Federici (San Marino), Savitri Garivait (Thailand), Rehab Hassan (Sudan), Rodel Lasco (Philippines),
Phillip O'Brien (Ireland), Caroline Roelandt (Norway), Maria Jose Sanz Sanchez (Spain),
Fabian Wagner (IIASA) and Jianhua Zhu (China)

195

Review Editors

196

Robert William Matthews (UK) and Adriano Santhiago de Oliveira (Brazil)

197

Draft KP Supplement

1.1Chapter 1 Introduction

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

Contents

198

199

1.1

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 3

200
201

1.2
Overview of steps to estimating and reporting supplementary information for activities under Articles
3.3 and 3.4 ........................................................................................................................................................... 5

202

1.3

General rules for categorisation of land areas under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 ........................................... 11

203

1.4

Relationship between Annex I Parties’ national inventories and Article 6 LULUCF projects............ 20

204

Figures

205

206

Figure 1.1

Flowchart of the activities outlined in this chapter............................................................................ 6

207
208
209

Figure 1.2 Decision tree for classifying land in the reporting year under Article 3.3 (A/R, D), FM, anotherelected Article 3.4 activity (CM, GM, RV and WDR), or not at all (“other”). Secondary classifications are notshown in the Figure. .............................................................................................................................................. 12

210

211

Tables212

Table 1.1 Summary of the LULUCF activities under the Kyoto Protocol and the associated accounting rules ... 10

213

214

Boxes

215
216

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 ............................................................................................................................................................... 16

217
218

1.2

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 1 Introduction
Second Order Draft

219

1.1

220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232

This document describes the supplementary methods and good practice guidance for measuring, estimating andreporting of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and removals resulting from land use, land-use
change and forestry (LULUCF) activities covered by the Kyoto Protocol (KP) for the second commitment period.
The document addresses activities under Article 3.3, Forest Management and elected activities under Article 3.4.
The supplementary methods and good practice guidance of this document apply to each Party included in Annex
I that have ratified the KP for the second commitment period. This document does not deal with accounting,which covers the rules by which the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) uses
reported information to assess how Parties are complying with commitments, except where accounting rules
need to be reflected in guidance on emissions estimation and reporting. This document also 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 KP (Article 12, Clean
Development Mechanism or CDM projects), which are addressed in Section 4.3 of the Good Practice Guidance
for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (GPG-LULUCF).

233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245

Under the KP, Parties are to report emissions by sources and removals by sinks of CO2 and other specified
greenhouse gases resulting from LULUCF activities. These include activities for which reporting is mandatory
under Article 3.3, i.e. Afforestation (A), Reforestation (R) and Deforestation (D) that occurred since 1990; andunder Article 3.4, Forest Management (FM), and any human-induced activities elected by the Party. These can
include: Cropland Management (CM), Grazing land Management (GM), Revegetation (RV), and Wetland
Drainage and Rewetting (WDR).1 To ensure compliance with emission-limitation and reduction commitmentsin the commitment period, Parties are required to provide in addition to the annual National Inventory Reports(NIR) using Common Reporting Format (CRF) tables to report greenhouse gas emissions by sources andremovals by sinks, supplementary information related to LULUCF under the provisions of the KP2. 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.
Although the rules under the KP require annual reporting, they allow for accounting either annually or over theentire commitment period.

246
247

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

1

INTRODUCTION

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 on 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 lowering 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 Decisions
16/CMP.1, 15/CP.17, 4/CMP.7, 2/CMP.7, and 2/CMP.8.

Draft KP Supplement

1.3Chapter 1 Introduction

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
248
249

Chapter 4 (except Section 4.3 on projects) of the GPG-LULUCF. The structure and general content of Chapter 4of the GPG-LULUCF have been maintained wherever possible for reasons of consistency.

250
251
252
253

By definition good practice GHG inventories are those which contain neither over- nor underestimates so far as
can be judged, and in which uncertainties are reduced, so far as is practicable. When we write “it is goodpractice to...” we mean that the guidance that follows contributes to producing GHG inventories consistent withgood practice.

254

Relationship between UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol reporting:

255
256
257
258
259
260

The information to be reported under the KP is supplementary to the information reported under the UNFCCC.
A Party included in Annex I does not need to submit two separate annual inventories but should provide
supplementary information under the KP, within the inventory report.3 Each Party included in Annex I to theConvention which is also a Party to the KP will be subject to the review of submitted information in accordancewith relevant decisions under Article 8 of the KP.

261
262
263
264
265

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. In practice, it
is possible to start with the UNFCCC inventory (with the additional spatial information required for KP
reporting) and expand it to the KP inventory, or it is possible to use a national system that generates theinformation for both UNFCCC and KP reporting.

266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273

For example when a Party that has elected Cropland Management under Article 3.4 prepares its UNFCCC
inventory for croplands, it is efficient to use the same geographical boundaries for stratification (Section 2.2.2).
When preparing the supplementary information to be reported under the KP, 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, with the
exception of those lands that have been cleared under the provision of Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion(CECF) 4 which should be reported under FM. All remaining croplands will be reported under CroplandManagement (Article 3.4).

274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282

This document covers supplementary estimation and inventory reporting requirements needed for accounting
under the KP in the second commitment period. Estimation refers to the way in which inventory estimates arecalculated, reporting refers to the presentation of estimates in the tables or other standard formats used totransmit inventory information, and accounting refers to the way the reported information is used to assess
compliance with commitments under the KP. This document does not address the implementation of accounting
rules as agreed in relevant decisions5 of the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties (CMP)of the KP (such as caps, annual vs. commitment period accounting and other specific provisions related toaccounting). Accounting is a policy matter that is not included in the UNFCCC request to the IPCC to prepare
guidance documents.

283
284
285
286
287

In this supplement the terms units of land and land are combined. Chapter 4 of the GPG-LULUCF uses theformer in the context of Article 3.3 activities and the latter in the context of Article 3.4. This reflects the usage in
Decisions 15/CMP.1 and 16/CMP1, but the methodological treatment of land identification in Chapter 4 of the
GPG-LULUCF was the same in both cases, so uniting the concepts simplifies the text and avoids the impressionthat Parties need to treat the cases differently, which is not required and would increase costs.

288
289
290
291

This document uses the terms “mandatory” and “elective”. Mandatory refers to activities defined under Article
3.3, namely A/R, and D, as wells as FM and those 3.4 activities that were elected by a country in the previous
commitment period. Elective refers to those 3.4 activities that can be elected by a country for the commitment
period, namely for the second commitment period CM, GM, RV and WDR.

292
293

Parties should harmonize UNFCCC and KP reporting in order to increase transparency, accuracy andconsistency and to reduce costs. For the second commitment period Parties are required to use the same

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

See decision 2/CMP.7, paragraphs 37 – 39.

5

CMP decisions relevant for LULUCF accounting for the second commitment period: decision 2/CMP.6, decision
2/CMP.7,…

1.4

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 1 Introduction
Second Order Draft
6

294
295
296
297
298
299
300

definition of forest that they selected for the first commitment period . It is good practice to apply the sameforest definition for both UNFCCC and KP reporting. Under the KP Parties are requested to apply a forest
definition, within the thresholds of the forest parameters defined by the KP, that is consistent with that used tosubmit historical information to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and otherinternational bodies, including the UNFCCC. Where the definitions differ for KP reporting and other reporting,Parties shall provide an explanation of why and how such values were chosen, in accordance with decisions
16/CMP.1 and 2/CMP.7.

301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308

Estimation and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and removals from activities defined under Article 3.3 andArticle 3.4 is in accordance with Decision 2/CMP.8 on “Implications of the implementation of decisions
2/CMP.7 to 5/CMP.7 on the previous decisions on methodological issues related to the KP, including thoserelating to Articles 5, 7 and 8 of the KP”, and should be consistent with methods set out in volumes 1 and 4 ofthe 2006 IPCC Guidelines and in the 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories: Wetlands (Wetlands Supplement)7, any future elaboration of those guidelines, or parts of them,in accordance with relevant decisions of the Conference of the Parties and the CMP. It is good practice that for
KP estimation and reporting, methods be applied at the same or higher tier as used for UNFCCC reporting.

309
310

1.2

311
312
313

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

314
315
316
317

This section gives an overview of the steps required to measure, estimate and report carbon stock changes andemissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases for LULUCF activities covered by Articles 3.3, 3.4 and 6 of the KP.
This overview is summarized as a flowchart in Figure 1.1. Detailed methods and good practice guidance foreach individual activity are provided in subsequent Chapters and Sections of this document.

318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326

S TEP 1:
D ef in it io ns an d pa ra met er va lu es of for es ts, an d h ie rar chic a l o rd er ofe l e ct ed A rt i c l e 3 . 4 a ct iv it i es .
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 definition of Article 3.4 activities
to their national circumstances as was done in a previous commitment period. Parties decide and report which, ifany, activities under Article 3.4 they elect. It is good practice that Parties document, for each elected activity andfor Forest Management, how the definitions will be applied to national circumstances. It is good practice tochoose criteria on how to apply definitions in such a way as to avoid overlap and to be consistent with theguidance provided in the decision tree in Figure 1.2 in Section 1.3.

327
328

STEP 1.1:
Decide the numerical values of parameters to define “forest” for AR and D activities under
Article 3.3 and for FM activity under Article 3.4, if applicable.8329

6Paragraph 1(f) of annex I to decision 2/CMP.8.

7

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

According to decision 16/CMP.1, paragraph 1(f), “forest” is a minimum area of land of 0.05 – 1.0 hectares with tree crowncover at maturity in situ (or equivalent stocking level) of more than 10 – 30 per cent with trees with the potential to reach aminimum height of 2 – 5 metres at maturity in situ. A forest may consist either of closed forest formations where trees ofvarious storeys and undergrowth cover a high proportion of the ground, or open forest. Young natural stands and allplantations 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 are temporarily unstocked as a result of humanintervention such as harvesting or natural causes but which are expected to revert to forest.

Draft KP Supplement

1.5Chapter 1 Introduction

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
330

Figure 1.1

Flowchart of the activities outlined in this chapter

331
Forest (Minimum of: area (ha), crown cover density & tree height at maturity,
width (m))

STEP 1Natural & Planted forest

Definitions, parameter values
Of forests, andhierarchical order ofelected Article 3.4 activities

Natural disturbances (type & background level for AR and FM activities)

Hierarchy among elected Article 3.4 activities

Level 1: Stratify the country into areas subject to the 6Land-use categories, and associated subcategories, as
defined in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines
Level 2: stratify the land-use categories into areas ofLand subject to mandatory or elected activities or not
subject to any activity

Stratification
Level 3: Stratify the area subject to activities into areasof mineral soils and organic soils

STEP 2
Level 4: Stratify organic soils into areas subject todrainage, or to rewetting or neither drainage nor rewetting

Land identification for
mandatory and elected activities
under Article 3.4
Compilation
Identification
and areaesstimation oflands

Compilation of land-use and land-cover information in1990 for the mandatory and elected activities.
Subject to mandatory activities (AR, D and FM)
Elected activites (CM, GM, RV and/or WDR)
Lands subject to Article 6 projet activities

STEP 3
Estimate GHG emissions and removals on identified lands

332
333

1.6

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 1 Introduction
Second Order Draft

334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342

Parties that have already selected the parameters of the forest definition in the first commitment period should
apply this definition consistently in the second and subsequent commitment periods. Parties that have not yet
done so need to select the parameters that define forest, i.e., the minimum area (0.05 – 1 ha), the minimum crowndensity 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 theseparameter thresholds at maturity. The numerical values selected for those parameters cannot be changed during or
between commitment periods. Each Party has to demonstrate in its reporting that selected values are consistent with
the information that has historically been reported to the FAO or other international bodies, including the UNFCCC,
and if they differ, explain how and why differing values were chosen.

343
344

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 land subject to AR, D and FM activities, as explained in Section 2.2.6.

345
346
347
348
349
350
351

In applying the 16/CMP.1 definition of forest during the first commitment period, some countries excluded
certain types of land e.g. fruit orchards, grazed savannas, urban trees, and some types of plantations, andincluded these in non-forest land-use categories (i.e., Cropland, Grassland, Settlement), even if the land inquestion would otherwise meet the thresholds for forest. This practice has been accepted during the UNFCCC
review process. Recognizing that the forest definition is threshold based, in order to achieve consistency withestablished practice during the first commitment period, countries can continue to report taking account ofpredominant land use, as reviewed under the provisions of the KP.

352

In cases where countries apply these exclusions, it is good practice:

353
354
355



To document the rationale of criteria used to exclude from forested land areas which would otherwise meet
the thresholds for forest (e.g., consistency with national forest inventories, with reporting to FAO, etc.), andhow these criteria are applied consistently across space and time;356

To document how the consistency is achieved with categories reported previously; and

357
358



To report the extent of the area which would otherwise meet the threshold for forest, but is excluded fromforested land.

359
360
361

Countries that chose to classify land that would otherwise meet the definition of forest as a non-forest land-use
category, and this land is reported under an elected Article 3.4 activity, still have to report, and account, loss ofcarbon associated with removal of tree cover below the forest threshold.

362
363
364
365

STEP 1.2:
Define natural forest and planted forest. It is good practice that Parties, according to theirnational circumstances (a) provide their definition of natural forest and planted forest (which include forest
plantation as defined in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, (b) define when a transition from natural forest to planted forest
occurs; and (c) apply these definitions consistently throughout the commitment periods.

366
367
368

STEP 1.3:
If applicable, consistent with Section 2.3.9 (Disturbances), define, for AR and FM activities,
natural disturbances in terms of type, and calculate background level of emissions associated with disturbances
and a margin, where a margin is needed.

369
370

STEP 1.4:
A hierarchy among reported activities is useful to create a framework for consistent attribution.
The CMP decisions define 3 rules that create this framework.

371



Article 3.3 activities are mandatory and take precedence over 3.4 activities;

372
373



Once land has been reported and accounted under the KP it should remain so and the hierarchy needs torecognise this; and374

Double counting should be avoided.

375
376
377

In addition to the framework established by the CMP decisions it is good practice to establish a hierarchy among
elected Article 3.4 activities: CM, GM, and/or RV. It is also good practice to apply the same hierarchy among
elected activities under Article 3.4 across commitment periods.

378

Thus the overall hierarchy among mandatory and elected activities is established as follows:

379
380
381
382



Land subject to D activities takes precedence in the reporting hierarchy over land subject to AR activities.
Land that was reported under Deforestation to non-forest land, on which subsequent regrowth of forests
occurs continues to be reported under Article 3.3 (Deforestation) and it is good practice to report it as a
subcategory to indicate that this previously deforested land can be acting as a carbon sink.

383

AR and D activities take precedence in the reporting hierarchy over FM activities.

384
385



AR, D and FM activities take precedence in the reporting hierarchy over any other elected Article 3.4
activity, because they are mandatory activities.

Draft KP Supplement

1.7Chapter 1 Introduction

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
386



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

387

Parties elect the reporting hierarchy among elected activities of CM, GM and RV.

388
389
390



Since Wetland Drainage and Rewetting is limited to lands that are not accounted for under any otheractivity 9 , lands not already included in any of the above reporting categories, on which drainage andrewetting of peatlands take place are reported under WDR, if elected by the Party.

391

In addition to these general guidelines, decision 2/CMP.7 also provides for the following circumstances:

392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402



Land subject to direct human-induced conversion from forest to non-forest is reported under Deforestation(Article 3.3) unless a Party chooses to use the provision for Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion (seeSection 2.7.7) and keeps reporting under FM the emissions and removals associated with the harvest andconversion to non-forest land of forest plantations. 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 newforest of at least equivalent area as the harvested forest plantation is established through direct humaninduced planting and/or seeding of non-forested land that did not contain forest on 31 December 198910. 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, the harvested land and the
newly established plantation as subdivisions of land subject to FM (see section General and paragraphs 37 to
39 of the Annex to decision 2/CMP.7);

403
404
405



Land afforested or reforested, is reported under AR (Article 3.3) unless this land is used to compensate theharvest of forest plantations and conversion to non-forest land, in which case it is reported under FM as
explained in the previous paragraph (see Section 2.7.7).

406
407
408
409
410
411

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 consistently the specified hierarchy to determine under which activity the land is to be reported. For
example, if land could fall into both CM and RV (such as for new orchards), then it is good practice to reportover time that land under one and only one activity according to the established hierarchy.

412
413
414
415
416

Agricultural land use at times rotates between cropland and grassland associated with grazing. 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 and grassland use, a Party may report allland subject to CM and GM under a single activity11, either CM or GM. Where a Party has elected either CM or
GM (Article 3.4), it is good practice to keep reporting the land subject to rotation under the elected activity.

417
418
419
420
421

S T EP 2:
Land i d ent i f icat ion for ma nda tory a nd e l e ct ed a ct iv it i es un der A rt ic l e 3 .4
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 will be estimated). This step builds on the approaches
described in Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

422
423
424
425

STEP 2.1:
Stratify the country into areas of land for which the geographic boundaries will be reported, as
well as the areas of land subject to Article 3.3 and the areas of land subject to Article 3.4 within these geographic
boundaries (see Section 2.2). This step can be omitted if Reporting Method 2 (see Section 2.2.2) is used.
Stratification of the country should occur at the following four levels:

426
427



Level 1: stratify the country into areas subject to the six land-use categories, and associated subcategories, as
defined in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines;

428
429



Level 2: stratify the land‐use categories into areas of land subject to mandatory or elected activities or
not subject to any activity (e.g., unmanaged lands);430

Level 3: stratify the area subject to activities into areas of mineral soils and organic soils;

431
432



Level 4: where such activities do occur, stratify areas with organic soils into areas subject to drainage orrewetting.

9

See definition of WDR of decision 2/CMP.7, para (1b)10

The area planted 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)

11

Reporting requirements and accounting rules for CM and GM are identical

1.8

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 1 Introduction
Second Order Draft

433
434

STEP 2.2:
Compile land-use and land-cover information for 31 December 1989 for the mandatory andelected activities.

435
436
437
438
439

Using the selected definitions of forest determine forest and non-forest areas on 31 December 1989 and update
the dataset in subsequent time periods. This can be accomplished with a map that identifies all areas considered
forest or with statistical data derived from a national land survey as time-series of a national forest inventory. All
forest-related land-use change activities since 1 January 1990 can then be determined with reference to either
those maps or statistical sets of data (see Section 2.2.2).

440
441
442

STEP 2.3:
Identify lands that, since 1 January 1990, are subject to mandatory and elected activities, andestimate the total area of these lands within each geographic boundary. Under Reporting Method 2 (Section 2.2.2)
the estimation of land areas will be carried out individually for each land.

443

STEP 2.3.1:

444
445
446

Identify lands that, since 1 January 1990, are subject to activities that are mandatory for reporting (AR, D andFM), and estimate the total area of these lands within each geographic boundary. Under Reporting Method 2(Section 2.2.2) the estimation of land areas will be carried out individually for each land.

447
448
449
450
451
452

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
undertaken since 1990, such as fire suppression, harvesting or thinning (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 2.7.1).12

453
454
455
456

Parties are required13 to estimate and report the area of lands that have been subject to AR and D and the area oflands subject to FM within the boundaries mentioned in STEP 2 above (for details see Sections 2.2.2, 2.5 and 2.6).
Furthermore, each Party is required to estimate and report areas of lands that fall into categories defined by decision
2/CMP.7: It is therefore good practice to identify and report, for each year in the commitment period:457



lands with natural forests that have been converted to planted forests;

458
459



those lands affected by natural disturbances in the commitment period for which Parties chose to exclude
from the accounting emissions and subsequent removals;14; and

460
461
462



where Parties chose to implement and meet the provision of the Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion, landsof forest plantation which have been converted to non-forest land as well as those lands that have been
converted to forest to compensate for harvesting of forest plantation.

Mandatory activities (AR, D and FM)

463
464

STEP 2.3.2:

Elected activities (CM, GM, RV, and/or WDR)

465
466
467

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

468
469
470
471

For CM, GM, or RV, as is discussed in more depth in Sections 2.9 –2.11, each Party identifies the land area
subject to the activity in each inventory year of the commitment period as well as in 1990 (or the applicable baseyear), because associated greenhouse gas emissions and removals in the base year have to be used in theaccounting.

472
473
474
475
476
477
478

For WDR, each Party identifies the land area subject to either drainage or rewetting in each inventory year of thecommitment period as well as in 1990 (or the applicable base year), because associated greenhouse gas
emissions and removals in the base year are used in the accounting. A country could interpret the definition of
WDR in terms of specified practices undertaken since 1990 (narrow interpretation). Alternatively, a country
could interpret the definition of WDR in terms of a broad classification 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). (For details see Sections 2.12.1).
12

Possible issues related to unbalanced accounting resulting from selective inclusion of Forest Management andRevegetation 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.

13

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

14

An issue that could arise for the third CP is that if the disturbance occurs near the end of the second CP (and emissions are
not accounted) and LUC then occurs early in the third CP, the accounting of the disturbance emissions needs to be decided?

Draft KP Supplement

1.9Chapter 1 Introduction

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
479

STEP 2.3.3:

Lands subject to Article 6 project activities

480
481
482
483
484

Some lands subject to Article 3.3 or Article 3.4 activities can also be projects under Article 6 of the KP. These
have to be reported under Article 3.3 or Article 3.4. In addition, these lands need to be delineated and thegreenhouse 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, andprojects under Article 6, is discussed in Section 1.4.

485
486
487
488

S TEP 3: Est ima te g r ee nhou se gas e m is sion s a nd remova ls o n lan ds id ent if ied un de r
Step 2 a bove.

489
490
491

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

492
493

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 (including the applicable base year), whichever comes later.

494
495
496
497

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

498
TABLE 1.1
SUMMARY OF THE LULUCF ACTIVITIES UNDER THE KYOTO PROTOCOL AND THE ASSOCIATED
ACCOUNTING RULES

Activities

BenchmarkCap on Credits15

Afforestation, Reforestation (Article 3.3)

Zero

No

Deforestation (Article 3.3)

Zero

No

Forest Management (Article 3.4)

Business-As-Usual scenario,
Zero, orBase YearYes

All other activities under Article 3.4

Base Year

No

499
500

15

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

1.10

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 1 Introduction
Second Order Draft

502

GENERAL RULES FOR CATEGORISATION OF
LAND AREAS UNDER ARTICLES 3.3 AND 3.4

503
504
505
506
507

Chapter 3 (Consistent representation of lands) of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines describes approaches to classifying
and representing land areas associated with Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) activities. Thisis the basis for the good practice guidance in this Supplementary Guidance to the GPG-LULUCF for identifying
all relevant lands, for KP reporting and for avoiding double counting of lands. It is good practice to follow thedecision tree in Figure 1.2 for each reporting year of the commitment period in order to:

508
509
510
511



Distinguish between Afforestation/Reforestation and Deforestation activities under Article 3.3, and Forest
Management, Cropland Management, Grazing land Management, Revegetation, and Wetland Drainage andRewetting activities under Article 3.4, as well as to remove potential overlaps and gaps between them; and
to

512
513
514
515
516



Assign lands, where activities occurred, to a single activity at any given point in time (i.e., for the base year
and each year of the second commitment period from 2013 onwards). This is required because of thepossible changes in land use or activity which can lead to double counting of lands subject to mandatory andelective activities. Guidance on how to deal with shifts in land use over time is exemplified in Box 1.1 at theend of this section.

517
518
519
520
521
522
523

The decision tree in Figure 1.2 is based on the definitions given in Decision 16/CMP.1 and in the annex to
2/CMP.7. It identifies a single activity for a given year X of the commitment period under which the land should
be reported. The decision tree recognises that a given piece of land could be reported under different activities
over time, subject to certain conditions explained below. The decision tree is to be applied annually during thecommitment period in order to update the allocation of lands to activities, thus taking into account shifts in land
use that may have occurred. This may be achieved by annual tracking of land or by interpolation of two different
periods.

524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532

There are two main branches in the decision tree in Figure 1.2. If land is covered by trees in the reporting year,
then the questions in the “centre” branch should be answered to determine whether the land was subject toactivities under Article 3.3 or FM. If land is not covered by trees in the reporting year, then the questions in the“left” branch should be answered to determine whether the land was subject to Deforestation at any time since 1st
January 1990, or subject to any other activities which could be classified as Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities. This isrequired to fulfil the reporting needs stated in decision 16/CMP.1 and in the annex to 2/CMP.7, and todemonstrate that there is no double counting, which could occur if full enumeration was not applied. Moredetailed decision trees and examples to determine whether or not land is subject to specific activities under
Articles 3.3 and 3.4 are presented in Sections 2.5 through 2.12.

533
534
535
536
537
538

For land that is subject to an Article 3.4 activity, it is necessary to know whether it was subject to any othermandatory or elected activity in the previous year. If the land was subject to a mandatory activity it should be
kept under that activity, otherwise it is good practice to assign it to the elected activity that is higher in thehierarchical order, using the hierarchy established in Step 1.4 above. Similarly, if land is subject to more thanone Article 3.4 activity, it is good practice to assign it to the elected activity that is higher in the hierarchicalorder.

501

1.3

539

Draft KP Supplement

1.11

Chapter 1 Introduction

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
540
541
542

Figure 1.2

Decision tree for classifying land in the reporting year under Article 3.3(A/R, D), FM, another elected Article 3.4 activity (CM, GM, RV and WDR),
or not at all (“other”). Secondary classifications are not shown in the Figure.

543

544
545

1.

“Other” can include managed and unmanaged lands not reported under mandatory or elected under elected activities.

546
547

2.

Can only be reported as FM if the land has been harvested as part of CEFC and if all other conditions of the CEFC
provision are also met.

548
549
550

3.

If land was reported under an elected Art. 3.4 activity in the previous reporting year, it is good practice to continue
reporting it in the same category to assure consistency, unless the new activity is higher in hierarchy of elected 3.4
activities.

1.12

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 1 Introduction
Second Order Draft

551

The definitions in the annex of Decision 2/CMP.7 specify that

552
553
554
555



556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567

A Party included in Annex I may include in its accounting of forest management under Article 3, paragraph
4, anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks resulting from the harvest andconversion of forest plantations, accounted for under forest management, to non-forest land, provided that
all of the requirements below are met:(a) The forest plantation was first established through direct human-induced planting and/or seeding of
non-forest land before 1 January 1990, and, if the forest plantation was re-established, that this last
occurred on forest land through direct human-induced planting and/or seeding after 1 January 1960;(b) 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
1989;(c) This newly established forest will reach at least the equivalent carbon stock that was contained in theharvested forest plantation at the time of harvest, within the normal harvesting cycle of the harvested forest
plantation, and, if not, a debit would be generated under Article 3, paragraph 4.

The implications of the Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion discussed in the previous paragraph are further
elaborated in Section 2.7.2.

568
569

In addition, note that:

570
571
572
573



The decision tree in Figure 1.2 is not sufficient to identify all lands that fall under each activity. For thereporting of these lands, it is good practice to follow the methodological guidance provided under Section
2.2 on “Generic Methodologies for Area Identification, Stratification and Reporting”, and in the activityspecific sections on land identification in Section 2.5-2.12.

574
575
576



For the subsequent and contiguous commitment periods, Article 3.3 applies to land that is subject to an
Afforestation/Reforestation or Deforestation activity at any time between 1 January 1990 and 31 Decemberof the last year of each commitment period.

577
578
579
580



For reporting during subsequent and contiguous commitment periods, Article 3.4 applies to land that is
subject to FM or an elected activity of CM, GM RV, or WDR during the commitment period or in any yearof the previous commitment period16. Article 3.4 also applies to land subject to RV, and when a narrowapproach to their definitions is applied to FM and WDR since 1 January 1990.17.

581
582
583
584
585



Once land is accounted for and therefore reported under Article 3.3 or Article 3.4, all anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions from sources and removals by sinks on this land must be reported during the first
and throughout subsequent and contiguous commitment periods18, except where the country chooses not toreport a pool that has been shown not to be a source as explained in Section 2.3.1. Therefore, the total landarea included in the reporting of Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities can never decrease.

586
587
588
589



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

590
591



In order to avoid the reporting of land under more than one activity in any year during the commitment
period, the following should be applied:

16

Conversely, for base year reporting, Article 3.4 applies to land that was subject to an elected CM, GM, RV, or WDR
activity in the base year.

17

As stated in STEP 1.3 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 RV, and possibly to FM and WDR, and requires reporting all lands 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 mereclassification of the land, without a concrete practice, will suffice for the land to be reported (“broadly defined activities”).
This is most likely for CM and GM. Here it is sufficient to report the lands subject to the activity in the reporting year of
the commitment period.

18

Paragraph 19 of the Annex to Draft decision 16-/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry), contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3,CP/2001/13/Add.1, p.8.

Draft KP Supplement

1.13Chapter 1 Introduction

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
592
593
594
595
596
597

(i)

Land subject to activities under Article 3.3 which would otherwise be subject to FM and/or an elected
activity under Article 3.419 are to be identified as lands that are both subject to Article 3.3 and 3.4
activities by using secondary classifications (these are not shown in the decision tree in Figure 1.2).
The decision tree implies that A/R, D and FM have precedence over the other activities for land
classification and reporting purposes not only in a given year, but for entire subsequent and contiguouscommitment periods.

598
599
600

(ii)

For lands that are subject to more than one activity under Article 3.4, it is good practice to apply thenational criteria that establish the hierarchy among Article 3.4 activities (see STEP 1.4 in Section 1.2
above).

601



Land subject to loss or gain of forest cover can move between categories in the following cases:

602
603
604

-

A/R land that is subsequently deforested is reclassified as D land (Section 2.5 describes specificprovisions for units of land subject to afforestation/reforestation activities since 1990, and Section 2.6
describes specific provisions for land subject to deforestation activities since 1990).

605
606
607
608

-

Land under an elected Article 3.4 activity that becomes subject to an Article 3.3 activity needs
subsequently to 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 reported as FM, if certain conditions are met (see decision tree in Figure 1.2).

609
610



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

611
612

-

Land cannot be transferred from FM (mandatory under Article 3.4) to another elected Article 3.4
activity.

613-

Land cannot be transferred from an elected to an unelected Article 3.4 activity.

614-

Land cannot leave the Article 3.3 reporting.

615
616
617
618

-

D land cannot become A/R land. It is good practice to report carbon stock increases associated with
forest regrowth on previously deforested land as a subcategory of D to demonstrate why D land acts as
a carbon sink20 (See Section 2.6). In such cases it is good practice to estimate emissions and removals
using the methodology for lands converted to forest land as described in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

619
620
621



Boundaries between FM and cropland or grazing land systems where these are applied on the same area
should be defined using the national forest definition applied consistently with past reporting practice as
described at Step 1.1 above.

622
623
624
625
626
627
628

In summary, this means that the area under Article 3.3 (A/R and D) will grow from 0 hectares on 1 January 1990
up to a certain value at the end of subsequent and contiguous commitment periods. At any given point in time, it
is good practice that the A/R and D categories should contain all areas of land that have been afforested,reforested or deforested since 1 January 1990. The land area under Article 3.3 D will increase in size or stay
constant during the subsequent and contiguous commitment periods. The land area in the A/R category will
typically increase, but could decrease if A/R lands are subject to deforestation activities.

629
630
631

The amount of lands under elected Article 3.4 categories, i.e. FM, CM, GM, RV and WDR categories canfluctuate because of various land-use changes. It is unlikely that those areas will stay constant over time for the
purpose of reporting because:632

Deforestation can transfer land from FM to D under Article 3.3;

633
634



Afforestation or reforestation can transfer land from any non-forest Article 3.4 category the Article 3.3 A/R
category;

635



Grazing lands can become croplands and vice versa, and are reported in the category of most recent land use;

636
637



Revegetated lands can become croplands or grazing lands or vice versa, and are reported in the category of
most recent land use; and19

See Paragraph 6 (b), bullet (ii) in the Annex to draft decision 16/CMP.1 (Article 7), contained in document
FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.3, p.22

20

see also paragraph 22 of the annex to Decision 2/CMP.7

1.14

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 1 Introduction
Second Order Draft

638
639
640
641
642
643
644



Forest management areas can increase, for example, as countries expand the road infrastructure to areas
previously unmanaged and initiate harvest and other FM activities.

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 KP. For more detailed explanations of the rationale behind the examples in Box
1.1, the reader is referred to the more detailed explanations in the remaining sections of this Supplementary
Guidance.

Draft KP Supplement

1.15Chapter 1 Introduction

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
645
646
647

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

648
649
650
651
652
653
654

The following examples are intended to show, conceptually and in accordance with the decision
tree in Figure 1.2, how different land-use transitions would be categorised in different inventory
years of the KP. This does not necessarily imply that the land-use transition can be directly
measured on an annual basis. For croplands and grazing lands only carbon stock changes are
discussed in the examples below, since non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions for such lands are in
most cases reported under agriculture. (Note that N2O emissions from conversion of forest land to
cropland are reported under D).

655

Example 1: Land under Forest Management is deforested in 1995 and turned into cropland.

656
657
658

Carbon stock changes on this land are reported under Deforestation from 2008 onwards during allcommitment periods. CO2 emissions from liming and urea application as well as non-CO2
emissions on this land are reported under the Agriculture sector.

659
660
661
662
663

Carbon stock changes on this land will not be reported under Cropland Management, even if
Cropland Management was elected, because Deforestation takes precedence over CroplandManagement. The decision tree in Figure 1.2 therefore assigns this land to Deforestation. It is
recommended that this area be included within a sub-division of the deforested area as forest land
converted to cropland, which will improve the transparency of reporting. .

664
665
666
667
668
669
670

Should trees be re-established on this land after the end of the first commitment period, forexample in 2014, the unit of land does not transition from one Art 3.3 category to another (from D
to A/R). The land continues to be reported under Deforestation. However, to improve transparency
and consistency, it is recommended to report such land within a sub-division of the deforested
area, as deforested land converted to forest. In this way there is a clear link between land reported
under Deforestation and observed land use in the reporting year. Estimates of changes in emissions
and removals may be based on the methodology for land converted to forest land.

671
672

Example 2: Land under FM is deforested on 1 January 2015 and turned into cropland.

673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682

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, that is direct N2O emissions
from nitrogen mineralization/immobilization associated with loss/gain of soil organic matter,should be reported under the Deforestation category. Non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions resulting
from subsequent agricultural practices are estimated using methods described in Volume 4 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines, but are to be reported in the national inventory within the Agriculture
sector and LULUCF sector as appropriate while avoiding double counting. CO2 emissions fromliming and urea application are reported in the Agriculture sectors.

683
684
685
686
687
688

Carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions on this land will not be reported under CroplandManagement, even if Cropland Management has been elected, because Deforestation takes
precedence over Cropland Management. The decision tree in Figure 1.2 therefore assigns this land
to Deforestation. It is recommended that this area be included within a sub-division of thedeforested area as forest land converted to cropland, which will improve the transparency ofreporting.

689
690
691
692

The following examples illustrate how Article 3.3 or 3.4 land-use activities are to be reported
during the second commitment period (CP2). For each example a brief scenario is presented andthe correct land management activity for reporting identified as the “Reporting solution” isprovided in a table with additional explanation in the comment row.

693
694
695

More than one solution may be acceptable after the conversion or management change dependingon the nationally defined hierarchy of elected 3.4 activities established at the start of thecommitment period.

696

1.16

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 1 Introduction
Second Order Draft

697
698

BOX 1.1 (CONTINUED)

Example 3:
Scenario; An area of cropland was converted to grazing land in 2010. FM, CM and GM were
elected in CP1.
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

for only2008 and2009 ofCP1

for allyears
2010
onwards
including
CP2

Reportingsolution

Comments

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

D-Deforestation; AR- Afforestation and Reforestation; FM- Forest Management; CM- CroplandManagement; GM:- Grazing Land Management; RV- Revegetation; WDR- Wetland Drainage andRewetting
M-Mandatory reporting obligation; E- Elected activity; NE- Not Elected; N/A- Not Applicable in thisreporting period.

699
700

CP1- First Commitment period 2008-2012 inclusive

Example 4:
Scenario: A cropland is converted into a grassland 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

Reportingsolution

Reportfor only2013 and2014

Reportfor allyears
2010
onwards

OR
Reportfor allyears
2010
onwards

Comments

Two reporting scenarios are possible. The converted land can be classified as Grazing
land or Revegetation. The reporting is done based on the definitions for classifying
lands under the activities. The Party is required to provide the definitions of activities
which will be classified under each KP Activity when communicating the decision toelect the KP Activity for CP2 and the hierarchy of elected activities which it will apply.
Note that accounting will not be affected by which option is chosen.

701
702

Draft KP Supplement

1.17Chapter 1 Introduction

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
703

Example 5:
Scenario: A cropland was turned into a grazing land in 2015, GM was elected in CP2 and CM

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

Reporting
Solution

Comments

For
period2015
onwards
Only report for the period after conversion to GM.

704
705

Example 6:
Scenario: A cropland was turned into a grazing land in 2015, CM was 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

E

NE

NE

NE

Reportingsolution

For allyear from2013
onwards
including
periodfollowing
conversion
to grazing
landComments

Continue to report area converted to grazing land under Cropland Management. Onceland has been reported under any Article 3.3 or 3.4 activity it must continue to bereported. For transparency and consistency, it is recommended to include this land undera sub-division of CM as cropland converted to GM.

706
Example 7:707

Scenario: A cropland was turned into a Settlement in 2015, CM was 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

E

E

NE

NE

Reportingsolution

As in
Example6, report
this land
as CM
from
2103
onwards.

Comments

Continue to report area converted to settlement under Cropland Management. Onceland has been reported under any Article 3.3 or 3.4 activity, it must continue to bereported. For transparency and consistency, it is recommended to include this land
under a sub-division of CM as cropland converted to Settlement.

708
709

1.18

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 1 Introduction
Second Order Draft

710

Example 8:
Scenario: From 2013 onwards, under the influence of natural forces, an area of FM becomeswater saturated and the forest dies back. WDR has been elected for 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

NE

NE

E

Reportingsolution

Comments

Continue
to report
emissionsandremovals
underFM
FM is higher in the reporting hierarchy than the elected activities. The land must
continue to be reported under FM.

711
712

Example 9:713
Scenario: An area of land afforested in 1995 is deforested in 2015
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

NE

NE

E

Reportingsolution

Report as
D from2015
onwards

Reportunder ARto 2014

Comments

D takes precedence over AR.

714
715
716

Draft KP Supplement

1.19

Chapter 1 Introduction

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

719

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

720
721
722
723

Emissions or removals resulting from projects under Article 6 will be part of the host country’s annual inventory
under the UNFCCC and KP reporting 21 . The methods for estimating, measuring, monitoring and reporting
greenhouse gas emissions and removals resulting from LULUCF project activities are addressed in Section 4.3of the GPG-LULUCF (LULUCF Projects).

724
725
726
727

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:

728
729
730
731
732
733

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.

734
735
736
737
738

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.

739
740
741
742
743
744
745

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) and a project boundary, while A/R, D, CM, GM, RV and WDR do not have a baseline
scenario. After the first commitment period, FM does have a FM reference level. Therefore, when using projectlevel 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 the projects’ baseline scenario.

717

1.4

718

746

21

Paragraph 11 of Annex to decision 15/CMP.1 (Guidelines for the preparation of the information required under Article 7of the Kyoto Protocol), Each Party included in Annex I shall report, in a standard electronic format, the following
information on ERUs, CERs, tCERs, lCERs, AAUs and RMUs from its national registry for the previous calendar year
(based on Universal Time), distinguishing between units valid for different commitment periods.

Paragraph 11 (C) of Annex to decision 15/CMP.1 ( Guidelines for the preparation of the information required under
Article 7 of the Kyoto Protocol), The quantity of ERUs issued on the basis of Article 6 projects and the corresponding
quantities of AAUs and RMUs that were converted to ERUs

1.20

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting
Second Order Draft

747

CHAPTER 2

748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755

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

756

Draft KP Supplement

2.1

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

757

Sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3.1-2.3.8 and 2.4

758

Coordinating Lead Authors

759

Werner A Kurz (Canada) and Chengyi Zhang (China)

760

Lead Authors

761
762
763
764

Bofeng Cai (China), Hilton Thadeu Zarate Couto (Brazil), Hongmin Dong (China),
Sandro Federici (San Marino), Savitri Garivait (Thailand), Rehab Hassan (Sudan), Rodel Lasco (Philippines),
Phillip O'Brien (Ireland), Caroline Roelandt (Norway), Maria Jose Sanz Sanchez (Spain),
Fabian Wagner (IIASA) and Jianhua Zhu (China)

765

Review Editors

766

Robert William Matthews (UK) and Adriano Santhiago de Oliveira (Brazil)

767

Section 2.3.9

768

Coordinating Lead Author

769

Marcelo Theoto Rocha (Brazil)

770

Lead Authors

771
772
773

Rasmus Astrup (Norway), Thomas Gschwantner (Austria), Mwangi James Kinyanjui (Kenya), Robert de Ligt
(Australia), Tetsuya Matsui (Japan), Joachim Rock (Germany), Zoltán Somogyi (Hungary), Guobin Zhang(China), and Xiaoquan Zhang (China)

774

Contributing Authors

775

Thelma Krug (Brazil) and Jim Penman (UK)776

Review Editors

777

Jennifer Jenkins (USA) and Junsheng Li (China)

778

Sections 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7

779

Coordinating Lead Authors

780

Giacomo Grassi (EU) and N.H. Ravindranath (India)

781

Lead Authors

782
783
784
785

Hannes Böttcher (IIASA), Nagmeldin Elhassan (Sudan), Elnour Elsiddig (Sudan), Joanna I House (UK), Mitsuo
Matsumoto (Japan), Jean Pierre Ometto (Brazil), Carlos Sanquetta (Brazil), Matthew J Searson (Australia),
Francesco Nicola Tubiello (FAO), Tarja Tuomainen (Finland), Marina Vitullo (Italy), Stephen Wakelin (New
Zealand), and Guangsheng Zhou (China)

786

Contributing Authors

787

Viorel Blujdea (Romania), Mattias Lundblad (Sweden), and Peter Weiss (Austria)

788

Review Editors

789

Kevin G Black (Ireland) and Rizaldi Boer (Indonesia)

2.2

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting
Second Order Draft

790

Section 2.8

791

Coordinating Lead Author

792

Sebastian Rueter (Germany)

793

Lead Authors

794
795

Gry Alfredsen (Norway), Sabin Guendehou (Benin), Yuko Tsunetsugu (Japan), Kim Pingoud (Finland), andFabiano de Aquino Ximenes (Australia)

796

Contributing Author

797

Alex McCusker (UNECE)

798

Review Editors

799

Jennifer Jenkins (USA) and Junsheng Li (China)

800

Section 2.9

801

Coordinating Lead Authors

802

Annette Freibauer (Germany) and Jian guo Wu (China)

803

Lead Authors

804

Marie Boehm (Canada), Yue Li (China), John Couwenberg (Germany), and Riitta Kristiina Pipatti (Finland)

805

Review Editors

806

Yasuhito Shirato (Japan) and Lingxi Zhou (China)

807

Section 2.10

808

Coordinating Lead Authors

809

Annette Freibauer (Germany) and Jian guo Wu (China)

810

Lead Authors

811
812

Brian McConkey (Canada), Akinori Mori (Japan), Xuebiao Pan (China), John Couwenberg (Germany), andRiitta Kristiina Pipatti (Finland)

813

Review Editors

814

Yasuhito Shirato (Japan) and Lingxi Zhou (China)

815

Draft KP Supplement

2.3Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

816

Section 2.11

817

Coordinating Lead Authors

818

Annette Freibauer (Germany) and Jian guo Wu (China)

819

Lead Author

820

Hector Ginzo (Argentina)

821

Review Editors

822

Yasuhito Shirato (Japan) and Lingxi Zhou (China)

823

Section 2.12

824

Coordinating Lead Authors

825

Annette Freibauer (Germany) and Jian guo Wu (China)

826

Lead Authors

827

Riitta Kristiina Pipatti (Finland), John Couwenberg (Germany), and Hans Joosten (Belarus)

828

Review Editors

829
830

Yasuhito Shirato (Japan) and Lingxi Zhou (China)

2.4

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting
Second Order Draft

831

Contents

832
833

Relationship between UNFCCC land-use categories and Kyoto Protocol (Articles 3.3 and 3.4)
2.1
Activities ........................................................................................................................................................... 10

834

2.2

Generic methodologies for area identification, stratification and reporting .......................................... 14

835

2.2.1

Reporting requirements ................................................................................................................. 14

836

2.2.2

Reporting Methods for Lands subject to Article 3.3 and Article 3.4 activities ............................. 14

837

2.2.3

Reporting Methods for Lands subject to Additional Accounting Provisions for CP2 and beyond 16

838
839

2.2.4
Relationship between Approaches in Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines andReporting methods in Section 2.2.2 .............................................................................................................. 17

840

2.2.5

Choice of Reporting Method ......................................................................................................... 18

841

2.2.6

How to identify lands in general ................................................................................................... 19

842
843

2.3
Generic Methodological Issues for Estimating Carbon Stock Changes and Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions .......................................................................................................................................................... 23

844

2.3.1

Pools to be reported ....................................................................................................................... 24

845

2.3.2

Years for which to estimate carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions ........ 25

846

2.3.3

Correct implementation of C stock change estimation methods when areas are changing ........... 27

847

2.3.4

Relationship between measurement and reporting intervals ......................................................... 29

848

2.3.5

Interannual Variability .................................................................................................................. 29

849

2.3.6

Choice of method .......................................................................................................................... 31

850

2.3.7

Factoring out indirect, natural and pre-1990 effects...................................................................... 33

851

2.3.8

Reference Levels ........................................................................................................................... 33

852

2.3.9

Disturbances .................................................................................................................................. 34

853

2.4

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

854

2.4.1

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

855

2.4.2

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

856

2.4.3

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

857

2.4.4

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

858

2.4.5

Quality assurance and quality control ........................................................................................... 65

859

2.4.6

Verification ................................................................................................................................... 65

860

2.5

Afforestation and Reforestation ............................................................................................................ 69

861

2.5.1

862
863

2.5.2
Choice of methods for identifying lands subject to direct human-induced
Afforestation/Reforestation ........................................................................................................................... 70

864

2.5.3

865

2.6

Definitional issues and reporting requirements ............................................................................. 69

Choice of methods for estimating carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions ........................ 74
Deforestation ......................................................................................................................................... 77

866

2.6.1

Definitional issues and reporting requirements ............................................................................. 77

867

2.6.2

Choice of methods for identifying lands subject to direct human-induced deforestation ............. 78

868

2.6.3

Choice of methods for estimating carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions ........................ 83

869

2.7

Forest Management ............................................................................................................................... 85

Draft KP Supplement

2.5Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
870

2.7.1

Definitional issues and reporting requirements ............................................................................. 85

871

2.7.2

Choice of methods for identifying lands subject to Forest Management ...................................... 86

872

2.7.3

Choice of methods for estimating carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions ........................ 91

873

2.7.4

Methods to address natural disturbance ........................................................................................ 92

874

2.7.5

Forest Management Reference Levels .......................................................................................... 93

875

2.7.6

Technical Corrections for accounting purposes ............................................................................ 98

876

2.7.7

Carbon Equivalent Forests .......................................................................................................... 106

877

2.8

Harvested Wood Products (HWP) ...................................................................................................... 112

878

2.8.1

Initial steps to estimate the HWP contribution ............................................................................ 112

879

2.8.2

Tier 1: “Instantaneous oxidation”................................................................................................ 121

880

2.8.3

Tier 2: First order decay .............................................................................................................. 122

881

2.8.4

Tier 3: Country-specific methods ................................................................................................ 126

882

2.8.5

Consideration of the HWP pool in FMRLs ................................................................................. 132

883

2.8.6

Uncertainty assessment ............................................................................................................... 134

884

2.8.7

Quality assurance/Quality control ............................................................................................... 136

885

2.9

Cropland Management ........................................................................................................................ 137

886

2.9.1

Definitional issues and reporting requirements ........................................................................... 137

887

2.9.2

Base year ..................................................................................................................................... 138

888

2.9.3

Choice of methods for identifying lands subject to Cropland Management activities ................ 140

889
890

2.9.4

Choice of methods for estimating carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions
141

891

2.10

Grazing Land Management ................................................................................................................. 151

892

2.10.1

Definitional issues and reporting requirements ........................................................................... 151

893

2.10.2

Base year ..................................................................................................................................... 152

894

2.10.3

Choice of methods for identifying lands subjected to Grazing Land Management..................... 154

895
896

2.10.4

Choice of methods for estimating carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions
155

897

2.11

Revegetation........................................................................................................................................ 162

898

2.11.1

Definitional issues and reporting requirements ........................................................................... 162

899

2.11.2

Base year ..................................................................................................................................... 163

900

2.11.3

Choice of methods for identifying lands ..................................................................................... 163

901
902

2.11.4

Choice of methods for estimating carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions
164

903

2.12

Wetland Drainage and Rewetting ....................................................................................................... 165

904

2.12.1

Definitional issues and reporting requirements ........................................................................... 165

905

2.12.2

Choice of methods for identifying lands ..................................................................................... 167

906

2.12.3

Choice of methods for estimating greenhouse gas emissions and removals ............................... 172

907

2.6

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting
Second Order Draft

908

Figures909
910

Figure 2.1.1 Land Use Categories in the national inventories under the UNFCCC for a hypothetical country inyear X of the commitment period ......................................................................................................................... 12

911
912
913

Figure 2.1.2 Land in Article 3.3 and 3.4 Activities for Kyoto Protocol reporting for a hypothetical country inyear X of the commitment period. This classification corresponds to the “final” status in Table 2.1.1. See text for
further explanations............................................................................................................................................... 12

914

Figure 2.2.1

Two reporting methods for land subject to Articles 3.3 and 3.4 activities .................................... 15

915
916

Figure 2.2.2
3.4

Decision tree for choosing a reporting method for land subject to activities under Articles 3.3 and....................................................................................................................................................... 19

917
918

Decision tree for determining whether a unit of land qualifies for direct human-induced (dhi)Figure 2.5.1
Afforestation/Reforestation (AR).......................................................................................................................... 73

919
920

Figure 2.6.1
Decision tree for determining whether a unit of land is subject to direct human-induced (dhi)Deforestation (D). ................................................................................................................................................. 82

921
922

Figure 2.7.1
Relationship between different categories under UNFCCC reporting and forest activities under
Kyoto Protocol reporting. See Sections 2.7 and 2.7.1 for further explanation. ..................................................... 87

923
924

Figure 2.7.2
Decision tree for determining whether land qualifies for Forest Management. This decision tree
applies to lands which are not eligible for direct human-induced AR (see Figure 2.5.1). .................................... 89

925
926

Figure 2.7.3
Relationship among forest lands, lands subject to FM, lands subject to natural disturbance andCarbon Equivalent Forests. Grey areas are reported under FM. ........................................................................... 90

927
928

Figure 2.7.4 Decision tree for identifying methodological inconsistency and the need for Technical Correction
during the second commitment period. ............................................................................................................... 100

929

Figure 2.7.5

CEFC decision tree for land cleared of forest ............................................................................ 106

930

Figure 2.7.6

CEFC decision tree for forest establishment .............................................................................. 107

931
932

Figure 2.7.7
Decision tree for determining the eligibility of land to be converted to non-forest under CEFC
provision (CEF-d land) ....................................................................................................................................... 109

933
934

Figure 2.7.8 Decision tree for determining eligibility of land to be established in forest plantation under CEFC
provision (CEF-ar land) ...................................................................................................................................... 110

935

Figure 2.8.1

936
937

Figure 2.8.2 Forest-wood chain based on simplified classification of wood products based on FAO forestry
products definitions ............................................................................................................................................. 115

938

Figure 2.8.3

939
940

Figure 2.8.4 Relationship between sources of feedstock for HWP, forest activities and the application of therelevant tier method for estimating the HWP contribution ................................................................................. 119

941
942
943

Figure 2.9.1
Decision tree for selecting the appropriate tier for estimating carbon stock changes in mineralsoils under Cropland Management for Kyoto Protocol reporting (see also Volume 4, Chapter 2, Figure 2.4 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines) ....................................................................................................................................... 143

944
945

Figure 2.9.2 Schematic representation of a change in soil carbon stocks after a carbon-sequestering
management change ............................................................................................................................................ 144

946
947
948

Figure 2.10.1
Decision tree for selecting the appropriate tier for estimating carbon stock changes in mineralsoils under GM for Kyoto Protocol reporting (see also Figure 2.4 in Volume 4, Chapter 2 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines)
157

949
950

Figure 2.12.1

Decision tree for selection of a correct tier method for estimating HWP carbon stock change .. 113

Examples of different processing stages of wood products along the process and value chain .. 116

Decision tree for identifying land under the Article 3.4 activity WDR if this activity is elected.
168

951

Draft KP Supplement

2.7

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
952

Tables953
954

Table 2.1.1 Summary of the relationship between UNFCCC land use categories and Activities under the Kyoto
Protocol ................................................................................................................................................................. 11

955
956

Table 2.2.1 Relationship between approaches in Chapter 3 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines and reporting methods inThis report ............................................................................................................................................................. 18957

Table 2.3.1 Relationship between Potential Kyoto protocol activities and IPCC land categories for LULUCF .. 32

958

Table 2.3.2 Emissions from disturbances for the calibration period .................................................................... 44

959
960
961
962

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

963

Table 2.7.1 Check List to detect methodological inconsistencies and the need for Technical Correction........ 102

964

Table 2.7.2 Example of summary table when performing a Technical Correction ............................................. 104

965

Table 2.8.1 Default conversion factors for the default HWP categories and their subcategories ....................... 125

966

Table 2.8.2 Tier 2 Default half-lives of HWP categories .................................................................................... 126

967
968

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 ....................................................................... 132

969

Table 2.12.1 Checks to avoid double counting and to ensure completeness ....................................................... 173

970

971

Boxes

972

Box 2.3.1 Example ................................................................................................................................................ 26

973

Box 2.3.2 Example ................................................................................................................................................ 26

974

Box 2.3.3 Example ................................................................................................................................................ 28

975

Box 2.3.4 Examples of approaches for identifying lands affected by natural disturbance.................................... 38

976
977

Box 2.3.5 Definition of salvage logging (SL), in the context of the exclusion of emissions from natural
disturbances........................................................................................................................................................... 42

978Box 2.3.6 Examples of approaches for the development of the background level................................................ 48

979
980

Box 2.3.7 Approach for estimating the background level in case the area of the land under a category changes
between the calibration period and the commitment period ................................................................................. 50981

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

982

Box 2.4.2 Verification of inventory of LULUCF sector in a national inventory .................................................. 66983

Box 2.4.3 Guidance for verifying carbon pools and activities .............................................................................. 67984

Box 2.4.4 Verification of LULUCF under the Kyoto Protocol ............................................................................. 68

985

Box 2.5.1 Identification of AR lands: Links within this report and with other IPCC reports .............................. 74

986
987

Box 2.5.2 Methodological guidance on estimating carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions on AR lands:
Links within this report and with other IPCC Reports .......................................................................................... 75

988

Box 2.6.1 Identification of D Lands: links within this report and with other IPCC reports .................................. 80

989
990

Box 2.6.2 Methodological guidance on estimating carbon stocks changes and non-CO2 emissions on D lands:
links within this report and with other IPCC reports............................................................................................. 84

991

Box 2.7.1 Links with Chapter 3 or 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines ...................................................................... 91

2.8

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting
Second Order Draft

992
993

Box 2.7.2 Methodological guidance for estimation of carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions from FM
Activities; links within this report and with other IPCC reports ........................................................................... 92994

Box 2.7.3 Approaches and methods used for constructing Forest Management Reference Levels ...................... 94

995
996
997

Box 2.7.4 Examples of methodological changes for GHG reporting (for Forest Land Remaining Forest Land or
Forest Management) which may lead to methodological inconsistency between FMRL and reporting of Forest
Management during the second commitment period. ......................................................................................... 103

998

Box 2.8.1 Example on the calculation of national ESL by means of factor method ........................................... 131

999

Box 2.8.2 Example on the estimation of the HWP contribution as presented in Parties’ FMRL........................ 133

1000
1001

Box 2.9.1 An example of Cropland Management areas in 1990 and in the commitment period (net-net
accounting) .......................................................................................................................................................... 139

1002

Box 2.9.2 Example of estimating biomass carbon changes for fruit orchards .................................................... 142

1003

Box 2.9.3 Illustration of estimating carbon stock changes for discontinuous Cropland Management practices 146

1004

Box 2.9.4 Examples of possible influences of carbon stock changes on emissions of non-CO2 gases ............... 151

1005

Box 2.10.1 Grazing Land Management – country example ................................................................................ 152

1006
1007

Box 2.10.2 An example of Grazing Land Management areas in 1990 and in the commitment period (net-net
accounting) .......................................................................................................................................................... 153

1008

Box 2.11.1 ........................................................................................................................................................... 163

1009
1010

Box 2.12.1 examples for reporting of emissions/removals from organic soils drained/rewetted since 1990 underthe various kyoto protocol LULUCF activities ................................................................................................... 167

1011

Box 2.12.2 Wetland Drainage and Rewetting areas in 1990 and the commitment period (net-net accounting) . 169

1012

Equations1013

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

1014

Equation 2.7.1 Technical Correction..................................................................................................................... 99

1015
1016

Equation 2.8.1 Estimation of annual fraction of feedstock for HWP production originating from domestic harvest............................................................................................................................................................................ 118

1017
1018

Equation 2.8.2 Estimation of annual fraction of domestically produced wood pulp as feedstock for paper andpaperboard production ........................................................................................................................................ 118

1019
1020

Equation 2.8.3 Estimation of annual fraction of feedstock for HWP originating from forest activities under
Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4 .............................................................................................................................. 119

1021
1022

Equation 2.8.4 Estimation of annual HWP amounts being produced from domestic harvest related to activities
under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4 .................................................................................................................... 121

1023
1024

Equation 2.8.5 Estimation of carbon stocks and annual carbon stock changes in HWP pool of the reporting
country ................................................................................................................................................................ 123

1025
1026

Equation 2.8.6 Approximation of the carbon stocks in HWP pools at initial time, i.e. since when activity data are
available .............................................................................................................................................................. 124

1027

Draft KP Supplement

2.9Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

1031

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

1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040

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 (KP) Articles 3.3 and3.4. Section 2.1 deals with the relationship between land-use categories in reporting under the UNFCCC and the
KP, Section 2.2 deals with land areas, Section 2.3 with estimating carbon stock changes and non-CO2
greenhouse gas emission, including those from natural disturbances (Section 2.3.9), and Section 2.4 with othergeneric methodological issues. This is followed by specific methodologies related to Afforestation and
Reforestation (treated together), Deforestation, Forest Management, Harvested Wood Products, CroplandManagement, 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.

1028
1029
1030

1041
1042

2.1

1043
1044

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN UNFCCC LANDUSE CATEGORIES AND KYOTO PROTOCOL(ARTICLES 3.3 AND 3.4) ACTIVITIES

1045
1046
1047

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).

1048

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

1049

(i)

Forest Land (Chapter 4)

1050

(ii)

Cropland (Chapter 5)

1051

(iii)

Grassland (Chapter 6)

1052

(iv)

Wetlands (Chapter 7)

1053

(v)

Settlements (Chapter 8)

1054

(vi)

Other Land (Chapter 9)

1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061

The relationships between the basic land-use categories (i) to (vi) described in Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines and the activities of the KP (Articles 3.3 and 3.4) are summarised in Table 2.1.1. Land subject
to KP activities should be identified as a subcategory of one of these six main categories. There are no reporting
requirements for emissions from unmanaged land categories under the KP or the UNFCCC. However, forcompleteness of reporting and consistency of time series, it is good practice to report the total area of the country
including those areas not subject to any activity as well as the area of lands classified as unmanaged lands under
the UNFCCC.

1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068

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 LULUCF
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.

1069

2.10

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting
Second Order Draft

1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078

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 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
It is also recommended to refer to relevant sections of the 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands (Wetlands Supplement).19 For continuity and clarity, crossreferences to these descriptions appear periodically in Boxes. Direct references to the reporting tables in Chapter
3 of the GPG-LULUCF is not possible because, for KP reporting, additional spatial stratification is required thatcannot be inferred from those Reporting Tables, and for the second Commitment Period, additional reporting
categories have been introduced. See Section 2.4.4 for discussion of the additional reporting requirements andthe Annex to this document for draft reporting tables.
TABLE 2.1.1
SUMMARY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN UNFCCC LAND USE CATEGORIESAND ACTIVITIES UNDER THE KYOTO PROTOCOLTransitions are from the “initial” to the “final” land use category, indicating which KP Article 3.3 or 3.4 activities
may have occurred on that land. Bold font indicates mandatory reporting categories; regular font indicates elective
categories where the classification depends on the election of Article 3.4 activities by a country. Note that all possible
LULUCF transitions have not been included in this table, only those which can be reported under Art 3.3 or 3.4
activities.
Final
ManagedForest land

Cropland

GrasslandManagedForest land

FM

D**

D

Unmanaged
Forestland**

FM

D**

Cropland

A/R*

Grassland

WetlandSettlements

Other land

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

CM, RV,
WDR***

GM, RV,
WDR***

RV, WDR***

RV

CM****

A/R*

CM, RV,
WDR***

GM, RV,
WDR***

GM, RV,
WDR***

RV

GM****

Wetland

A/R*

CM, RV,
WDR***

GM, RV,
WDR***

GM, RV,
WDR***

RV, WDR***

WDR****

Settlements

A/R*

CM, RV,
WDR***

GM, RV,
WDR***

GM, RV,
WDR***RV

Other land

A/R*

CM, RVGM, RV

RV, WDR***

RV

InitialNotes
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.

****

Once included within a reported activity, land cannot be removed from reporting obligation

1079

19

The IPCC is currently preparing the 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories: Wetlands (Wetlands Supplement) in parallel to this document. The Wetlands Supplement provides guidance on
estimating emissions and removals on lands with drained and rewetted organic soils in Chapters 2, 3 and 4 and generalissues on wetlands are addressed in Chapters 1 and 7. The guidance given here will be updated to reflect the developmentof the 2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplement through its review by experts and governments and its approval by the IPCC. (seehttp://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/home/wetlands.html).

Draft KP Supplement

2.11

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084

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 KP in any single reporting year. The
outer rectangle represents the boundaries of a hypothetical country. Figure 2.1.1 shows the reporting categories
for the UNFCCC national inventory according to Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, and Figure 2.1.2
includes additional categories resulting from reporting requirements under the KP.

1085
1086

Figure 2.1.1

Land Use Categories in the national inventories under the UNFCCC for ahypothetical country in year X of the commitment period 20
Settlements

Unmanaged Wetland

Other landManaged Wetland

Managed forest

Managed grassland

Unmanaged
forestUnmanaged
grassland
Cropland

1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092

Figure 2.1.2

Land in Article 3.3 and 3.4 Activities for Kyoto Protocol reporting for ahypothetical country in year X of the commitment period. This classification
corresponds to the “final” status in Table 2.1.1 21. See text for further
explanations
Unmanaged Wetland
Managed Wetland
RV

D

Settlements
RV

GM

CEFC

D

WDR

Managed forest
ND
ND

CEFC

WDR

CM

GM

D

RV

CEFC

WDR
CEFC

CEFC

GM

Unmanaged
forest

WDR*

1093
1094

D

Managed grassland

AR

FM

Other landCM

Unmanaged
grassland
FM

Cropland
RV

D

CEFC

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

1095
20

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

21

A- Afforestation; R- Reforestation; D- Deforestation; FM- Forest Management; CM- Cropland Management; GM- Grazing
land Management; RV- Revegetation; WDR- Wetland Drainage and Rewetting; ND- Natural Disturbance, CEFC- Carbon
Equivalent Forest Conversion;

2.12

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting
Second Order Draft

1096
1097
1098

It is worth noting, from Figure 2.1.1, that reporting under UNFCCC for LULUCF attempts to assign a land use
category to all land within the country, while in Figure 2.1.2, KP Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities cover a sub-set of
the total land area. KP reporting is complicated by two additional issues:

1099
1100

(i)

KP reporting is backward looking, because the history of land use may be important in thedetermination of the activity under which a given land area should be reported

1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108

(ii)

Parties are allowed some flexibility in the definitions of which land use type is to be included
within a given Article 3.4 activity. For example, it is conceivable that a land use such as fruitorchards might fulfil the LULUCF definition of forest, but it is defined by the Party as CroplandManagement, consistent with past practice. In such cases it is good practice to document therationale of criteria used to exclude from forested land areas which would otherwise meet the areaand vegetation thresholds for forest (e.g., consistency with national forest inventories, with
reporting to FAO, etc.), and how these criteria are applied consistently across space and time (Seealso Section 1.2).

1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129

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(RV) can occur on various land categories. By definition, Wetland Drainage and Rewetting (WDR) can only
occur on lands that are not already subject to one of the other Article 3.4 categories. The area subject to FM canbe smaller than the area of managed forest under UNFCCC reporting because (i) countries could use different
thresholds for defining forests for the KP and UNFCCC reporting, (ii) Article 3.4 requires that the management
activity took place since 1990. Parties are encouraged to adopt definitions of land use and Article 3.4 activities
which are consistent with each other, however, it is acknowledged that may not be possible in all circumstances.
For further discussion of this possible definitional difference see Figure 2.7.1 and accompanying 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 KP reporting. However, thearea of unmanaged land is reported under UNFCCC, and should a human-induced deforestation event occur inunmanaged forests, the associated emissions 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 for both FM and AR lands (“ND” in Figure 2.1.2). Lands that are used toestablish a Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion (CEFC) to compensate for harvesting of plantations establishedafter Jan 1, 1960 and before Jan 1st 1990, that are re-established in a different location are shown in Figure 2.1.2
as “CEFC”. Such lands are reported and accounted as a subcategory within FM and but they need to be
identified separately. They include both the land area that was cleared, CEFC that would be reported as D if the
CEFC provision were not used and the previously non-forest land on which the equivalent plantation wasestablished, CEFC within FM, (see Section 2.7.7 for additional requirements).

1130
1131
1132
1133
1134

Although, for KP reporting lands subject to cropland management are largely identical to Cropland/arable/tillage
lands in UNFCCC reporting, flexibility exists especially with regard to woody crops. In cases where there isconversion of forest land to cropland, these are reported under Article 3.3 Deforestation. Where GM is elected
and CM is not, land subject to conversion from GM to cropland has to be continued to be reported under GM
because land cannot transition from an elected to an unelected Article 3.4 activity.

1135
1136
1137
1138
1139

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.
Emissions and removals of greenhouse gases on unmanaged grasslands are excluded from both the UNFCCC
and the KP reporting, however it is good practice to include the area of unmanaged lands in the KP reporting
together with all other lands not subject to any activity under UNFCCC.

1140
1141

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.

1142

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

1143

Draft KP Supplement

2.13

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

2.2

GENERIC METHODOLOGIES FOR AREA
IDENTIFICATION, STRATIFICATION ANDREPORTING

1147

2.2.1

Reporting requirements

1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154

Decision 2/CMP.7 states that areas of land subject to Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities must be identifiable 22 ,adequately reported23 and tracked over time.24 Section 2.2.2 discusses two land reporting methods that can beapplied to all Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities. Section 2.2.4 discusses how these reporting methods can draw on thethree 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 detailed
discussion of how lands subject to Articles 3.3 and 3.4 can be identified, so that the requirements of either
reporting method can be satisfied.

1155

2.2.2

1144
1145
1146

1156

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

1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164

The reporting requirements set out in Decision 2/CMP.8 (which replaced Decision15/CMP1) seek to ensure that
there is no double counting of land areas, completeness in land identification, and consistency in reporting. The
general information to be reported on activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 shall include the geographicalboundaries of areas encompassing units of land subject to Afforestation/Reforestation, Deforestation, Forest
Management and lands subject to elected activities among Cropland Management, Grazing land Management,
Revegetation and Wetland Drainage and Rewetting activities. To achieve this, and based on national
circumstances such as the characteristics of existing forest inventory systems and the size of the country, a Party
may choose one of two methods (Figure 2.2.1):

1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171

Reporting Method 1 uses a spatially-referenced approach that delineates the geograpphic areas that include
multiple land polygons subject to Article 3.3 or 3.4 activities. The geographic areas could be defined using
georeferenced legal, administrative, or ecosystem boundaries. Information about activities within these areas isderived from (grid-based or other) sampling techniques using remote sensing or ground-based data or fromadministrative statistics. However, the location of each land polygon within these geographic areas may not beknown,. See Section 2.2.3 for additional georeferenced reporting requirements arising from Decision 2/CMP.7
for those countries that choose additional accounting provisions.

1172
1173

Reporting Method 2 is based on the spatially-explicit and complete geographical identification of all land
polygons subject to Article 3.3 and Article 3.4 activities.
22

Paragraph 25 of the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7:National inventory systems established under Article 5, paragraph 1,
shall ensure that areas of land subject to land use, land-use change and forestry activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3
and 4, are identifiable, and information on these areas shall be provided by each Party included in Annex I in theirnational inventories in accordance with Article 7. Such information will be reviewed in accordance with Article 8.

23

Decision 2/CMP.8 Annex II, paragraph 2
General information to be reported for activities under Article 3, paragraph 3, forest management under Article 3,
paragraph 4, 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, of the Kyoto Protocol;(ii) Units of land subject to activities under Article 3, paragraph 3, of the Kyoto Protocol which would otherwise be
included in land subject to forest management or elected activities under Article 3, paragraph 4, of the Kyoto
Protocol under the provisions of decision 2/CMP.7, annex, paragraph 9;(iii) Land subject to forest management under Article 3, paragraph 4, in the second commitment period and to any
elected activities under Article 3, paragraph 4; […](c) The spatial assessment unit used for determining the area of accounting for afforestation, reforestation and deforestation;
24

Paragraph 24 of the Annex to the Decision 2/CMP.7: Once land is accounted for under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, thisland must be accounted for throughout subsequent and contiguous commitment periods.

2.14

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting
Second Order Draft

1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180

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 accuracy and reporting transparency.
Thus, unless the country 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 tomaintain transparency and reduce uncertainty. The choice of the number of reporting areas affects uncertainty
estimates.

1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189

To implement Reporting Method 1, it is good practice to define and report the geographic boundaries to ensurecomplete coverage without gaps or overlaps. Criteria for delineating reporting regions within the country could
include statistical considerations for the sampling intensity or sampling approaches, considerations of the typeand amount of land-use change activities (Article 3.3), Forest Management, and elected activities (Articles 3.4),
as well as ecological or administrative considerations. Within each resulting geographic boundary lands subject
to Article 3.3 or Article 3.4 activities (if elected) will then be quantified using the approaches described inVolume 4, Chapter 3 (Section 3.3 Representing land-use areas) of the2006 IPCC Guidelines, in accordance withthe guidance in Section 2.2.3, as well as the methods in Sections 2.2.6 (generic methods) and 2.5 to 2.12
(activity-specific methods).

1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198

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 boundary. 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 enables activities to be reported without the risk of double
counting. To put this reporting method fully into practice requires large-scale data collection and analysis, andthe preparation of statistics, which summarise the detailed, polygon or pixel-level information, to ensure thatreporting is transparent yet concise. Digital maps, which in practice will not be included in the National
Inventory Reports, can be made available to Expert Review Teams who can then verify completeness oftimeseries and of spatial coverage.

1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208

Examples of national implementations of these Reporting Methods 1 and 2 are Canada and Australia
respectively. In Canada the land area is stratified into 18 reporting zones based on the Terrestrial Ecozone
classification system. Eleven of these zones contain some 230 million hectares of Managed Forest for whichemissions and removals are estimated (Stinson et al. 2011). The underlying analyses of C stocks are based onforest inventory and activity data compiled for over 500 forest management units, but within each of these theexact location of each forest polygon is not included in the analyses. Australia’s National Carbon Accounting
System uses a wall-to-wall, spatially-explicit approach to estimating carbon stock changes and non-CO2
emissions. Time time-series of Landsat images are used to determine land cover and land-use changes and to
inform estimates of carbon stocks and stock changes (Richards and Brack 2004; Waterworth and Richards,
2008).

1209

Figure 2.2.1

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

1210
1211

Draft KP Supplement

2.15

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217

With either reporting method, once land is reported as being subject to activities specified under the KP, 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 the lands
identified in the samples, and to use the same sample locations for any future monitoring. This ensures thatchanges 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 and beyond.

1218
1219

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

1220

2.2.3

1221

Reporting Methods for Lands subject to Additional
Accounting Provisions for CP2 and beyond

1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228

This section is only applicable to countries that choose the special accounting provisions of Decision 2/CMP.7
and exclude emissions from natural disturbances or make use of the Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion
provision. Decision 2/CMP.7 introduced additional reporting requirements for (1) the georeferenced locations offorest areas subject to natural disturbances for which emissions and subsequent removals are excluded from theaccounting25 and (2) the georeferenced locations of forest plantations converted to other land uses for which acarbon equivalent forest was established on non-forest land and the georeferenced locations of these carbon
equivalent forests26.

1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236

Georeferenced locations of areas affected by natural disturbances are required to ensure that subsequent
removals from these areas are excluded from the accounting and 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 meetthis requirement either by monitoring post-disturbance land-use change on disturbed areas for which emissions
were excluded from the accounting or by demonstrating for all units of forest lands subject to deforestation thatthese are not lands previously affected by natural disturbances for which emissions were excluded from theaccounting. If land-use change does occur then the emissions from the natural disturbance also have to bereported and accounted.

1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242

Decision 2/CMP.7 also states that countries need to demonstrate that emissions associated with salvage logging,i.e. the harvest of dead or dying trees affected by a natural disturbance (see Box 2.3.5 in Section 2.3.9.3 for thedefinition of salvage logging) of these areas were not excluded from the accounting. It is good practice toestimate, report and account emissions from all salvage logging, which includes emissions associated withsalvage logging on lands affected by natural disturbances for which emissions were excluded from theaccounting. See Section 2.3.9 for additional requirements associated with the natural disturbance provision.

1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248

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 and removals are reported under Forest
Management (Article 3.4). See Section 2.7.7 for additional requirements associated with the establishment ofcarbon-equivalent forests.

1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256

These new reporting requirements imply that Reporting Method 1 can only meet the reporting requirements forthe second commitment period for countries that make use of the additional accounting provisions (exclusion of
ND emissions and CEFC) if additional, georeferenced information about specific land areas within thegeographic boundaries is provided. For example, mapping and ongoing monitoring of activities on lands subject
to the ND and CEFC providions may be required. Alternative, all lands that are subject to deforestation eventsneed to be assessed to determine whether these lands were previously affected by natural disturbace and if yes,
whether the emissions from those disturbances had been excluded from the accounting on the basis of the ND
provision.

25

Paragraph 34 (a) in the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 establishes the requirement to report the georeferenced location ofthese areas. See also Decision -/CMP.8.

26

Paragraphs 37 – 39 in the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 outline all requirements that must be met for this provision. See also
Decision -/CMP.8.

2.16

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting
Second Order Draft

1259

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

1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273

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 KP as
elaborated in Chapter 3 are met by the two reporting methods given in this chapter, and underpinned by theapproaches described in Chapter 3. This section, summarised in Table 2.2.1, discusses which of the three
approaches are suitable for identifying units of lands 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
pixels of 20 to 100 m (see STEP 1.1 in Section 1.2). Land cover and land-use mapping using, for example, 1 km2(100 ha) pixel resolution does not meet the Protocol’s requirements because land-use change at finer resolution
may not be detected. A well designed sample-based approach (Magnussen et al. 2005) at the appropriate spatial
resolution may therefore yield more accurate estimates than a wall-to-wall map at 1 km2 resolution which may
miss many small land-use change events. Sample based approaches can provide the required supplemental
information.

1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279

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 the 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), therefore does not allow to track such conversions over time.
Approach 3 is characterized by spatially-explicit observations of land-use categories and land-use conversions.

1280

2.2.4.1

1257

2.2.4

1258

1281

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

1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292

Approach 1 described 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 the land 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 a grid or sample plot system. In countries where this is the case, it may be possible to reanalyse the detailed inventory information with reference to the geographical boundaries, which have resulted
from the stratification of the country, to meet the reporting requirements of the KP. This means that Approach 1
can only be applied to Reporting Method 1 if additional spatial data at the required spatial resolution areavailable as a result of re-analysing 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).

1293

2.2.4.2

1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304

Approach 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 land-use conversion matrix that is not spatially explicit.
Thus, Approach 2 differs from Approach 1 in that it includes information on conversions between categories, but
is still only tracking those changes without spatially-explicit location data, which means that the approach does
not allow tracking land changes over time. 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 cantherefore only be used to identify lands subject to activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 if additional data are
available that allow tracking lands, and land-use changes, over time. As with Approach 1, it may be possible toapply Approach 2 to Reporting Method 1 if additional spatial data at the required spatial resolution become
available from re-compiling the inventory information.

APPROACH 2: TOTAL LAND-USE AREA

Draft KP Supplement

2.17

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
1305

2.2.4.3

1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312

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 (Section 2.2.2), as
long as the spatial resolution is fine enough to represent the minimum forest area as defined by the Party underDecision 2/CMP.7 and its precursors.
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-analysing existing inventories withreference to boundaries of geographic areas or fromsampling programs.

Not applicable

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

Can only be used if additional spatial information isavailable by re-analysing existing inventories withreference to boundaries of geographic areas or fromsampling programs .

Not applicable

Approach 3
Spatially explicit land-use
conversion data

Good practiceIf spatial resolution is fine enough to represent
minimum forest area. Involves aggregating data
within the reported geographic boundaries.

Good practiceIf spatial resolution is fineenough to represent minimum
forest area.

1313
1314

2.2.5

1315
1316
1317
1318
1319

It is good practice to choose an appropriate reporting method using the decision tree in Figure 2.2.2. National
circumstances may enable a country 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 land using Reporting
Method 1. Within those geographical boundaries where data for complete spatial identification of lands areavailable, Reporting Method 2 can then be applied.

1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325

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 could to be reported using
time series of maps or tables containing the georeferenced information about the location of these lands. See also
the Reporting Tables presented in the Annex to this Chapter.

2.18

Choice of Reporting Method

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting
Second Order Draft

1326
1327

Figure 2.2.2

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

1328
Does yourcountry use Approach 3 fornational UNFCCC
reporting?

Yes

No
Compile required spatial
information e.g. by re-analysing
inventory database or using
statistical sampling

Estimate area ofland under Art.
3.3. and 3.4
within eachgeographic
reportingboundaryNo

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

Yes
Use Reporting Method 1

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

Yes

Use Reporting Method 2

1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340

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 subject to Article 3.3 or 3.4 activities that moved from one category toanother 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.

1341
1342

2.2.6

How to identify lands in general1343

2.2.6.1

1345

SPATIAL CONFIGURATION OF FORESTS AND
AFFORESTATION, REFORESTATION OR
DEFORESTATION EVENTS

1346
1347
1348
1349
1350

Each Annex I Party to the KP has chosen country-specific parameters within the definition of forest as anintegral part of their KP reporting. This required selecting values for the following three parameters: the size ofthe minimum area of land that can constitute a forest, ranging between 0.05 and 1 ha, and parameters for crowncover (or equivalent stocking level) of more than 10 – 30% and tree height at maturity (2 – 5 m). The parameterfor the minimum area of land that constitutes a forest effectively also specifies the minimum area on which land-

1344

Draft KP Supplement

2.19

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356

use change events occur (i.e.: Afforestation/Reforestation, Deforestation, conversion of natural forests to planted
forests, or Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion). Thus a country that selects, for example 0.5 ha as theminimum area of forest land, must also identify all land-use change events that occur on lands that are 0.5 ha orlarger. The identification of lands on which land-use changes occur, such as deforestation, requires the detectionof a direct human-induced reduction in tree crown cover from above to below the country-specific threshold of
forest, accompanied by a change in land-use.

1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364

The CMP decisions do not specify the shape of areas, neither for forest, nor for those areas on which land-use
change events occur. Square areas that meet the 0.05 to 1 ha range would be 22.36 m to 100 m 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 nonforest any areas being cleared from trees by "linear deforestation events", such as roads, transmission right-ofways, or pipeline corridors. When such corridors have resulted from cuts since 1990, they should be treated as
deforestation events under Article 3.3.

1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372

For example, if a country selects 1 ha as the minimum area of forests and further specifies that these areas are
square, then a 20 m wide corridor cut through a forest with 100% tree crown cover, will reduce tree crown cover
to 80%. This is higher than the range of tree crown cover (10 – 30%) that could be selected by a Party.
Therefore the residual area is defined as forest, and even when this corridor through the forest is cut since 1990,
it would not constitute a deforestation event. If this "only" 20 m wide corridor is part of a long corridor, which
stretches for many kilometres, such as a transmission right-of-way or a pipeline corridor, the total corridor area ismuch greater than 1 ha. Therefore the definitional criteria applied to specify the shape of the forests of the areaof land-use change events can have a large impact on the amount of land reported under Article 3.3 and FM.

1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381

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 land-use change
occur. It is also good practice to apply these criteria consistently to the identification of land-use change events
that have occurred since 1990, or the start of the second commitment period for conversion of natural forests toplanted forests and CEFC. For instance, these criteria can simply be defined as the minimum width that will be
accepted for a forest and an area subject to a land-use change event. Then the minimum 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, then a rectangle of minimum
width has to be at least 500 m long to meet the 1 ha size requirement.

1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388

It is good practice to report in the FM land category the impacts on carbon stock changes of "linear clearing
events" narrower than the selected minimum width criterion for deforestations events. Examples of such clearing
events can include skid sites, forest roads, or seismic lines. 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 notforest, if these shelterbelts are within lands subject to Cropland Management, Grazing land Management,
Revegetation or Wetland Drainage and Rewetting activities, where the Party has elected the respective Article
3.4 activity.

1389

2.2.6.2

1390
1391

S OURCES OF D ATA FOR I DENTIFYING L ANDS AND
ADDITIONAL NEW R EPORTING R EQUIREMENTS FOR THE
SECOND AND SUBSEQUENT CP S

1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398

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 GHGI national systems, for monitoring reporting and verifying emissions and removals. These
include the land and forest inventory systems already in place and the additional measures a country chooses toimplement 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.

1399
1400

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

1401



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

1402
1403



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

2.20

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting
Second Order Draft

1404
1405
1406
1407



1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418

It is likely that in most countries the existing forest inventory systems will be combined with additional sourcesof information and in-country monitoring activities to meet all the land reporting requirements of the KP, andthat, with varying degrees of incremental efforts, additional information will need to be obtained throughmonitoring or in-country reporting systems. The optimum approach to obtaining the required data may involve
combinations of the three options. For example, national forest inventory systems with 5 to 10-year periodic remeasurement intervals may not be adequate to meet the reporting needs on annual area disturbed by wildfires,and the associated non-CO2 emissions. Data from fire monitoring 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 lands subject to Afforestation/Reforestation (which canbe difficult to detect using remote sensing in regions with slow growth rates), and a monitoring system toidentify lands subject to Deforestation (which are more readily detected).

1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426

Remotely sensed data are increasingly contributing to land-use monitoring, to forest inventory systems, , and toactivity reporting systems as data for certain sensors become cheaper or freely available, and as computing
power and algorithms are improving. Nevertheless, considerable efforts, infrastructure and expertise are required
to process the large volumes of remote sensing data and to derive estimates of carbon stock changes and nonCO2 greenhouse gas emissions and removals from the remotely sensed data on land cover and land-use changes.
In particular estimates of GHG emissions and removals associated with belowground biomass, dead organic
matter, soil organic matter, including peat, carbon pools that cannot be directly inferred from remote sensing ofland surface characteristics will require additional efforts and investment.

1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437

[Consider adding a box outlining additional information sources in the literature such as GOFC-GOLD source
book, GEO-FCT and GFOI, descriptions of models and other tools available to conduct such analyses]. Shortparagraphs can discuss following topics : open image and reference data archives freely available (NASA, ESA),
new methods (time-series analysis), new global land cover map products (China, ESA) necessity of robust
validation and quantification of uncertainty of estimates. Literature that could be cited: GOFC-GOLD
Sourcebook, GFOI Method and Guidance Document, and Japanese REDD-plus Cookbook. "Also consider the
meeting report: Datasets for use in the IPCC Guidelines FAO data and how it can be used in the IPCC
Agriculture and Land Use Guidelines IPCC Expert Meeting Report 20-22 October, 2009, IFAD, Rome, ITALY,
http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/mtdocs/pdfiles/0910_FAO-IFAD-IPCC-Meetingreport.pdf" While this is
not strictly methodological guidance specific to the KP, it is relevant information for the community likely toread this report.

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, in particular in regions with slow growth rates, such as boreal
forests. To ensure integrity, such a reporting system should include verification and auditing procedures.

1438
1439

USE OF EXISTING INVENTORIES

1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451

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 to allow tracking of land over time. If the latter is
not possible, e.g., because monitoring procedures were changed, it is good practice to develop computational
procedures, which allow conversion of data between the sampling schemes or, at least to have a method, whichallows to map the data from a previous to a successor sampling scheme (see also Sections 2.4.1 Developing aconsistent time series and 2.4.2 Recalculation).

1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461

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 forest conversion events at a resolution of 0.05 to 1 hectares can be met, however, with additional
statistical analyses to establish the area subject to afforestation, reforestation, deforestation or conversion ofnatural forests to planted forests events that occurred in units less than 3 ha in size. One possible approach could
be to determine 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

Draft KP Supplement

2.21

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476

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).

1477
1478
1479
1480

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.

1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486

Countries that choose an inventory-based approach for the identification of lands subject toafforestation/reforestation activities can face the challenge that non-forest areas are not usually 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.

1487
1488

MONITORING AND MEASUREMENT OF ACTIVITIES

1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496

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.

1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502

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.

1503
1504
1505
1506
1507

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 (Section2.4.3 Uncertainty assessment). Appropriate pre-stratification of the country for which sample
estimates will be developed may reduce the uncertainty.

1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516

Recent advances, such as the release of the complete freely available Landsat archives, developments of newimage processing algorithms, and vast increases in computing power may enable the production of annual landcover change products at national, continental and global scales. However, given that land-use change often
occurs on only a small fraction of the areas affected by land-cover change, additional information and/or
inferences may be required to ascertain whether a land-cover change represents a land-use change. Moreover,
special requirements such as the reporting of conversion of natural forests to planted forests will require
additional data, for example to determine whether cover loss occurred in ‘natural forests’ and whether theregenerated forest is the result of planting. These and other special requirements can be met through activity
reporting (see below).

2.22

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting
Second Order Draft

1517
1518
1519

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.

1520
1521

ACTIVITY REPORTING

1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528

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 those individuals or agencies toreport the afforestation/reforestation activities.

1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536

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 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, andinformation 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.

1537
1538
1539
1540
1541

Activity reporting may be necessary for the identification of afforestation, reforestation, deforestation,
conversion of natural forests to planted forests or conversion to carbon equivalent forests in areas of size below
the forest inventory minimum unit, when such minimum unit is larger than the minimum area selected for theforest definition under KP. Coupled with high resolution remote sensed images, activity reporting can provide
geo-referenced information and detailed description of land cover change for small areas and sample plots.

1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548

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 lands, orreferences 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 to a reporting system.

1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554

It is good practice to report GHGs emissions and removals associated with drainage and rewetting of organicsoils in forest land. Detailded guidance for identifying lands is provided in the following section, section 2.5.2(Afforestation/Reforestation), section 2.6.2 (Deforestation), section 2.7.2 (Forest Management), section 2.3.9.2(natural disturbance), section 2.7.7.2 (Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion), section 2.9.2 (CroplandManagement), section 2.10.2 (Grazing land Management), section 2.11.2 (Revegetation), section 2.12.3 andWetlands Supplement (Wetland Drainage and Rewetting).

1555
1556

2.3

1557
1558

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

1559
1560
1561

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 Wetlands Supplement and this Supplementary Guidance.

1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567

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
carbon pools with discretionary omission of those that are not a source of carbon, with higher-tier methods used
for key categories. Parties do not have discretion in the exclusion of the Harvested Wood Products Pool27. The
GHG emissions and removals will be estimated regardless of their cause, such as growth, decomposition, harvest,
natural disturbances, or the establishment of equivalent forest. In the case of natural disturbances on AR or FM
27

Paragraph 26 of the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7

Draft KP Supplement

2.23

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572

lands, the emissions and removals shall be estimated and reported28 but countries can elect to exclude theseemissions and subsequent removals from the accounting in years where the emissions from disturbances areabove the background level plus the margin (See Section 2.3.9.6 for details). The carbon stock changes, andemissions and removals of non-CO2 greenhouse gases for which a Party elected to apply the 'Carbon Equivalent
Forest Conversion', need to be accounted and reported under Forest Management.

1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581

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, differenct methodologies may be applied to different lands reported within one
Article 3.3 or Article 3.4 activity.29 The methodology used to calculate greenhouse gas emissions or removals
associated at a given year should correspond to the actual land use on that land in that year, supplemented byadditional methodologies to account for past land uses and changes in land use, where appropriate. If the land in
the current year is not subject to an Article 3.3 activity, FM or an elected Article 3.4 activity, and if a reporting
requirement was not established through such activities in prior years, then the emissions and removals for thatland are not reported under the KP.

1582
1583
1584
1585

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 to
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:

1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592

Mineral Soils
The inventory calculations are based on land area and lands that can be 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 wheneverpossible to verify soil carbon stock reference values by comparison with results from field measurements.

1593
1594
1595
1596
1597

Organic soils
The Wetlands supplement contains updated and new methodological guidance for estimating GHG 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.

1598
1599

2.3.1

Pools to be reported

1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605

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 2.8). 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.

1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614

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 the Annex to this Chapter) and any net increase isreported as the equivalent CO2 removal. Carbon stock changes are converted to CO2 emissions and removals by
multiplying the net carbon stock change by 44/12 (the stochiometric ratio of CO2 and C) and by changing thesign: a decrease in carbon stocks (negative sign) leads to an emission to the atmosphere (positive sign) and viceversa. 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 for these modifications and on the criteria used to distinguish between carbon pools. It is good practice28

Decision 2/CMP.7, paragraph 33

29

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.

2.24

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting
Second Order Draft

1615
1616

to provide such information on both the individual pools included in the reporting, and on the total carbon stockchange of the six pools, including HWP.

1617
1618
1619
1620

Decision 2/CMP.7 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.30 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:

1621
1622
1623



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;

1624
1625
1626
1627



Reasoning based on sound knowledge of likely system responses. For instance, if an established cropland
without litter or dead wood carbon pools, i.e. not orchards or agroforestry systems, is converted to forest
land by afforestation or reforestation, the dead wood pool cannot decrease, because there is no deadwood inthat cropland; as is typically the case in areas with annual crops;

1628
1629
1630



Surveys of peer-reviewed literature suitable 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

1631



Combined methods.

1632
1633
1634
1635

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).
When two or more pools are combined in the reporting, then it is good practice to report carbon stock changes
for the combined pool unless a country can demonstrate that the aggregate of all pools is not a source.

1636

1638

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

1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644

Decision 2/CMP.7 specifies that the carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions for land subject to Article 3.3
activities, Forest Management and any elected activities under Article 3.4 be reported for each year of thecommitment period 31 , beginning with the start of the commitment period, or with the start of the activity,
whichever is later. 32 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.

1645
1646
1647
1648

This means that if the activity started during the commitment period, the carbon stock changes and non-CO2
emissions should be reported for the year of the onset of the activity and for each of the remaining years of thecommitment period. If the activity started after 1990 but before 1 January 2013, reporting of the carbon stockchanges and non-CO2 emissions for the commitment period should cover each year of the commitment period.

1649
1650

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

1651
1652
1653
1654
1655



For A/R, D, RV, and for FM and WDR, when a “narrow” approach (see section 1.1) to the implementationof their definition is applied, the area to be reported under the activity is the cumulative area of lands subject
to the activity since 1990; although for each land carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions have to bereported only since the year of the onset of the activity or the start of the commitment period, whichevercomes later.

30

See paragraph 26 in the Annex to the decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry), contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1

31

See paragraph 2(d) of Annex II to decision 2/CMP.8 (Implications of the implementation 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).

32

See paragraph 23 in the Annex to decision 2/CMP.7.

1637

2.3.2

Draft KP Supplement

2.25

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
1656
1657

BOX 2.3.1
EXAMPLE

1658
1659

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

1660
1661

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

1662• the second in 2010, i.e. during the first commitment period, and it was 2,000 ha in size,

1663• the third in 2015, i.e. during the second commitment period, and it was 4,000 ha in size.

1664

This Party will report during the second commitment period:

1665
1666
1667

• 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 lands
since the start of the second commitment period, i.e. 1 January 2013.

1668
1669
1670
1671
1672

• 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
deforested before the start of the second commitment period plus carbon stock changes and nonCO2 emissions that occurred since 2015 on the additional 4,000 ha deforested in that year.

1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680



For A/R, D, and for FM and WDR, when a “broad” approach (see section 1.1) to the implementation of theirdefinition is applied, the area to be reported under the activity is the cumulative area of lands reported under
the activity since the start of the first commitment period - i.e. 1 January 2008- minus the area that, for eachactivity, has been transferred to another mandatory activity or, according with the hierarchical order
implemented by the Party, to another elected activity. Although for each land carbon stock changes and nonCO2 emissions have to be reported only since the year of the onset of the activity or the start of the second
commitment period, i.e. 1 January 2013, whichever comes later.

1681
1682

BOX 2.3.2
EXAMPLE

1683
1684
1685
1686
1687

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 expansion of forest over the current timberline, adding 1,000 haannually. 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.

1688
1689

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:

1690
1691

• 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;

1692
1693
1694
1695
1696

• 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 1,000 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;

1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703

• 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;

1704
1705

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.

1706

2.26

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting
Second Order Draft

1707
1708
1709
1710
1711

Countries must avoid any double counting of lands, and associated carbon stocks changes and non-CO2
emissions. Therefore, if transfers of land among categories occur, the transferred area of lands has to be
subtracted from the old category and added to the new category, and the associated carbon stocks changes andnon-CO2 emissions be reported under the new activity. Note that there are constraints that limit acceptabletransfers of land among reporting categories as outlined in Section 1.3. ,

1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722

Each activity (A/R, D, FM, CM, GM, RV, WDR) may consist of a suite of practices and may begin with one orseveral of these. For instance, an afforestation program may begin with planning, land purchase, producing
propagation material, etc. Practices like site preparation can also precede the planting or seeding (as a result of
which the land actually becomes a “forest”). Some of these practices 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 goodpractice to interpret the beginning of an activity as the start of in situ carbon stock change and/or non-CO2
emissions due to any of the suite of practices. 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 do that, one caneither a) measure the carbon stocks on the site prior to the start of any operations related to the activity (in casecarbon stock changes are estimated using multiple stock measurements), or b) make sure that the estimate of thestock change includes an estimate of the emissions resulting from these initial practices.

1723

2.3.3

1724

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

1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733

The carbon stock-difference method outlined by the 2006 IPCC Guidelines33 requires carbon stock inventories
for a given land area, at two points in time. When using this method for a specific activity, it is important toensure that the area of land in that activity at times t1 and t2 is identical, to avoid confounding changes in stockcaused by area changes. Per unit of area at time t2, the annual stock change is the difference between the carbon
stock at time t2 and time t1, divided by the number of years between the inventories. If the forest area is changing,for example as a result of deforestation, afforestation, or both, then carbon stock changes can occur as 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). Examples of possible approaches that can be implemented to address this issue are provided
below.

1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749

Countries that use the IPCC stock-difference method for the calculation of stock changes34 need to ensure that
actual carbon stock changes are reported, and not artefacts resulting from changes in area over time. One
example that represents good practice is to implement the calculations of annual carbon stock changes whenusing any stock difference method in the following sequence: for any carbon pool of each activity, for each land,
the annual carbon stock change should first be calculated for the year of interest on the area at time t2, and thesestock changes should then be summed for all areas subject to the activity. The inverse sequence, i.e., firstsumming up carbon stocks across all areas of the activity at times t1 and t2 and then calculating the difference incarbon stocks, can result in errors if the total area at times t1 and t2 is not the same; it is therefore good practicethat area of land used in the calculation at times t1 and t2 is identical. Indeed, if the area subject to an activity
increases from the beginning to the end of the reporting year, then the reported carbon stocks reflect the transfer
of area (and the associated carbon stocks) into the land category; similarly, carbon stocks will decrease, if area isremoved from a land category35. The issue is of particular concern when areas outside the reporting system enter
into the reporting system, such as unmanaged land areas, or areas subject to activities not elected 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 notcontribute to C removals from the atmosphere.

1750
1751
1752
1753
1754

It is therefore good practice to ensure that when using the stock difference method that the area for the
calculations of carbon stock differences for each activity at times t1 and t2 is identical. Furthermore it is goodpractice to conduct all calculations of annual carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions forthe area of the activity at the end of the inventory year - i.e. the area at time t2 in equation 2.5 of Chapter 2,
Volume 4, 2006 IPCC Guidelines- and to use this approach consistently through time.

1755
33

2006 IPCC Guidelines, Section 4.2.1.1.

34

2006 IPCC Guidelines, Section 4.2.1.1.

35

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.

Draft KP Supplement

2.27

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
1756
1757

BOX 2.3.3
EXAMPLE

1758
1759

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 year

At the end of year

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

1,000,000 ha

990,000 ha

Area 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

1,000,000 ha

1,000,000 ha

Total area subject to FM
1760
1761

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

At the end of year

Average per hectare
biomass carbon stock of forest lands
subject to FM-1

100 tC ha

105 tC ha-1

Average per hectare
biomass carbon stock of new forest
lands subject to FM

80 tC ha-1

84 tC ha-1

Average per hectare
biomass carbon stock in deforested lands

100 tC ha-1

20 tC ha-1

1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769

A correct procedure will calculate stock changes in the three land categories:- forest lands that were subject to FM since the beginning of the year,- forest lands were the FM activity started during the year,- forest lands subject to FM that were deforested and converted to cropland in the year.
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 = -800,000 tC

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

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

Stock change reported in Forest Land
converted to Crop Land under UNFCCC
and in D under Article 3.3 (C)-800,000 t C

1770
1771
1772

It would be incorrect, for instance, to calculate the total aboveground biomass carbon stock on the
total land subject to FM at times t1 and t2 and then subtract C1 from C2 e.g.:
C1 Total stock in land subject to FM at thestart of year

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

C2 Total stock in land subject to FM at theend of 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

1773

2.28

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

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting
Second Order Draft

1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781

When land-use change events occur, the associated fluxes are reported in the new land-use category. When using
Tier 3 models and the IPCC default (Gain-Loss) method for the calculation of stock changes36 it is good practiceto ensure that the land-category attribute in the model is updated to reflect the subsequent land-use change prior
to estimating any C stock impacts from the land-use change event. This ensures that all carbon stock changes andnon-CO2 emissions that occur during a year will be reported in the new category. (See Box 1 in Kurz et al. (2009)as an example of a Tier 3 modelling approach that implements the required change in the land-use category at
the start of the year, i.e. prior to estimating any carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions associated withland-use changes during that year).

1782
1783

2.3.4

1784

Relationship between measurement and reportingintervals

1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792

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.37 A number of methods are available toobtain annual estimates of emissions and removals and the annual reporting requirement does not imply thatannual measurements are necessary. 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 2.3.5 (Interannual Variability). Carbon stock changes for pools with highuncertainties in stock estimates, e.g., soil organic carbon, are usually not detectable on an annual or short-termbasis.

1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803

Broadly speaking, when countries are developing and selecting methods to meet their reporting requirements, it
is good practice to seek a balance which is affordable, makes best use of data that are already available, allows
stock changes to be verified consistently with the approaches set out in Chapter 6, Volume 1, of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines (Section 6.10 Verification), and does not make greenhouse gas inventories susceptible to the impactsof annual fluctuations in weather which can mask the impacts of changes in anthropogenic activities. Although
Section 2.3.5 suggests that field data collection on a five-year cycle may represent a reasonable compromise, there-measurement interval also depends on the pool and the magnitude of the expected changes relative to thespatial variability in the pool and the uncertainties involved in pool size assessments. For example, changes insoil carbon can often only be detected over longer time periods (Saby et al. 2008). 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.

1804
1805

2.3.5

Interannual Variability

1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812

The two largest causes of actual 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 affect large areas (Griffis et al., 2003; Kurz 2010; Richards 2010; 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 to year,
and can shift between a net source and a net sink in successive years.

1813
1814
1815
1816
1817

The third cause of interannual variability in greenhouse gas emissions and removals is the variation in the rate ofhuman activities, including forest harvesting, land use, and land-use change. Variations and trends in thesehuman activities are of interest because they can demonstrate the benefits of climate mitigation efforts.
Estimation of the impacts of human activities and their trends over time is therefore the main purposes ofnational greenhouse gas inventories.

1818
1819
1820
1821
1822

The ‘signal’ of the impact of human activities, including mitigation measures, on emissions and removals in the
LULUCF sector, may not be discernible against the ‘noise’ of large interannual variability in emissions
originating from natural or indirect-human causes, because the impacts of natural disturbances and climate
variability can obscure trends in the impacts of human activities. The ability to discern the signal of changes inhuman activities from the noise of the interannual variability is, however, important when inventory estimates
36

2006 IPCC Guidelines, Section 4.2.1.1.

37Note that although annual reporting is required, countries have the option to account either annually or over the entire
commitment period (see paragraph 1(h) of Annex I and Paragraph 1 of Annex II to Decision -/CMP.8).

Draft KP Supplement

2.29

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
1823
1824
1825

are used to monitor the impacts of mitigation measures (IPCC, 2010). The provision in decision 2/CMP.7 thatenables countries to exclude from the accounting emissions from natural disturbances (see Section 2.3.9)
removes some of the variability from indirect-human and natural factors.

1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835

The methodology used to calculate reported emissions and removals affects the extent to which these causes ofvariability are captured in the reporting. Lower Tier methods are typically less affected by interannual variability
in non-anthropogenic drivers of greenhouse gas emissions and removals than higher Tier methods. Lower Tiermethods in which estimates of emissions and removals are insensitive to variation or trends in climate or otherenvironmental conditions (such as atmospheric CO2 concentrations or N-deposition rates) are likely to estimate
lower interannual variability in emissions and removals than actually occurs. This is because IPCC default data(including those contained in the Emissions Factor Database38) have been calculated by averaging data collected
over time and space to estimate representative global, regional, and ecological factors. By averaging out time andspace variability Tier 1 methods that use these IPCC factors do not reflect interannual variability from naturaland indirect-human induced factors.

1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852

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 very high interannual variability inemissions and removals as a result of climate variability because these two fluxes (NPP and Rh) are very large.
This can introduce fluctuations in annual greenhouse gas inventories that can completely mask impacts ofchanges in human activities (Richards 2010). Forest inventory-based modelling approaches that implement the
IPCC default approach (Gain- Loss Method)39 and that use empirical yield tables, which are not affected byinterannual variability in climate, report lower interannual variability in greenhouse gas emissions and removals.
Inventory-based modelling approaches represent interannual variability due to natural disturbances and humanactivity (e.g. Stinson et al. 2011 show high interannual variability in emissions and removals due to variations inannual area burned and insect infestations). Estimates of greenhouse gas emissions and removals derived fromthe stock difference method (calculating the difference in C stocks estimated from forest inventories at two
points in time) report the average annual net balance over the period between the first and second forest
inventory. This approach averages interannual variability and, without additional information, may not be able
to attribute observed emissions and removals to the drivers of emissions such as natural disturbances,environmental change or human activities. Additional information could be derived from a continuous forest
inventory design in which some data are collected each year, or from supplementary statistics on area annuallyaffected by disturbances.

1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859

Interannual variability can decrease as the geographical area considered increases. For example, the effects oflocal weather patterns may partially offset each other across a large country, but may be more pronounced in asmall country or within a small region of a country. There are, however, climatic processes that can 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 the measurement or
estimation interval the more likely it is that the results will capture the true long-term average value but averages
can mask trends.

1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868

In addition to greenhouse gas emissions and removals during the commitment period, Decision 2/CMP.8 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 direction and magnitude of the impact depends on how
the year 1990 deviated from the long-term emissions averages, e.g. as a result of variability in natural
disturbances or climate. Where environmental conditions in the base year (e.g., 1990) caused major deviations ingreenhouse gas emissions and removals from their longer-term (e.g., 5-year) averages, it is good practice to use
longer-term averages of emissions and removals to represent the base year.

1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877

Because of interannual variability in environmental conditions, extrapolation 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 to reduce
interannual variability is to use such growth functions to estimate biomass growth rates, because they represent
the average annual growth rates and are therefore influenced little by short-term fluctuations in environmental
conditions.
38

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

39

2006 IPCC Guidelines, Section 4.2.1.1.

2.30

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting
Second Order Draft

1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886

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, it is good practice to adjust growth estimatesaccordingly, and to incorporate the new data 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. Steps outlining the appropriate use of models ingreenhouse gas inventories are further outlined in the IPCC expert meeting report on the subject (IPCC 2010).

1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894

It is good practice at Tier 3 to assess and document clearly the extent to which natural and indirect-humanfactors influence the time series of reported annual greenhouse gas emissions and removals in the LULUCF
sector. While such factoring out has been recognised as difficult (IPCC 2003b), new methods are becoming
available that can help inform the policy community about the relative contributions of natural and indirecthuman factors compared to direct human factors (Smith 2010). Measures to reduce the reported impacts ofenvironmental variability (including climate, trends in atmospheric CO2 concentration or N deposition) can
include time-averaging of environmental data over 5-10-year or longer periods when using such data in highertier process models.

1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904

Methods used to reduce interannual variability also can help isolate the impacts of changes in human activities
relative to a baseline. This can be achieved by calculating two time series of emissions and removals 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 baseline human land use and land-use change and forest management data –the baseline could be based on historic averages or business-as-usual assumptions); and second the actual
emissions (with actual climate data, actual natural disturbance rates but actual human land use, land-use change
and forest management data). The difference between these two time series reports the impacts of changes inhuman 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).

1905
1906
1907
1908

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 theaccounted estimates of greenhouse gas emissions and removals. Countries that elect to exclude emissions fromnatural disturbances will reduce the interannual variability in accounted emissions.

1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919

The impact on accounting of the use of reference levels on interannual variability will depend on the methods
used to calculate 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 thatare not responsive to environmental variability or with average climate parameters, but then calculate actual
emissions with methods that are responsive to environmental variability (including long-term trends) or withactual climate parameters. If a Party uses Tier 3 models responsive to environmental parameters, it is therefore
good practice to use consistent methods, including the same environmental and climate data, to calculate boththe estimated reference level and the estimated actual emissions. For example, if a technical adjustment to thereference level calculations using Tier 3 methods used the same time series of climate parameters that are used in
the calculation of the actual emissions, then the impacts of interannual climate variability on forest productivity(NPP) and respiration would cancel out in the difference between the two time series.

1920
1921
1922

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.

1923
1924

2.3.6

Choice of method

1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930

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 all land under
Articles 3.3 or 3.4, it is good practice to use the same tier or a higher tier for estimating stock changes andgreenhouse 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.

Draft KP Supplement

2.31

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936

Whenever a category is identified as key in the UNFCCC inventory, it is good practice that the associatedactivity under the KP also be treated as a key category 40 . In the identification and documentation of key
categories under the KP it is also good practice to include a qualitative assessment, because there is not always
an unambiguous correspondence between the UNFCCC categories and KP activities. A country may also
undertake Approach 2 for key category analysis (see Section 4.3.2, Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines) to
identify the key categories of their inventory including the KP activities.

1937
1938

Table 2.3.1 can be used to establish the relationship between land categories and KP activities for purposes ofidentifying key categories under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 of the KP.

1939
TABLE 2.3.1
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POTENTIAL KYOTO PROTOCOL ACTIVITIESAND IPCC LAND CATEGORIES FOR LULUCF
Land categories of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines

Potential Kyoto Protocol activities

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

D, RV, CM, WDR

GRASSLAND
Grassland remaining grassland (managed)
Land converted to grassland (managed)

GM, RV, WDR
D, RV , GM, WDR

WETLANDS
Wetlands remaining wetlands (managed)
Land converted to wetlands

RV, WDR
D, RV, WDR

SETTLEMENTS
Settlements remaining settlements

RVLand converted to settlements

D, RV

Other land remaining other land

WDR

Land converted to other land

D, WDROTHER LANDa caArticle 3.4 activities only when elected (except FM, which is mandatory)

FM: forest management, AR: afforestation and reforestation, CM: cropland management, D: deforestation, RV:
revegetation,
GM: grazing land management, WDR: wetland drainage and rewetting

1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947

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 inventory41. If any of these are identified as key, the KP activities in thecorresponding right column could initially be considered key. However, as in some cases several KP activities
potentially can be key, it is good practice to examine qualitatively which of the possible activities actually are
key. For example, if land converted to grassland was identified as key, this can involve D, RV, GM, WDR, or
land-use changes not covered by the KP. The land area affected by RV or WDR may be much smaller than theland area of the land use category in which it occurs and in which other activities may also occur. If this is the40

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

41

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.

2.32

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting
Second Order Draft

1948
1949
1950
1951

case, and if RV is identified as potentially key according to Table 2.3.1, then countries may separately assess theimportance of greenhouse gas emissions and removals in RV compared to the other activities which occur in thesame land-use category. It is good practice to explain and document which of the potential key categories are
identified as key for KP reporting.

1952
1953

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 KP:

1954
1955
1956
1957
1958



As shown in Table 2.3.1, several activities under the KP can occur in more than one land category of the
UNFCCC inventory. In such cases, it is good practice to consider the total emissions and removals from theactivity 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 the smallest category that
is identified as key in the UNFCCC inventory (including LULUCF).

1959
1960
1961
1962



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 sinks in future years.

1963
1964
1965
1966



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

1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973

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 or pools.

1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983

Tier 1 as elaborated in Chapter 4, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines assumes for forest land remaining
forest land 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 the annex of decision 2/CMP.7 specifies that all changes be accounted
in the following carbon pools: above-ground biomass, below-ground biomass, litter, dead wood, soil organiccarbon and harvested wood products. With the exception of harvested wood products, a Party may choose not toaccount for a given pool in a commitment period, if transparent and verifiable information is provided that
demonstrates that the pool is not a source. Therefore Tier 1 can only be applied if the litter, dead wood and soilorganic carbon pools can be shown not to be a source using the methods outlined in Section 2.3.1. Tier 1 canalso only be applied if forest management is not considered a key category, which can only be the case if “forest
land remaining forests land” in Chapter 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines is not a key category.

1984

2.3.7

1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995

CMP decisions specify that information needs to be provided on whether or not anthropogenic greenhouse gas
emissions by sources and removals by sinks from activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 factor out removals fromthree processes: (1) elevated carbon dioxide concentrations above pre-industrial levels, (2) indirect nitrogen
deposition, and (3) the dynamic effects of age structure resulting from activities prior to 1 January 1990.42 In
addition to the requirement to report whether or not these effects are factored out, those Parties that choose
factoring out are expected to also report the methods 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 by comparing GHG emissions and removals during the commitment
period with a benchmark under either a base year or a business-as-usual scenario, which could also be a scenario
in which emissions and removals are assumed to balance to zero (see also section 2.3.5 and its discussion on
reducing impacts of interannual variability).

1996

2.3.8

1997
1998

Decision 2/CMP.6 requests each Annex I Party to submit information on its Forest Management Reference
Level (FMRL) and provides guidelines for the submission and review of information on FMRLs. Technically the42

Factoring out indirect, natural and pre-1990 effects

Reference Levels

See Paragraph 3 of Annex II of Decision 2/CMP.8

Draft KP Supplement

2.33

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
1999
2000

FMRL is a level of greenhouse gases emissions and removals against which the emissions and removals reported
for forest management during the second commitment period will be compared for accounting purposes.

2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008

It is good practice to construct the FMRL taking into account historical data from greenhouse gas inventory(GHGI) 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, in theconstruction of the FMRL it is good practice to include pools and gases consistent with historic reporting and toalso treat natural disturbances consistently. Details of the methodology for determining the FMRL can be foundin Section 2.7.5 of this document.

2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019

The Annex of decision 2/CMP.7 paragraph 14 requests methodological consistency between the FMRL andreporting for forest management during the second commitment period when accounting for Forest Management.
According to paragraph 15 of the Annex of decision 2/CMP.7 a technical correction shall be applied if thereported data on Forest Management or forest 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 theestimates using the same method for all inventory years. Thus, to ensure methodological consistency of theaccounting of Forest Management, a technical correction may be needed to ensure that the same method and data
(climate, model parameters, etc. but not forest management activity 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.

2020

2.3.9

2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026

Under the UNFCCC, and in the first commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, emissions from natural
disturbances on managed land are included in reporting and accounting. Emissions from natural disturbances on
unmanaged lands are not included in reporting so long as these lands continue to be unmanaged. Decision
2/CMP.7 introduced a modification to this approach by which under certain conditions the emissions fromnatural disturbances that occur on managed land may be excluded from accounting under the Kyoto Protocol
during the second commitment period44.

2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033

The size, intensity and frequency of the natural disturbance may depend significantly on the type of disturbance45.
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., 2011;
Perry et al., 2011; Xaio and Zhuang, 2007). Insect outbreaks, which may be the major agent of natural
disturbance in some regions, may be quasi-periodic, but the frequency and size are often erratic, and influenced
by multiple factors (Fleming et al., 2002; McCullough, 2000; Rouault et al., 2006).

2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041

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 (i.e. the dead organic matter, or DOM)),
those that result in post-disturbance emissions (e.g., through the decay of DOM after a disturbance), and postdisturbance removals of carbon from the atmosphere. In addition, some types of natural disturbance change thestructure and dynamics of the ecosystem in a way that influences greenhouse gas dynamics of the different pools.
For instance, decay dynamics and carbon stock changes in both the soil organic matter and litter pools maychange when mineral soil and litter are mixed as a result of a disturbance (e.g., wind-throw).

Disturbances43

43

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

44

Paragraph 33 of the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p. 17-18.

45Type of disturbance refers to the list of disturbances in the definition given in Paragraph 1(a) of the Annex to Decision
2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p. 13.

2.34

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting
Second Order Draft

2042

2.3.9.1

D EFINITIONAL ISSUES

2043
2044

For reporting and accounting under the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, Decision 2/CMP.746
provides the following definition of natural disturbances:

2045
2046
2047
2048
2049

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
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.

2050

The list of examples provided in the Decision 2/CMP.7 may be understood as follows:

2051
2052
2053
2054
2055



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).

2056
2057
2058
2059
2060



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 in forest include:
Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (2012a, 2012b and 2012c); Raffa et al. (2008); Bentz et al. (2010).

2061
2062
2063
2064
2065



Extreme weather events: extreme weather events include droughts, floods, snow (Fujimori et al. 1987),
avalanches, ice, and strong winds (Lindner et al., 2010; Yamashita et al., 2002; Allen et al., 2010; Kramer etal., 2008; Bebi et al., 2009; Phillips et al., 2009; Chambers et al., 2007). Besides causing emissions by theirown, extreme weather events can negatively affect forests and make them more susceptible for other natural
disturbances, e.g. wildfires following droughts.

2066
2067



Geological disturbances: geological disturbances include, for example, volcanic eruptions, landslides,
tsunamis, and earthquakes (Kamijo and Hashiba, 2003; Viña et al., 2011).

2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073

Decision 2/CMP.7 requires Annex I Parties that apply the provisions for natural disturbance to Forest
Management under Article 3.4, and/or to Afforestation and Reforestation under Article 3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol
to provide transparent information, inter alia, that demonstrates that the occurrences were beyond the control of,and not materially influenced by, the Party in the commitment period, by demonstrating practicable efforts toprevent, manage or control the occurrences that led to the application of the provisions contained in paragraph
33 of the Annex to the Decision 2/CMP.747.

2074

Such practicable efforts could include, but will not necessarily be limited to:

2075
2076
2077
2078
2079



Reducing the likelihood of the disturbance occurring, by preventive measures modifying factors related tothe occurrence or propagation of the disturbance. Actions taken in this regard may themselves have an
negative 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 lesslikely;

2080
2081
2082



Managing or controlling the disturbance during its occurrence. This may be facilitated by the
implementation of monitoring programs and early warning systems, integrated coordination with the firesquads, etc.

2083
2084

Depending on national circumstances, examples of transparent and verifiable information that demonstrates
these efforts could include but will not necessarily be limited to:46

Paragraph 1 (a) of the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p. 13.

47

Paragraph 34(d) of the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/Add.1, p. 18.

Draft KP Supplement

2.35

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
2085
2086
2087



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 disturbance48;

2088
2089
2090



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);

2091
2092
2093



Sub-national management plans or policy statements, which define a strategy for managing the types ofnatural disturbance, and valid and in force for the region where the disturbance occurred which led the Party
to apply the natural disturbance provision.

2094
2095

It is good practice to demonstrate that the strategy has been implemented, or is in the process of implementation,
when a Party indicates its intention to apply the natural disturbance provision.

2096
2097
2098
2099

In some instances it may not be practicable to prevent, manage or control the disturbance. Where such events orcircumstances are included by a Party under the natural disturbance provision, it is good practice to provide
transparent and verifiable information that no practical action could be taken to prevent, manage or control theoccurrences of the event or circumstance.

2100

2.3.9.2

2101

C HOICE OF METHODS FOR IDENTIFYING LAND SUBJECT TO
NATURAL DISTURBANCE

2102
2103
2104

This section provides guidance and 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.

2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120

Annex I Parties that choose to apply the natural disturbance provision outlined in Decision 2/CMP.7 need to beable to meet all the requirements set out in paragraph 34, (a) to (f) of the Annex to the Decision 2/CMP.7. This
includes providing transparent information “Showing that all lands subject to paragraph 33(a) and (b) … are
identified, including their geo-referenced location, year and types of disturbances” (paragraph 34 (a)); “Showing
how annual emissions resulting from disturbances and the subsequent removals in those areas are estimated”(paragraph 34(b)); “Showing that no land-use change has occurred on lands for which the provisions inparagraph 33 … are applied and explaining the methods and criteria for identifying any future land-use changes
on those land areas during the commitment period” (paragraph 34(c)); “That demonstrates that the occurrenceswere beyond the control of, and not materially influenced by, the Party in the commitment period, bydemonstrating practicable efforts to prevent, manage or control the occurrences that led to the application of theprovisions contained in paragraph 33…” (paragraph 34 (d)); “That demonstrates efforts taken to rehabilitate,
where practicable, the land for which the provisions in paragraph 33 …are applied” (paragraph 34(e));“Showing that emissions associated with salvage logging were not excluded from accounting” (paragraph 34 (f)).
Parties also need 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 2/CMP.749). All
these requirements are linked in some way to identifying land affected by disturbances.

2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129

For lands subject to Articles 3.3 and 3.4, Section 2.2.2 outlines Reporting Method 1 and Reporting Method 2. As
discussed in Section 2.2.4 these reporting methods are not the same as the underlying methods used to identify
land areas for greenhouse gas inventory purposes, though there are linkages between them. Reporting Method 1
entails delineating areas that include multiple land units, assessing the respective contribution of relevant
activities (or conditions) to the total emissions from these lands, and is often associated with the application of
statistical sampling approaches to land identification. Reporting Method 2 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, which is frequently associated with the application of remote sensing 50 techniques.
Similarly to both reporting methods, identification of lands subject to natural disturbance can be undertaken with48

Paragraph 33 of the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/Add.1, p. 17-18

49

Contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/Add.1, p. 18.

50

Remote sensing includes satellite imagery and aerial photography. For general guidance on sampling and land
identification issues, please refer to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Volume 1, Chapter 2; Volume 4, Chapter 3 and Annex
3.A.3).

2.36

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting
Second Order Draft

2130
2131

statistical sampling approaches, or via wall-to-wall mapping and ground-based surveys, solely or in combination,and may be supported by relevant ancillary data51.

2132

Estimation of the area affected by the disturbance requires, for each disturbance type, that the:

2133
2134

i.

2135
2136
2137
2138
2139

ii. Methods and algorithms used for disturbance and disturbance type detection be suitable for the identificationof disturbances affecting the minimum area as defined by the Party (e.g. selected minimum area for theforest definition used for reporting under the Kyoto Protocol); and that respective area or areas of land be
identified in subsequent years. General guidance on this topic is provided in Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines and Fuller et al. (2003) discuss possible issues related to this.

2140
2141
2142
2143
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148

Statistical sampling schemes do not provide delineation of disturbed areas directly, but rather an estimate of thetotal disturbed area by means of representative sample plots affected by the disturbance (refer to Chapter 3,
Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for guidance on sampling and area estimation). Identification andgeographical location of disturbance events are performed on a per-plot basis. Such sampling schemes may bebased e.g. on National Forest Inventory sampling grids if these provide sufficient information to meet therequirements in Decision 2/CMP.7, in particular those set out in paragraphs 33 and 34. Depending on the type of
disturbance and associated characteristics (e.g., area size distribution), intensification of sampling may benecessary to make the estimated uncertainty comparable with the uncertainty in estimating Articles 3.3 and 3.4
forest related emissions overall.

2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164

When using remotely sensed data to detect changes triggered by the occurrence of natural disturbances, a Party
needs to identify the appropriate temporal, spatial, and spectral resolutions of the data, and to assess the need forcomplementary ancillary and/or ground truth data. Identification and assessment are specific to types ofindividual natural disturbance events or circumstances that a Party intends to consider. While for some types ofdisturbance, less frequent but more detailed data might provide better estimates (e.g., identification of areas
affected by pest infestation), for others, more frequent but less detailed data might be better (e.g., whenidentifying fire hot spot areas). The decision on the features of the data source (e.g., spatial resolution of satellite
imagery) to be used should take into account specific characteristics of the type of disturbance (e.g., percent loss
in forest crown cover due to pest infestation). In addition, the timing of the surveying and of the analysis of thedata are also relevant to ensure that the data captures the effect of natural disturbance and not seasonal changes.
For instance, if the analysis of the data occurs shortly after the occurrence of a discrete disturbance event or
circumstance, it is very likely that the changes on the ground will result from the event itself. Otherwise, the data
may be confounded with land-use change, with annual phenological and climatic differences, and/or otherfactors that may influence the pre- and post-disturbance conditions. It is therefore good practice that the Party
indicate how the remotely sensed data is used to identify the changes due to the actual disturbance event or
circumstance, and not to other phenomena.

2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182

Considered individually, any approach may present advantages and challenges. For example, wall-to-wall
approaches based on remotely sensed data may not discriminate clear-cut harvest from salvage logging, while
systematic sampling grids of existing forest inventories may not have an adequate sample size, design andfrequency to identify reliably the year of disturbance or the affected area with the desired level of precision andaccuracy. For both wall-to-wall mapping and statistical sampling techniques, existing national approaches forland identification may need adjustment and improvement in order to fulfill the requirement for identification oflands subject to natural disturbance including their geo-referenced location, year and types of disturbances.
Hybrid approaches, using a set of different types of data, may facilitate meeting the relevant requirements in
Decision 2/CMP.7. The choice of approach and data to be used by a Party for land identification will depend on
national conditions in land under Forest Management and/or Afforestation and Reforestation, the inventories andsurveys already in place, and the type and magnitude of the disturbance(s) to be assessed (see Box 2.3.4 forfurther examples). It is good practice for Parties to present information justifying the suitability of the methods
and approaches used to identify lands affected by natural disturbance, and on how the provisions concerningsalvage logging and land-use change following such disturbances are monitored. It may also be possible toachieve the desired outcomes by other means, e.g., by systems to collect event-based supplementary information,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.

51

Proportion of area affected is assessed accurately if Reporting Method 1 is used and that each area affected
can be identified as being disturbed when Reporting Method 2 is used, andE.g. supplementary data providing direct delineation of disturbed areas

Draft KP Supplement

2.37

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
2183
2184

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

2185

Example 1: Permanent sample plots with repeated measurements

2186
2187
2188

A Party conducts a national forest inventory based on a set of permanent sample plots distributed
following a regular sampling design, and estimates both emissions and area of land-use changes
using information and data collected on the sample plots.

2189
2190
2191
2192
2193

Requirements: Design-based inference that uses a set of permanent sample plots with regularmeasurement intervals. Guidance on sampling approaches, including sample size is provided inVolume 1, Chapter 2 and Volume 4, Chapter 3 (Annex 3.A.3) of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
Measurements need to allow the estimation of the parameters of interest, including disturbancetype and year of occurrence.

2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
2203
2204

Estimation method: The annual area affected by disturbances of a particular type is estimated as
the product between the fraction of plots affected (calculated as ratio by dividing the number ofsample plots disturbed and the total number of sample plots) and the total geographical area
covered by the sample plots (refer to Section 3A.3.5 in Annex 3.A.3 in Chapter 3, Volume 1 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines). The associated total annual emission is estimated multiplying the area
affected and the area-specific emissions (CO2 and non-CO2) per unit area. Area-specific CO2
emissions may be estimated from plot data before and after the disturbance. The uncertainty of thearea affected by disturbance can be estimated following standard sampling theory (refer to Chapter
2, Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines). In case of large variations among the area-specificemissions, Parties should stratify the area according with emission intensities and then generate theaverage emission accordingly.

2205
2206
2207
2208
2209
2210
2211

The potential challenges: The potential challenges of this approach include a large percentage
sampling error associated with disturbance events (e.g., hurricanes, volcanic eruptions) that areunder-represented in the proposed sampling scheme, unless the sampling grid is intensified. Whenthe regular inventory return interval is not sufficient to assign a year (e.g. for wind-throw),
additional field visits or other data/methods may be required. Similarly, field visits may be neededin order to monitor the absence of subsequent land-use changes or salvage logging on sites where
the emissions and removals are excluded from accounting.

2212

Example 2: Area estimation with full coverage and time series comparisons

2213
2214

A Party uses remotely sensed data or a complete land register-based system for land use and landuse change estimation.

2215
2216
2217
2218
2219
2220
2221
2222

Requirements: This approach requires full territorial coverage with remotely sensed data ofadequate spatial resolution and appropriate remote sensing techniques for assessing changes inland-cover; or a complete land register containing location and size of parcels of land, andinformation on land use/land cover (for additional information and guidance, refer to Section
3A.2.4 (Tools for data collection) in Chapter 3, Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines). The
remote sensing or land-register based techniques, including classification algorithms andestimators, have to be validated using ground truth or equivalent data in the case of register based
methods.

2223
2224
2225
2226
2227

Estimation method: The total area affected and total emissions are summed over individual areas
and their associated emissions related to disturbance types. Time series measurements are thenused to support evidence, extent and severity of disturbance. Estimation algorithms, which may be
a function of type of disturbance, need also to avoid double counting where more than one
disturbance affects a given area.

2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233

The potential challenges: All classification and mapping algorithms will have an associated error,
which can lead to high absolute errors of area estimates if data from several maps are combined(see Fuller et al. (2003) for details). For some disturbance types the error is low (e.g., forest fires),while for others it may be high (e.g., disturbances that cause dispersed single tree mortality overlarge areas, such as Ash dieback52). Another challenge is the validation of the algorithms andensuring an uncertainty within acceptable levels adopted by the Party.

2234

52

Chalara fraxinea (teleomorph: Hymenoscyphus pseudoalbidus), a fungus affecting ash trees in Europe

2.38

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting
Second Order Draft

2235
2236

Example 3: Permanent sample plots with repeated measurements combined with remotesensing

2237
2238

A Party conducts a forest inventory based on permanent sample plots in a regular design and uses
remotely sensed data for stratification.

2239
2240
2241
2242

Requirements: design-based inference developed from a set of permanent sample plots withregular measurement intervals and full coverage by remotely sensed data with appropriate spatial
and temporal resolutions that allow for the identification of disturbance events, combined withclassification algorithms consistent with the accuracy and precision sought by the Party.

2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251

Estimation method: The total area affected by a disturbance type is determined from remotelysensed data and total emissions are estimated from the permanent sample plots that fall within the
disturbed area. The actual affected area is a stratified estimate based on the sample plots that fallwithin the disturbance strata (plots having been affected by a respective disturbance type) from theremotely sensed data. For example, aerial photography could be used in area and emission
estimation, reducing the need for sampling of supplemental data. Estimation algorithms, which
may be a function of type of disturbance, need also to avoid double counting where more than one
disturbance affects a given area. The strength of this method is that it potentially allows for moreaccurate estimates of both emission and affected areas than those in either Example 1 or 2 above.

2252
2253
2254
2255

The potential challenges: The potential challenge of this approach is that it requires both
extensive remotely sensed data and intensive ground data-based inventory systems. Balancing andmatching of the systems and methods, e.g., to avoid double-accounting or the use of outdated data,
may be difficult to achieve.

2256

Example 4: Remote sensing and additional field inventory

2257
2258

A Party uses remotely sensed data for land use and land-use change estimation and additional
measurements for some disturbances (e.g., identification of defoliator-caused tree death).

2259
2260
2261
2262
2263

Requirements: This approach provides full coverage by remotely sensed data with appropriate
spatial and temporal resolutions that allow for identification of disturbance events, combined withappropriate classification algorithms and estimators. Classification algorithms and estimators need
to be validated with ground truth observations. Ground data collection need to be suitable tocapture the information needed for addressing the specific type of disturbance in question.

2264
2265
2266
2267
2268

Estimation method: The total area affected by a disturbance type is the sum of the areas identified
as affected. The total area affected and total emissions are summed over individual areas and theirassociated emissions related to disturbances. Estimation algorithms, which may be a function oftype of disturbance, need also to avoid double counting where more than one disturbance affects agiven area.

2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274

The potential challenges: All classification and mapping algorithms will have an associated error,
which can lead to high absolute errors if data from several maps are combined (see Fuller et al.
(2003) for details). For some disturbance types the 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 dieback53). Another challenge is the validation of the algorithms and ensuring an uncertainty
within acceptable levels adopted by the Party.

2275
2276

2.3.9.3

2277

ESTIMATION OF CO 2 EMISSIONS AND REMOVALS FROM
NATURAL DISTURBANCES

2278
2279
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284

For the second commitment period, Parties may apply the provision for natural disturbance emissions foraccounting for Forest Management under Article 3.4 and/or Afforestation and Reforestation under Article 3.3 as
per the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7. To apply the provisions for natural disturbance, Parties are required toprovide country-specific information on a Forest Management background level and/or an Afforestation and
Reforestation background level of emissions from natural disturbances (cf. paragraphs 33 (a) and (b) of theAnnex to Decision 2/CMP.7). Parties are also required to calculate the emissions and removals subject to theprovisions (cf. paragraphs 33 and 34 of the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7) for natural disturbances and provide
53

Chalara fraxinea (teleomorph: Hymenoscyphus pseudoalbidus), a fungus affecting ash trees in Europe

Draft KP Supplement

2.39

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293

transparent information on how the annual emissions and removals are estimated. The incidence of natural
disturbances varies both spatially and temporally. Spatial variability refers to the distribution, intensity and thesize of the areas affected by disturbances: the impact of a disturbance (e.g., a strong wind and/or insect attack)could be concentrated in a large and continuous forest area; or spread across small-discontinued areas; witheither homogeneous or heterogeneous intensity. Temporal variability refers to the occurrence of natural
disturbances over time and the extension of post-disturbance effects over time: Direct releases of carbon to theatmosphere (e.g., during fires) or transfers of carbon out of the ecosystem (e.g., during harvest or landslides)
occur during the disturbance event, whereas redistribution of carbon among carbon pools (e.g., during windthrow) cause emissions in subsequent years.

2294
2295
2296
2297
2298

There are particular considerations in relation to the estimation of the effects of natural disturbances where a
Party applies the provision for natural disturbance to Forest Management and/or Afforestation and Reforestation.
These include the choice of the estimation method and tier level, the attribution of natural disturbances toindividual years and legacy effects, salvage logging, differentiation of natural disturbances from regularmanagement activities or other events, and removals subsequent to the disturbance event.

2299

CH OIC E OF ES TIMATI ON M ETH OD

2300
2301
2302

The methods to estimate CO2 emissions associated with carbon stock changes in the relevant pools are given in
the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and are elaborated in Chapter 4, Volume 4 for above and below-ground biomass, deadwood, litter, and soil organic matter.

2303
2304
2305
2306
2307
2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314

Land subject to natural disturbance in the context of Decision 2/CMP.7 is land that has already been identified asland under Forest Management or Afforestation and Reforestation. The estimation of carbon stock changes andassociated emissions due to natural disturbance should therefore be consistent with or complement the method
and tier level applied for each of the pools under the activities of Forest Management and/or Afforestation and
Reforestation for reporting under the Kyoto Protocol. The estimation of carbon stock changes due to natural
disturbance should also take into account the effect of the disturbance on carbon stock changes in subsequent
years so that reporting reflects emissions associated with carbon stock changes in the year they occur. This canbe achieved by ensuring that the stratification, activity data, the emissions and removals factors and otherparameters used for estimates of carbon stock changes in years beyond the date of occurrence reflect the spatial
and time incidence of the natural disturbance. It is also good practice to estimate emissions associated withcarbon stock changes from natural disturbance in a manner consistent with the method used for the calculation ofemissions in the background level, or conduct technical correction if that is not the case.

2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2326
2327
2328

Where the Forest Land Remaining Forest Land category under the UNFCCC is a key category it is goodpractice to apply Tier 2 or 3 to estimate carbon stock changes from natural disturbance for Forest Management;
and similarly for Afforestation and Reforestation if the Land Converted to Forest Land category under the
UNFCCC is a key category (Chapter 4, Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines). The assumption under Tier 1 isthat the net carbon stock change in DOM is zero. Decision 2/CMP.7 specifies that the carbon stock change in all
pools must be accounted for unless the pool can be shown to not be a source 54 . Although subject to therequirements of the Decision 2/CMP.7 carbon stock gains caused by natural disturbances may be excluded fromaccounting in the second commitment period, they need to be reflected in the accounting of subsequent
commitment periods. Significant amounts of carbon may be transferred to the DOM pool, which will then decay,
and thus it becomes less likely that a Party could subsequently show that these pools are not a source in thesubsequent commitment periods. Therefore, countries that experience significant changes in disturbance regimes
in their forests (which would be the case if major natural disturbance events occur) are encouraged to quantify
the impacts from these changes using Tier 2 or 3 methodologies (Section 2.2.1, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines).

2329
2330
2331
2332
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340

It is good practice for methodologies to represent the effect of the particular natural disturbance event or
circumstance on the carbon stocks on the land affected by the natural disturbance. The effects of natural
disturbances which should be considered include: direct reductions in carbon stocks due to the disturbance (e.g.,release of CO2 to the atmosphere during wildfires); transfer of carbon between pools (e.g., transfer of living
biomass to the DOM pool due to wind-throw); changes in carbon stocks following the disturbance (e.g., throughthe decay of DOM post disturbance); changes in post disturbance stand dynamics that affect the growth rate of
the forest (e.g., early rapid growth in young trees that regenerate after a stand replacing fire). The effect of postdisturbance emission dynamics in dead wood, litter, and soils may be included in estimating carbon stockchanges given that the necessary capacity in terms of data and models is available in a country. The effects
considered in estimations may require appropriate stratification of the impacted area to adequately represent the
disturbance types, climate zones, ecosystems and affected parts of ecosystems, and land use history based ondata available from national forest inventory, remote sensing and/or other sources; and appropriate estimation of
54

Paragraph 26 of the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p. 16.

2.40

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting
Second Order Draft

2341
2342
2343
2344
2345

emission factors, decomposition rates and other factors and functions involved that are representative for the
disturbance event and for the different strata. 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 tonatural disturbance to individual years. Other statistics that record, for example, salvage logging on an annual
basis may also be relevant.

2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
2351
2352

Annex I Parties that apply the provisions for natural disturbance are required to provide transparent information
on how the emissions from natural disturbances have been estimated during the commitment period55. This
includes documentation of data sources and estimation methodologies in accordance with the tier level used for
applying the natural disturbance provision. Disturbance matrices56 (Section 2.3.1.1, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines) can be used to define the impact of the event on the proportion of each carbon pool that istransferred to another pool, released to the atmosphere, or removed from forest in salvage logging and entering
the carbon pool of harvested wood products.

2353

A TTRIBU TION TO IND IVIDUA L Y EAR S

2354
2355
2356

For natural disturbances that occur during the second commitment period, reporting of areas and emissions fromlands subject to natural disturbances should commence in the year in which the natural disturbance commences
and continue in subsequent years.

2357
2358
2359
2360
2361
2362
2363
2364
2365
2366
2367
2368
2369

It is good practice to attribute direct releases of carbon to the atmosphere, e.g. from wildfires, which occur
during the disturbance event, to the year of occurrence. Post-disturbance emissions from the DOM pools throughthe decay process, taking account of redistribution, will extend over a period of time. It is good practice toestimate these legacy emissions in the year they occur, while avoiding double counting. For example, if a large
amount of live biomass damaged during disturbances is transferred to DOM pool, loss of biomass should be
estimated as a loss from the biomass pool and an input to the DOM pool. In case of disturbances lasting morethan one year, it is good practice to estimate, as emissions associated with natural disturbances, both the direct
carbon emissions in the year they occur and legacy emissions in the subsequent years of the commitment period.
It is possible to represent an insect infestation as a series of annual disturbance events, for example repeatedannual defoliation of forests will lead to cumulative impacts on growth reduction, mortality and subsequentemissions (e.g., Dymond et al. 2010). Lands affected by natural disturbances will remain in the disturbancecategory until the end of the commitment period. Guidance on legacy effects associated with natural
disturbances after the end of the second commitment period is given in Section 2.3.9.8 below.

2370

SALVAGE LOGGING

2371
2372
2373
2374
2375
2376
2377

Box 2.3.5 defines salvage logging (SL) in the context of natural disturbances. Where SL occurs on land subject
to natural disturbance, the carbon stock change due to salvage logging must be accounted for and not excluded
with emissions associated with natural disturbances (cf. paragraphs 33(c) and34 (f) of the Annex to Decision
2/CMP.7). The carbon stock change due to wood removals is treated as a loss of carbon from the land in the year
the salvage logging occurs, and is subject to the harvested wood provisions of Decision 2/CMP.7 where wood
derived from salvage logging can be shown to enter HWP pools. It is good practice to assign carbon stockchange from salvage logging to the year when they take place.

2378
2379
2380
2381
2382
2383

Emissions from non-biomass carbon pools (e.g. soil organic matter) due to altered decay rates after salvage
logging operations should be included in the accounting if the required information or models are available to a
Party and transparent information on the estimation of these emissions can be provided. The current state ofknowledge indicates limitations and generally high uncertainties for emission estimation from these pools undernatural disturbance conditions (Chapter 4, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines), nevertheless countries
having the necessary capacities are encouraged to capture those dynamics.

2384

55

Paragraph 34(b) of the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p. 18.

56

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

Draft KP Supplement

2.41

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
2385
2386
2387

BOX 2.3.5
DEFINITION OF SALVAGE LOGGING (SL), IN THE CONTEXT OF THE EXCLUSION OF EMISSIONS FROM NATURAL

2388
2389
2390
2391
2392
2393
2394
2395

Salvage logging is the practice of harvesting and removing trees or parts of trees (living or dead)from disturbed areas. This management activity is also known as salvage cutting, salvage
harvesting, sanitation cutting, and other designations. If it is conducted on areas not subject to theapplication of the natural disturbance provisions, it can be part of the regular Forest Management
emissions and removals estimation and accounting framework, i.e. salvage logging would then betreated as harvest. In case the Party chooses to exclude emissions due to natural disturbances, it
shall account for emissions associated with salvage logging (paragraph 33(c) of the Annex toDecision 2/CMP.7).

2396

These emissions result from the following:

2397
2398

1) the removal of living biomass and dead wood (and hence, carbon) from the disturbance area due
to harvest and removal of trees or parts of trees;

2399
2400

2) losses of carbon from the dead wood remaining on site, litter, and the soil organic matter pools
due to SL activities, if any; and,

2401
2402

3) non-CO2 emissions due to management activities associated with SL, e.g. burning of harvest
residues.

2403

Carbon stock changes due to gains in living biomass (removals) are not associated with SL.

2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
2409
2410

In case salvage logging is done in a selective way not affecting most of the disturbed area, forexample as recovery of economically very valuable single stems by helicopter logging, it is goodpractice to use methodology appropriate to estimate the effects of this activity on the various pools
and to attribute the respective emissions to salvage logging. For example, the share of carbon fromliving biomass that is transferred to the dead wood pool may be higher in salvage logging
operations than in regular harvesting, which has to be reflected. Emissions from harvest residues
left after SL have to be accounted for as “associated with salvage logging”, too.

2411
2412
2413
2414
2415
2416

A Party needs to demonstrate that the emissions from salvage logging in the area affected by the
disturbance were not included in the total emissions associated with the disturbance event, and todemonstrate how, in subsequent years (of the commitment period), disturbed areas are monitored
for the occurrence of SL, and how emissions associated with SL are estimated if SL is conductedin subsequent years, after the disturbance. This is particularly relevant to those Parties that reportcarbon stock changes using the stock difference method.

DISTURBANCES

2417
2418

D IFFER ENTIA TION FROM OTHER MANAGEM EN T AC TIV I TIES

2419
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
2425

Lands affected by natural disturbances can be similar in appearance to, and thus can be confused with, forest
areas where regular management activities have taken place. For example, areas affected by wildfire can besimilar to prescribed burning, and wind damaged areas after salvage logging can be difficult to distinguish fromclear-cuts. For the application of the natural disturbance provision the emissions from natural disturbances haveto be clearly differentiated from management activities. It is good practice to show that the emissions accounted
for under the natural disturbance provision are unambiguously attributable to natural disturbances and do notcontain or double count emissions from regular management activities.

2426

R EMOVA LS

2427
2428
2429
2430
2431
2432
2433
2434

According to paragraph 33 (a) and (b) of the Annex to the Decision 2/CMP.7, any subsequent removals during
the commitment period on the lands affected shall also be excluded from the accounting. The removals on lands
previously disturbed can be estimated using the methodologies provided for Forest Land in Chapter 4, Volume 4of the 2006IPCC Guidelines. It is good practice to apply estimation methodologies that take into account therespective conditions found on the affected land following the natural disturbance event and to show that thesubsequent removals are completely estimated and that double accounting is avoided. If a disturbance results inthe loss of all old, large trees but leaves younger age classes intact, estimation methodology for Forest
Management may well be appropriate.

2.42

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting
Second Order Draft

2435

MON I TORING LANDS AFFEC TED BY NATURA L D ISTUR BANC E

2436
2437
2438

Parties that apply the natural disturbance provision to Forest Management under Article 3.4 and/or Afforestation
and Reforestation under Article 3.3 should monitor the lands that have been designated as affected by natural
disturbance over the second commitment period. Monitoring of these lands will be required to:

2439



estimate changes in carbon stocks due to post-disturbance decay and removals;

2440



keep track of rehabilitation effects on the affected lands;

2441



identify cases where land-use change has occurred after a natural disturbance;

2442



estimate the equivalent amount of removed carbon stock in salvage logging

2443



identify lands where the natural disturbance is followed by another disturbance event

2444
2445
2446
2447
2448

The monitoring of natural disturbances and compilation of associated data on these lands including the
disturbance type, size and location is required to provide consistent time series information about the affected
area. The methods used in the post-disturbance monitoring of affected areas should be consistent with those
applied to identify the lands because emissions from these areas have to be estimated using comparable
methodologies.

2449
2450

If land-use change occurs on areas affected by natural disturbances, it is good practice to account for this amountof emissions accordingly in the year when the land-use change is detected.

2451

2.3.9.4

2452

ESTIMATION OF NON -CO 2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONSFROM NATURAL DISTURBANCES

2453
2454
2455
2456
2457
2458
2459
2460

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. Typically, emissions of these gases occur due tofires, for which the estimation methodology is provided in Section 2.4, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines,
which should be applied (together with land-use specific enhancements in Chapter 4 (Forest Land), Volume 4 ofthe 2006 IPCC Guidelines) including the requirement to check for complete coverage of CO2 and non-CO2
emissions related to changes in carbon stocks and pools in order to avoid omissions and double-counting. It isalso good practice to document how non-C greenhouse gas (e.g., N2O) emissions due to natural disturbances are
estimated and reported.

2461
2462
2463

If fire in forests contributes to a key category, it is good practice to apply higher tiers and to develop a more
complete and country-specific methodology which includes the dynamics of dead organic matter and improves
the estimates of direct and post-fire emissions.

2464

2.3.9.5

2465

G UIDANCE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BACKGROUNDLEVEL AND MARGIN

2466
2467
2468
2469
2470
2471
2472
2473

Parties which have previously announced their intention57 may exclude emissions from natural disturbances inyear(s) for which emissions due to natural disturbances exceed the background level plus a margin, provided thatthey meet all requirements detailed in Decision 2/CMP.758. The margin (see below) is a positive number or zerothat is used to select years when emissions from natural disturbance may be excluded. Conceptually the
background level is the level of disturbance emissions included in the Forest Management Reference Level(FMRL), or expected in association with Afforestation or Reforestation (AR) in the commitment period, and themargin defines outlier events. The purpose of the background level and the margin is to avoid the expectation of
net credits or net debits during the commitment period from applying the disturbance provision.

2474
2475
2476
2477
2478

Decision 2/CMP.7 requires separate background levels and margins to be developed for Forest Management(FM), and AR. For both FM and AR, emissions from natural disturbances may occur due to several types ofdisturbances. In estimating the background level and margin it is good practice to combine emissions fromdifferent disturbance types, and then to develop one overall background level and margin for FM, and one forAR.

57

In their national inventory report in 2015.

58

Paragraph 34 of the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p. 18.

Draft KP Supplement

2.43

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
2479
2480
2481
2482
2483

Decision 2/CMP.7 requires that the background levels be constructed using consistent and initially complete
time series containing, but not limited to, 1990–2009 annual emissions associated with natural disturbances59.
The period of this time series of emissions is referred to as the calibration period. As separate background levels
are required for FM and AR, data are necessary for the development of the respective background levels andmargins.

2484

To develop background levels and margins, it is good practice to apply the stepwise procedure60 described below.

2485
2486
2487
2488
2489
2490
2491
2492
2493

S t e p 1 : D ef i n e t he t y pe o f d ist ur ban c es t hat th e Par ty wis h es to b e ab le to ex c lud ef rom accounting
It is good practice that Parties define, and report in their national inventory report in 2015, the disturbances types(e.g., wildfires, insect attack and disease infestations, extreme weather events, geological events) from which
they wish to be able to exclude emissions from accounting during the commitment period. Disturbance types
may be subdivided as needed. For example, extreme weather events could be divided into wind storms andfloods. These disturbance types can include rare events (such as volcanic eruptions) which have not necessarily
occurred during the calibration period.

2494
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499
2500
2501
2502
2503
2504
2505
2506

S te p 2: Estab lish a con s is te nt and in it ia lly com p le te t im e s er ies fo r th e ca libr at ion
period f or e a c h di sturba nc e t y pe
For each disturbance type considered by the Party, a time series of annual emissions associated with the
disturbance type is obtained for the calibration period, and entered into Table 2.3.2, which is used for subsequentcalculations and for reporting. If emissions from a disturbance type can be demonstrated to be zero (which willusually be the case for rare events, e.g., volcanic eruptions), then the time series will contain zero for all years in
the calibration period. For other disturbance types, the Party needs to estimate and report verifiable emissions forthe years in the calibration period. The Party is not eligible to exclude emissions for disturbance types for which
it fails to report historical time series of emissions for the calibration period. However, the Party may submit
such a historical time series later in the commitment period, in which case the background level and the marginneed to be recalculated and a technical correction may be needed for the FMRL, to maintain consistency.
Separate copies of Table 2.3.2 need to be completed, one for FM and one for AR.

2507
2508
2509
2510
2511

It is good practice to sum by year, separately for FM and AR, the emissions from all included disturbances types
in each year of the calibration period in order to obtain combined disturbance time series for the calibration
period. It is good practice to report transparently the combined time series. If the time series is inconsistent withthe treatment of disturbances in the FMRL submitted in 2011, a technical correction of the FMRL may beneeded to avoid expectation of net credits or debits (see Section 2.7.6).
TABLE 2.3.2
EMISSIONS FROM DISTURBANCES FOR THE CALIBRATION PERIODDisturbance type*

Inventory year during the calibration period
...

1990

1991

1992

...

2008

2009

...

Total annual emissions from disturbance typeWildfires
Insect attack anddisease infestations
Extreme weather
eventsGeologicaldisturbances
Other
Sum
* Sub-divisions of types can be added as needed

2512
59

Footnote 7 to paragraph 33(a) of the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in
document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p. 17.

60

The stepwise procedure applies independently of how the FMRL has been set (see Section 2.7.5)

2.44

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting
Second Order Draft

2513
2514

If data are missing for one or several years of the calibration period for a disturbance type, it is good practice toapply one of the methods described below to fill gaps.

2515
2516
2517
2518
2519



If the historical time series contains data for most but not all years during the period 1990-2009, data from atleast an equivalent number of other years before or after the calibration period and closest to it should be
used. If the missing data are for a subset of disturbance types it is good practice to remove the partiallycomplete year and replace it by the closest year outside the calibration period for which complete data are
available and which has not already been used for replacement purposes.

2520
2521
2522



In case the Party 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 if possible, including expert judgment, to develop data for the missing years.

2523
2524
2525
2526



If the Party has data only for a few years of the calibration period or if there are no historical estimates ofemissions and removals associated with natural disturbances, the Party may still be able to construct a timeseries if reliable information using country-specific methods such as modeling may make it possible. How to
do this is outlined below.

2527
2528
2529
2530

The data to complete Table 2.3.2 and the application, if necessary, of gap filling methods should be done in
consultation with the national forest agency responsible for forest measurement and statistics, or an equivalentbody. The way in which the data have been provided and any gaps filled should be reported transparently in thenational inventory report.

2531
2532
2533
2534

Emissions from and associated with salvage logging cannot be excluded from accounting during thecommitment period 61 . This means that, in order to avoid the expectation of credits or debits during thecommitment period, historical emissions from natural disturbances should exclude emissions from salvage
logging.

2535
2536
2537
2538
2539
2540
2541
2542
2543
2544

If the required historic time series of emissions associated with natural disturbances cannot directly be estimatedfor a particular disturbance type, country-specific methods can be applied to indirectly develop the time series
For example, if a Party lacks estimates of emissions from natural disturbances on AR land, it may choose to use
area-specific emissions from natural disturbances on Forest Management land as a proxy, and combine it withthe total area of AR land to estimate emissions from natural disturbances on AR land. The use of the proxy must
be demonstrated to be justified. In this above example, it should be demonstrated for each disturbance type thatthe applied area-specific emission rates on Forest Management land are age-independent, or can be corrected forage, and are otherwise independent from the differences in species, size, density etc. that may occur between theforests on AR land and those on Forest Management land. Correction for age class may be achieved bystratifying FM data accordingly.

2545
2546

In all cases, it is good practice to report the methodology of how the Party has estimated the emission data in thetime series.

2547
2548
2549
2550
2551

Step 3: D evelop t he backg round le vel
Once the time series for the calibration period has been developed by disturbance type, and summed over thetypes by year, the Party can apply the default or an alternative method (see description below) in order to obtain
the background level and the margin.

2552

The default method2553

The default method involves the application of the following steps:

2554
2555

(1) Calculate the arithmetic mean of the annual emissions summed over disturbance types (in the bottom row ofTable 2.3.2) using all years in the calibration period.

2556
2557
2558

(2) Calculate the corresponding standard deviation (SD) of the mean annual emissions. As the historical timeseries is usually relatively short (the number of data points, N, is less than 30), it is good practice to apply
the following formula:

61

Paragraph 33(c) of the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p. 18

Draft KP Supplement

2.45

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
2559
2560

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

x

X

N

1

2561

where

2562
2563

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 for which data is available).

2564

X = the average of all xi.

2565
2566
2567

(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 andgo back to step (1) above using the reduced dataset.

2568
2569

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

2570

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

2571
2572
2573

Alternative methods
Possible alternative methods are country-specific but should all be based on a consistent time series for thecalibration period as outlined in Step 2 above.

2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580

Alternative methods include approaches that use other approaches to exclude outliers and/or set a backgroundlevel that is not equal to the average of the emissions (excluding outliers) during the calibration period.
Examples include setting the background level to the lowest historical annual emission, a value between this andthe average of the historical dataset (excluding outliers), or a background level of zero. Whatever alternative
method the Party has chosen, it is good practice to describe transparently the method and assumptions used toestablish the background level, and to demonstrate consistency with the FMRL or expectations for AR, as thecase may be, and to show that the alternative method avoids expectation of net credits or debits.

2581

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

2582
2583
2584
2585

Step 4: D evelopment of t he ma rg in
The margin must be set so that the expectation of net credits or debits is avoided. For the default method (Step 3),
the margin is twice the standard deviation of the calibration period time series (excluding outliers).

2586
2587
2588
2589
2590
2591

For the alternative methods (Step 3), the margin depends on the background level. Where the background level is
set to the lowest emissions from natural disturbances in the calibration period, the margin is to be set to zero if
the Party wishes to avoid the expectation of debits. For the same reasons, the margin is set to zero for any
background level, including the case when the background level is zero, when the background level is lower than,or equal to, the expected lowest annual emission from natural disturbance during the commitment period, always
ensuring consistency with FMRL or AR assumptions.

2592
2593
2594
2595
2596
2597
2598
2599

Step 5: Ensuring that the method applie d do es not lea d to exp e ctat ion of net c re d it s o r
n et de b it s
For all approaches used to develop the background level and the margin, Parties have to report information on
how the expectation of net credits or net debits62 is avoided. To this end, it is good practice to analyze underwhat conditions the application of the background level and margin are going to yield net credits or net debits for
the Party during the commitment period. If expected conditions in the commitment period lead to the expectationof net credits it is good practice to modify the background level and the margin to avoid this expectation.

2600
2601
2602
2603

The default method as well as alternative methods should be analyzed for the expectancy of no net credits or net
debits. One particular case where adjustment of the background level and margin is necessary for the default
method is when the area of the land in the FM or AR categories change during the commitment period. A
possible way to do such an adjustment is demonstrated in Box 2.3.7. In such cases, it is good practice to correct
62
Paragraph 33 (a) and (b) of the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in
document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p. 17-18

2.46

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting
Second Order Draft

2604
2605
2606
2607

the background level and the margin so that they both relate to the same mean area during the calibration period
and, as an expectation, during the commitment period. In all cases, it is good practice to recalculate and report
the combined time series from Table 2.3.2 in terms of emissions per unit area, and use them in Steps 3 and 4
above.

2608

In all cases, it is good practice to report how the expectation of net credits or net debits has been avoided.

2609

Draft KP Supplement

2.47

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
2610
2611

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

2612

Example 1: Application of the default method

2613
2614
2615
2616
2617
2618
2619
2620
2621
2622
2623
2624
2625

In this example, Party X reports total annual emissions from natural disturbances on FM land forthe calibration period, as a summary value of emissions from a number of disturbance types, inTable 2.3.2. These total annual emission values are shown in Figure a) (all bars). Based on theiterative process described in Step 3 above, the outliers in the time series (the filled bars in Figurea)) are identified and removed. The background level is estimated as the mean (the thick black
horizontal line in Figure b) of the remaining observations (i.e. the hashed bars). The margin is
twice the standard deviation of these observations (shown by a thin above and another below thebackground level). In a year during the commitment period when the total emissions from natural
disturbances (e.g., the filled bar for the year 2016 in Figure b)) exceed the background level plus
the margin, emissions above the background level (thick dashed line) may be excluded, provided
that all the other requirements of the exclusion are met. The emissions that may be excluded areshown as the dotted part of the last bar of Figure b), whereas the height of the grey part of the samebar equals to the background level.

2626

Figure a)

2627
2628

Figure b)

2.48

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting
Second Order Draft

2629
2630
2631
2632

Example 2: An alternative method: the background level is set to the minimum level ofhistorical time series

2633
2634
2635
2636
2637
2638
2639
2640
2641

An alternative method which minimizes the risk of overestimating the emissions from natural
disturbances during the commitment period is to set the background level the minimum level ofhistorical time series. If emissions are expected to exceed this level in every year during thecommitment period, the margin required is equal to zero. In a year during the commitment period
when the emissions from natural disturbances (e.g., the filled bar for the year 2016 in Figure c)exceed the background level (the margin is equal to zero), emissions above the background level(thick dashed line) may be excluded, provided that all the other requirements of the exclusion are
met. The emissions that may be excluded are shown as the dotted part of the last bar of Figure c),whereas the height of the grey part of the same bar equals to the background level.

2642

Figure c)2643

Draft KP Supplement

2.49

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
2644
2645
2646
2647

BOX 2.3.7
APPROACH FOR ESTIMATING THE BACKGROUND LEVEL IN CASE THE AREA OF THE LAND UNDER A CATEGORY

2648
2649
2650
2651
2652
2653
2654
2655
2656

This approach is demonstrated using an example when the area of FM land significantly decreases
between the historic time series and the commitment period. Suppose the mean area of FM during
the calibration period is Acal, and the FM background level, BL, is set based on the total annual
emissions from Table 2.3.2 using the default method. This means that the expected level ofemissions from natural disturbances for a unit of area in FM land, or area specific backgroundlevel, is bl = BL / Acal. If the mean area of FM during the commitment period is Acomm, then, if we
assume that bl will not change, the resulting background level will be BLcomm = Acomm * bl, and if
Acomm < Acal then BLcomm = BLcal, which may yield net credits. One method to avoid this includes
the following steps:

2657
2658

(1) Calculate the mean annual emissions for the calibration period using the totals of all
disturbance types (last row of Table 2.3.2)

2659
2660

(2) Use these mean values to apply the default method or an alternative method to develop the area
specific background level, bl.

2661
2662

(3) Make a projection of the annual area of the category (FM or AR) for the commitment period
while demonstrating that this will not lead to net credits or debits.

2663(4) Calculate the average of the projected annual area values, Acomm.

2664(5) Calculate the background level for the commitment period as BLcomm = Acomm * bl.

CHANGES BETWEEN THE CALIBRATION PERIOD AND THE COMMITMENT PERIOD

2665
2666
2667

Note that the above approach assumes that the probability of natural disturbances to occur in thevarious above areas is the same.

2668
2669

The same approach may be needed when not the default method is used, if the area of land under
FM increases, and if the area of land under AR is expected to increase (or decrease).

2670
2671
2672

In case this or similar approaches are necessary, it is good practice to report the applied
methodology, the data applied and how the approach ensures that its application ensures that the
expectation of net credits or net debits during the commitment period is avoided.

2673
2674

2.3.9.62675

EXCLUSION OF REMOVALS ON LANDS AFFECTED BY THE
NATURAL DISTURBANCE PROVISION

2676
2677
2678
2679
2680
2681
2682
2683
2684
2685

In case a Party excludes from accounting emissions from natural disturbances in accordance with the provisions
detailed in the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7, it should also exclude from accounting any subsequent removals
during the commitment period on the affected land. Therefore it is good practice that the Party assesses andreports the removals (using the guidance given above in Section 2.3.9.3) occurring on lands affected by the
disturbance(s) causing the emissions that were excluded from accounting, without regard whether they originate
from the re-establishment of young forest vegetation by rehabilitation measures or natural re-growth ofvegetation, and to ensure their subsequent exclusion from accounting. Special care has to be taken that theremovals are not captured by another assessment system, if for example complementary assessments on thenatural disturbance areas are conducted in addition to a national forest inventory; or that the national forest
inventory is designed in a way that can provide separate outputs for these areas.

2686

2.3.9.7

2687
2688
2689
2690
2691

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 land cover, wherepracticable, in order to restore or secure forest functions and to prevent degradation of forests. Althoughrehabilitation is different from restoration and revegetation in terms of greenhouse gas reporting, the techniques
used may include the same as used for reforestation and revegetation, e.g., planting, seeding and/or the human-

2.50

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting
Second Order Draft

2692
2693
2694
2695
2696
2697
2698
2699
2700
2701
2702
2703

induced promotion of natural seed sources. The rehabilitation effort will depend on the severity of the impact,
the likelihood of regeneration and cost-benefit analysis. Following – for example – 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 DOM and soil organic matter 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 still available on the lands. If
seed trees or natural regeneration are available (if the disturbance mainly affected higher age-classes and led to ashift in the age-class distribution), rehabilitation can be restricted to activities that ensure the site is accessible forfurther 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 torehabilitate may not be required and it is good practice, in these cases, to demonstrate that no other direct humanintervention is necessary for rehabilitation.

2704
2705

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:

2706



Area rehabilitated, or planned to be;

2707
2708
2709



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;

2710
2711



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

2712
2713
2714



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

2715
2716
2717
2718
2719
2720
2721
2722
2723

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. For example, natural regeneration in the disturbed area might make human intervention
unnecessary or a volcanic eruption may cover an area completely with lava. In case natural or human-induced
regeneration is not possible, and there is no other land-use, the area is technically still to be considered as Forest
Land (no human-induced deforestation occurred) and included in the reporting and accounting appropriately. If,
in the future, other uses are conducted in these areas, e.g. cattle is grazed on grass growing on the disturbed area,
this indicates a change in land-use and, depending on the regulations applicable at this point in time, may have to
be considered as Deforestation.

2724

2.3.9.8

2726

TREATMENT OF EMISSIONS AND REMOVALS THAT OCCUR
ON THE LANDS SUBJECT TO NATURAL DISTURBANCES INSUBSEQUENT COMMITMENT PERIODS

2727
2728
2729
2730
2731

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 effects 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
DOM pools and hence emissions and removals associated with them.

2732
2733

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.

2734
2735
2736
2737
2738
2739
2740

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.

2725

2741

Draft KP Supplement

2.51

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

2743

OTHER GENERIC METHODOLOGICALISSUES

2744
2745
2746

This section presents generic methodology to complement subsequent sections in the report as well as guidance
for time series development and recalculations. Issues related to uncertainty assessment, reporting anddocumentation are also addressed. Draft reporting tables are presented in the Annex to this Report.

2747

2.4.1

2748
2749
2750
2751
2752
2753
2754
2755
2756

Lands subject to Article 3.3 or 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 for the 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)

2757
2758
2759
2760
2761
2762

Assessment of the continuity of management on land could be achieved either by periodically tracking lands
subject to an Article 3.3, FM or an elected Article 3.4 activity from 1990 until the end of the commitment period(see Section 2.7.2 Choice of methods for identifying lands subject to Forest Management), or by developing
statistical sampling techniques that can determine the transition of different types of management on land subject
to Article 3.3, FM or elected 3.4 activities (see 2006 IPCC Guidelines). An example of how such a scheme could
operate is given in Box 2.4.1.

2763
2764
2765
2766

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.

2767
2768

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

2742

2.4

Developing a consistent time series

2769

2.52

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting
Second Order Draft

2770
2771

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

2772
2773
2774
2775
2776

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.

2777

Example: Cropland management

2778
2779
2780
2781
2782
2783
2784
2785
2786
2787
2788

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 change63 factor, over 20 years, for the management activity, andthe length of the period, one year. See Chapter 5.2.3, and Tables 2.3 and 5.5, Volume 4 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines. 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 reasonableconfidence, the following shifts:

2789

CT



NT

3,500 ha

2790

CT



CT

4,500 ha

2791

NT



CT

500 ha

2792

NT



NT

1,500 ha2793

The total carbon gain is therefore:

2794(3,500 • 0.3 + 4,500 • 0 + 500 • (-0.3) + 1,500 • 0) Mg C/yr = 900 Mg C/yr.

2795
2796

2.4.2

Recalculation of Time Series

2797
2798
2799
2800
2801
2802
2803
2804

This section deals with recalculation of time series, excluding implications for the technical correction ofreference levels; which is addressed in section 2.7.6. As inventory capacity and data availability improve, themethods and data used to calculate estimates are updated and refined. Recalculation of historic emissions andremovals is good practice when new methods are introduced or existing ones refined, when new sources andsinks categories are included, or when data are updated (for example through new measurements during thecommitment period or the availability of new information on verification). Recalculations may also be needed if
lands are reclassified 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).

2805
2806
2807
2808
2809
2810

The CMP decisions make provisions for recalculation64, 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.

2811
2812
2813

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.

2814

63

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

64

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, adopted by Decision 19/CMP.1 Article 5, para 1 of KP..

Draft KP Supplement

2.53

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
2815

2.4.3

Uncertainty assessment

2816
2817
2818
2819
2820
2821
2822
2823
2824
2825
2826
2827
2828
2829
2830

It is good practice that uncertainties are identified, quantified and reduced as far as is practicable and that all
information on anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks which result frommandatory and elective activities are reported with levels of confidence as elaborated by any IPCC good practiceguidance adopted by the CMP. 65 Because of the importance for many countries of well-designed sampling
programmes to reduce uncertainties when preparing LULUCF inventories, specific information on the design ofsampling programmes for land areas and biomass stock, as well as the assessment of associated uncertainties
should be provided. Generally, the approaches provided in Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines
and the estimation of sampling error related to the sampling design used for data collection, can be used forassessing uncertainties associated with estimates reported under the UNFCCC and under the KP LULUCF
activities 66 . 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 KP reporting, uncertainty assessment is particularly important in order to support
verification requirements. Moreover, while selecting a particular tier to estimate changes in carbon stocks andnon-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions, it is good practice to consider the implications of this choice for the
management of uncertainties

2831

2.4.3.1

2832

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

2833
2834
2835
2836
2837



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.

2838
2839
2840



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);

2841
2842



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);

2843
2844



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

2845
2846
2847
2848
2849



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), 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 or due topositional errors);

2850
2851
2852



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

2853
2854
2855
2856
2857
2858



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.

I DENTIFYING U NCERTAINTIES

2859
2860

Natural Variability
65This refers to paragraph 6 (d) including footnote 5, and paragraph 9 including footnote 7 in the Annex to Decision
15/CMP.1 (Article 7). Also refers to Decision 2/CMP.8, Article 2.

66

See also IPCC 2010, Expert Meeting on Uncertainty and Validation of Emission Inventories eds: Eggleston H.S.,
Baasansuren J., Tanabe K., Srivastava N., Meeting Report of the Expert Meeting on Uncertainty and Validation of
Emission Inventories, Utrecht, the Netherlands, 23-25 March, 2010, Pub. IGES, Japan 2010

2.54

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting
Second Order Draft

2861
2862
2863
2864
2865
2866
2867
2868
2869

Natural variability is a result of variations in natural controlling variables, such as annual climate variability, andvariability within units of lands 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 Error! Reference source not found. above.

2870
2871
2872
2873
2874
2875
2876
2877
2878
2879
2880

Lack of activity data

2881
2882
2883
2884
2885
2886
2887

Spatial resolution of remote sensing and ground truth

2888
2889
2890
2891
2892
2893

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.

2894
2895
2896

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.

2897
2898
2899

The use of remote sensing is discussed further in Vol 4, Chapter 3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, especiallysection 3A.2.4. An example of quantifying uncertainties in forest carbon estimation using a combination of
remote sensing and field measurement is given by Gonzalez et al. (2010).

2900

2.4.3.2

2901
2902
2903

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.

2904

It is good practice to derive confidence intervals by applying a quantitative method to existing data.

2905
2906

Uncertainties for the activities covered by the KP can be treated in the same way as other uncertainty estimatestaking into account that:

2907
2908
2909
2910
2911



The “since 1990” clause and the use of definitions specific to the KP 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 toGrazing land Management implies that the areas whose uncertainties are being assessed may differ between
the KP activities and the corresponding categories of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

2912
2913



Activity data can also relate to individual practices or ownership structures, e.g., the fraction of cropland
farmers use a given amendment on a particular soil. If the fraction is estimated by survey, the survey design

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 and useful for land cover change detection through time-series analysis notably. It
is good practice to verify that this methodology does not over- or underestimate emissions/removals in the baseyear. It is good practice to also use in the estimation of base year emissions historical data on management
practices prior to 1990, if available.
The objective of using satellite imagery for land cover and land use assessments is often to obtain, for an
inventory region, total area estimates, percentages of land classes, or geographical boundaries. Remote sensing isparticularly well suited to completely identify lands. 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 KP Supplement

2.55

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
2914
2915

should incorporate an uncertainty estimate depending on the level of inventory data disaggregation,otherwise the uncertainty will have to come from expert judgement.

2916
2917
2918
2919
2920
2921
2922
2923
2924
2925
2926
2927
2928
2929
2930
2931
2932



For CM, GM, WDR and/or RV (if elected) uncertainty estimates are also needed for the base year. It is goodpractice that the selected methodology neither over- nor underestimate emissions and removals in the baseyear. But uncertainties are likely to be higher than for estimates in the commitment period, because theestimates for the base year 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, whererequired, may pose difficulties if pre-base year surveys of land use are not available. Where reliable data are
not available for 1970 to 1990 (or other applicable time periods), countries can use a country-specificmethodology, shown to be reliable, to estimate base year carbon stock change in 1990. In most cases, thesemethods also require historical data on management practices prior to 1990. The associated uncertainties
could, in principle, be assessed by formal statistical methods, but more likely by expert judgement which isbased on the feasible ranges of backward extrapolation of time trends. If surrogate data (i.e., alternative
datasets that can be used as a proxy for missing data) are available, they can be a useful guide forextrapolating the trend in periodic data and subsequently interpolating the same data following the next datacollection 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 to find reliable surrogate data to guide extrapolation and interpolation
when the fundamental data used for the inventory estimates are not available annually.

2933
2934
2935
2936
2937
2938
2939
2940
2941
2942
2943
2944
2945
2946
2947



When remote sensing is used for classification of land use and detection of land-use change, theuncertainties could be quantified by verifying classified lands with adequate actual ground truth data or
higher spatial and temporal resolution imagery. In order to estimate the accuracy of land-use/land-covermaps on a category-by-category basis, a number of sample points on the map and their corresponding realworld categories are used to create an error matrix as proposed by Lillesand et al. (2008). The diagonal ofthis matrix shows the probability of correct identification and the off-diagonal elements show the probabilityof 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 confoundedwith each other. Based on the error matrix, a number of accuracy indices can be derived (Congalton andGreen, 2009). It is good practice to present an estimate of the accuracy of the land-use/cover map categoryby-category and an error matrix may be employed for this purpose where remote sensing is used. Multitemporal analysis (analysis of images taken at different times to determine the stability of land-use
classification) can also be used to improve classification accuracy, particularly in cases where ground truth
data are limited. A review of methodologies for monitoring ecosystem is presented by Coppin et al. (2004).
Methodology for estimating uncertainties in area estimation is also presented by Olofsson et al. (2013).

2948
2949
2950
2951
2952
2953
2954

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 1A-11C in the Annex to this report. Separate tables should be reported
for the base year if Cropland Management, Grazing land Management, Revegetation or Wetland Drainage andRewetting are elected. Estimates should be expressed as percent of the area and of the emissions by sources orremovals by sinks (or changes in stocks) reported in Tables 1A-11C.

2955
2956
2957
2958
2959
2960

Uncertainty associated with areas of lands need to be estimated. When using Reporting Method 1, it is goodpractice 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 geographical boundary is
subject to a single activity. Therefore there will only be one uncertainty estimate needed for each geographicalboundary. However, because Reporting Method 2 can contain very large numbers of polygons it is good practiceto also provide uncertainty estimates for the summary statistics.

2961
2962
2963
2964
2965
2966
2967
2968
2969
2970
2971

Where uncertainties are difficult to derive, default values for uncertainties are to be used. Guidance on selecting
default carbon emission or removal factors for CM 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 ranges can be assigned.
However, using expert judgement, default uncertainty ranges corresponding to a sampling error of 50% can be
assigned, based on an analysis of no-till long-term experiments in Europe in which the 95% confidence intervalof 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 country 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 compilers may also

2.56

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting
Second Order Draft

2972
2973

apply national methods for estimating the overall uncertainty, e.g., error propagation methods that avoid thesimplifying approximations and in this case, it is good practice clearly to document such methods.

2974
2975
2976
2977
2978
2979
2980
2981

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 estimates2982

2.4.3.3

2983
2984
2985
2986
2987
2988
2989
2990

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 KP it is recommended to make efforts to convey the overall uncertainty estimates to all agencies
and/or firms involved in order to encourage improvement, i.e., reduced uncertainties in estimates of futurereports. 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.

2991
2992
2993

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.

2994
2995

The extra effort required for area identification should help to reduce uncertainties in the assessment of areas
subject to KP activities.

2996
2997
2998

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.

2999

2.4.4

Reporting and documentation

3000

2.4.4.1

R EPORTING

3001
3002
3003
3004
3005
3006
3007
3008

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 decisions67 of the Conference of the Parties serving as Meeting of
the Parties (CMP) of the KP. Some information on definitions and elected activities must be reported once by
15th April 2015, as part of the report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount.as established in Annex Iof 2/CMP.8, 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 withremoval unit (RMU) accounting. It is good practice to report all information requested in these tables.

3009
3010
3011
3012
3013

Annual reports under the KP 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 greenhouse gas emissions bysources and removals by sinks on these areas of land, and the associated uncertainties, using Tables 1A through11C in the Annex. It is good practice to include in these reports additional information on methods andapproaches used to identify lands and to estimate the emissions and removals.

67

R EDUCING U NCERTAINTIESCMP decisions relevant for LULUCF accounting for the second commitment period: decision 2/CMP6, decision 2/CMP.7
and decision 2/CMP.8.

Draft KP Supplement

2.57

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
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
CMPdecisions

Detailed information

Land related information
Information on
geographical locationand identification of
lands(b) The geographical location of the boundaries of the areas that encompass:(i) Units of land subject to activities under Article 3, paragraph 3, of the
Kyoto Protocol;(ii) Units of land subject to activities under Article 3, paragraph 3, of the
Kyoto Protocol which would otherwise be included in land subject toforest management or elected activities under Article 3, paragraph 4, of
the Kyoto Protocol under the provisions of decision 2/CMP.7, annex,
paragraph 9;(iii) Land subject to forest management under Article 3, paragraph 4, in thesecond commitment period and to any elected activities under Article 3,
paragraph 4;
If the Party applies the Natural Disturbance provision:(i) Showing that all lands subject to the exclusion due to natural
disturbances are identified, including their georeferenced location, year
and types of disturbances;(iii) Showing that no land-use change has occurred on lands for which theprovisions contained in decision 2/CMP.7, annex, paragraph 33, areapplied and explaining the methods and criteria for identifying any futureland-use changes on those land areas during the second commitment
period;If the Party applies the CEFC provision:(i) The identification of all lands and associated carbon pools subject todecision 2/CMP.7, annex, paragraph 37, including the georeferenced
location and year of conversion;

Spatial assessment
unit(c) The spatial assessment unit used for determining the area of accounting forafforestation, reforestation and deforestation;

Annex II of
2/CMP.8
Paragraph 2

Paragraph 2(f)Paragraph5(f)Annex II of
2/CMP.8
Paragraph 2

3014
3015

2.58

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting
Second Order Draft

TABLE 2.4.1 (CONTINUED)
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

Detailed information

Reference in
CMPdecisions

Information on methods and approaches to estimate emissions and removals
Description of
methodologies used
including methods
used for calculating
the reference level
and the associatedbackground level ofemissions

Information on how inventory methodologies have been applied taking into
account the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories,
and any relevant supplementary methodological guidance developed by the
IPCC and adopted by the CMP and the COP, and recognizing the principles
as laid out in decision 16/CMP.1;

Annex II of
2/CMP.8
Paragraph 2

Justification whenomitting any carbon
pool

Information on which, if any, of the following pools – above-ground biomass,
below-ground biomass, litter, deadwood and/or soil organic carbon – were
not accounted for, together with verifiable information that demonstrates thatthese unaccounted pools were not a net source of anthropogenic GHG
emissions;Annex II of
2/CMP.8
Paragraph2(e)Information on
indirect factors on
greenhouse gas
emissions andremovals

3. Information should also be provided which indicates whether
anthropogenic GHG emissions by sources and removals by sinks from
LULUCF activities under Article 3, paragraph 3, forest management under
Article 3, paragraph 4, and any elected activities under Article 3, paragraph4, factor out removals from:(a) Elevated carbon dioxide concentrations above pre-industrial levels;(b) Indirect nitrogen deposition;(c) The dynamic effects of age structure resulting from activities prior to 1
January 1990.

Annex II of
2/CMP.8
Paragraph 3

Changes in data andmethods andrecalculations(e) Information that demonstrates methodological consistency between thereference level and reporting for forest management during the second
commitment period, including the area accounted for, the treatment of
harvested wood products, and the accounting of any emissions from natural
disturbances;(f) Any technical corrections made pursuant to decision 2/CMP.7, annex,
paragraph 14, to ensure consistency between the reference level and reportingfor forest management during the second commitment period;

Annex II of
2/CMP.8
Paragraph 53016

Draft KP Supplement

2.59

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
Specific information for activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4
Specific information
on Article 3.3
activities and Forest
Management

If Party applies the Natural Disturbance provision:(ii)
Showing how annual emissions resulting from natural disturbances
and the subsequent removals during the commitment period in thoseareas are estimated and excluded from the accounting;(iv)
Demonstrating that the events or circumstances were beyond thecontrol of, and not materially influenced by, the Party in thecommitment period, by demonstrating practicable efforts to prevent,manage or control the events or circumstances that led to theapplication of the provisions contained in decision 2/CMP.7, annex,
paragraph 33;(v)
Demonstrating efforts taken to rehabilitate, where practicable, theland for which the provisions contained in decision 2/CMP.7, annex,
paragraph 33, are applied;(vi)
Showing that emissions associated with salvage logging were notexcluded from accounting.
and(i)Country-specific information on the background level of emissions
associated with annual natural disturbances that have been included
in its forest management reference level;(ii)
Information on how the background level(s) for afforestation andreforestation under Article 3, paragraph 3, of the Kyoto Protocol
and/or forest management under Article 3, paragraph 4, of the Kyoto
Protocol have been estimated, and information on how it avoids the
expectation of net credits or net debits during the commitment
period, including information on how a margin is established, if amargin is needed;
Harvested Wood Products(i)Information on activity data for the harvested wood products
categories used for estimating the harvested wood products poolremoved from domestic forests, for domestic consumption and forexport, as appropriate;(ii)
Information on half-lives used in estimating the emissions andremovals for these categories in accordance with decision 2/CMP.7,
annex, paragraph 29 or 30, or, alternatively, information on
methodologies used to account for harvested wood products inaccordance with decision 2/CMP.7, annex, paragraph 30, showingthat the methodologies used are at least as detailed or accurate as
the first-order decay method with default half-lives provided indecision 2/CMP.7, annex, paragraph 29;(iii)
If the forest management reference level is based on a projection,
information on whether emissions from harvested wood products
originating from forests prior to the start of the second commitment
period have been included in the accounting;(iv)
Information on how emissions from the harvested wood products
pool that have been accounted for during the first commitment
period on the basis of instantaneous oxidation have been excluded
from the accounting for the second commitment period;(v)
Information showing that harvested wood products resulting fromdeforestation have been accounted on the basis of instantaneousoxidation;(vi)
Information showing that carbon dioxide emissions from harvested
wood products in solid waste disposal sites, where these emissions
are separately accounted for, and from wood harvested for energy
purposes have been accounted on the basis of instantaneousoxidation;
Information showing that the emissions and removals resulting from changes
in the harvested wood products pool accounted for do not include imported
harvested wood products, irrespective of their origin.

Annex II of
2/CMP.8
Paragraph2(f)Annex I of
2/CMP.8
Paragraph1(k)Annex II of
2/CMP.8
Paragraph
2(g)

3017
3018

2.60

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting
Second Order Draft

Article 3.3 activities
specific information(a) Information that demonstrates that activities under Article 3, paragraph
3, began on or after 1 January 1990 and before 31 December of the lastyear 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

Annex II of
2/CMP.8
Paragraph 4

Forest Management
and any elected
activities under Article
3.4 specificinformation(a) A demonstration that activities under Article 3, paragraph 4, haveoccurred since 1 January 1990 and are human induced;(c) Information that demonstrates that emissions by sources and removals bysinks resulting from forest management under Article 3, paragraph 4, andany elected activities under Article 3, paragraph 4, are not accounted forunder activities under Article 3, paragraph 3;(d) Information on how all emissions arising from the conversion of naturalforests to planted forests are accounted for in accordance with any
supplementary methodological guidance developed by the IPCC andadopted by the CMP;

Annex II of
2/CMP.8
Paragraph 5(i) The forest management reference level as inscribed in the appendix to theannex to decision 2/CMP.7, any technical corrections as contained in theinventory report for the first year of the second commitment period andreferences to those sections in the national inventory report where suchinformation is reported consistent with the requirements of decision
2/CMP.7, annex, paragraph 14;1(j) Information on how emissions from harvested wood products originatingfrom forests prior to the start of the second commitment period have been
calculated in the reference level in accordance with decision 2/CMP.7,
annex, paragraph 16;
If the Party applies the CEFC provision(ii) A demonstration that the forest plantation was first established throughdirect human-induced planting and/or seeding of non-forest land before 1
January 1990, and, if the forest plantation was re-established, that thislast occurred on forest land through direct human-induced planting
and/or seeding after 1 January 1960;(iii) A demonstration that a new forest of at least equivalent area to theharvested forest plantation is established through direct human-induced
planting and/or seeding of non-forested land that did not contain forest
on 31 December 1989;(iv) A demonstration that this newly established forest will reach at least theequivalent 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 debit would be generated under Article 3,
paragraph 4

Annex I of
2/CMP.8
Paragraph 1

Annex II of
2/CMP.8
Paragraph
5(g)

3019

Draft KP Supplement

2.61

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
Information related to the estimates of emissions by sources and removals by sinks(for reporting data, see Tables 1A-11C)
Estimates forgreenhouse gas
emissions by sources
and removals by sinks(b) For Parties included in Annex I that elect cropland management and/or
grazing land management and/or revegetation and/or wetland drainage
and rewetting, anthropogenic GHG emissions by sources and removals
by sinks for each year of the commitment period and for the base year foreach of the elected activities on the geographical locations reported
under paragraph 2(b) above.
(d) Information on anthropogenic GHG emissions by sources and removals
by sinks resulting from activities under Article 3, paragraph 3, forest
management under Article 3, paragraph 4, and any elected activities
under Article 3, paragraph 4, for all geographical locations reported in
the current and previous years, under paragraph 3(b) above, since thebeginning of the commitment period or the onset of the activity,
whichever comes later. In the latter case the year of the onset of theactivity shall also be included. Once land is accounted for under activities
under Article 3, paragraph 3, forest management under Article 3,
paragraph 4, or any elected activities under Article 3, paragraph 4,
reporting shall continue throughout subsequent and contiguouscommitment periods[…] 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.[…]Annex II of
2/CMP.8
Paragraph5(b)Paragraph2(d)Paragraph 1

3020
3021
3022
3023
3024
3025
3026
3027
3028
3029

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 lands subject to activities under Article 3.3, FM 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 2A) to demonstrate that the
Party has accounted for all areas where A/R, D and FM and, if elected, any 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 landremaining FM land), while other cells indicate the areas of lands converted to other categories (e.g., croplandconverted to afforested land). It is good practice that the total area reported in consecutive inventories is constantand that any change in area is documented and explained.

3030
3031
3032
3033
3034
3035
3036
3037
3038

It is good practice to use Tables 4A – 11C, or future versions of these tables as decided by CMP, to submit
annual estimates. For Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities (Tables 4A to 7), data must be provided by geographicallocations. Geographical location refers to the boundaries of the areas that encompass lands subject to the activity(or subject to the particular provision). Activity data may be further subdivided according to climate zone,
management system, soil type, vegetation type, tree species, ecological zone, national land classification or othercriteria; in such a case, for each subdivision, one row should be completed in the table. The CMP decisions also
require that, in addition to the data for the actual inventory year, a Party also reports this information for the baseyear for CM, GM, RV and WDR. No reporting is necessary for those Article 3.4 activities that were not electedby the Party.

3039
3040
3041
3042
3043
3044
3045
3046

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.

3047
3048
3049
3050

Table 1 is a summary table of carbon stock changes resulting from activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 for theinventory 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 non-CO2 greenhouse gas
emissions and across all strata within a country.

3051
3052
3053

In addition to the data in the Tables, it is good practice to report the underlying assumptions and factors used forthe calculation of the carbon stock changes and emissions of CH4 and N2O, as well as for the calculation of theuncertainties.

2.62

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting
Second Order Draft

3054
3055
3056
3057
3058
3059
3060
3061

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 Tables 4B, 4C, 4D and 6D, 6E, 6F and Table 5B). 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.68 If suchlands exist for the inventory year, it is good practice to distinguish them from other A/R and/or FM lands and toreport them (and the associated carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions, distinguishingemissions from subsequent removals) separately in Tables 4A.to 6A. Although this is an issue related toaccounting, it is mentioned here because inventory data are likely to be needed to implement the provision.

3062
3063
3064
3065
3066
3067
3068

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 6C). If thisprovision is to be used, then all areas subject to this provision have to be identified and their georeferenced
locations reported 69 , within table 6A. Although this is an issue related to accounting, it is mentioned here
because inventory data are likely to be needed to implement the provision.

3069

Separate tables should be reported for the base year when CM, GM, RV and/or WDR are elected.

3070
3071
3072

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. 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).

3073

2.4.4.2

3074
3075
3076
3077

Documentation requirements under the KP are outlined in the relevant decisions of UNFCCC as part of thedescription of the requirements for inventory management70. The information required includes all disaggregatedemission factors, activity data, and documentation about how these factors and data have been generated andaggregated for the preparation of the inventory.

3078
3079
3080
3081
3082
3083

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.

3084
3085
3086
3087

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).

D OCUMENTATION

3088
3089

ACTIVITIES DEFINITION AND IDENTIFICATION

3090
3091
3092
3093
3094
3095
3096

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 FM in the KP reporting, the criteria that areused to distinguish forests under FM from managed forests should be provided. It is also good practice todocument differences between the definitios for croplands (or grasslands) in the UNFCCC greenhouse gas
inventory and lands subject to CM (or GM), as well as the difference between the wetland and other organic land
under KP reporting.

3097
3098

DATA DOCUMENTATION

3099
3100
3101

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 of
68

Paragraphs 33, 34 and 35 in the Annex to decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry)

69

Paragraphs 33, 34 and 35 in the Annex to decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry)

70

Paragraph 16 (a) in the Annex to the decision 19/CMP.1 (Article 5.1), contained in FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3, p.15.

Draft KP Supplement

2.63

Chapter 2 Methods for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
3102
3103
3104
3105

established 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.

3106
3107

It is good practice to ensure that the documentation of estimates of greenhouse gas emissions and removals
include:

3108
3109



The sources of all data used in the calculations (i.e., complete citations for the statistical database(s) fromwhich data were collected);

3110
3111
3112



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

3113



The frequency of data collection; and

3114
3115



Estimates of the associated uncertainties together with a description of the major sources of theuncertainties.

3116
3117
3118

DESCRIPTION OF THE METHODS USED IN LAND IDENTIFICATION AND
ESTIMATION OF EMISSIONS AND REMOVALS

3119

It is good practice to document the methods with the following information:

3120
3121



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;

3122
3123



Description of the approach used for geographical location and identification of the geographicalboundaries, lands; references of maps used, if any;

3124



Choice of tier(s) used for estimating greenhouse gas emissions and removals;

3125
3126



Methods used for estimating carbon stock changes, non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions and magnitudes of
the corresponding uncertainties;

3127



Choice of activity data;

3128



Identification of key categories

3129



If Tier 1 is used: all values of default parameters and emission/removal factors used;

3130
3131



If Tier 2 is used: all values and references of default and national parameters and emission/removal factors
used;

3132
3133
3134
3135
3136
3137



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;

3138



In case of Tier 2 or 3 the documentation should justify the use of specific parameters, factors or models;

3139
3140



Transparent and verifiable information that demonstrates that the pools not included in the reporting are notsources.

3141
3142

ANALYSIS OF INTERANNUAL VARIABILITY

3143
3144
3145
3146
3147

It is good practice to explain significant interannual variability in reported emissions or removals. The reasonsfor any changes in activity levels and in parameter values from year to year should be documented. If the reason
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, Volume 1 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines ‘Time series consistency’)

3148
3149

2.64

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

3150

2.4.5

Quality assurance and quality control

3151
3152
3153
3154
3155
3156

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 theGood Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (GPG).

3157

Some important issues are highlighted and summarised below.

3158
3159
3160

When compiling data, it is good practice to cross-check estimates of emissions and removals of greenhousegases against independent estimates. The inventory compilers should ensure that estimates undergo quality
control by:

3161
3162



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);

3163



Back-calculating national emission/removal factors from aggregated emissions and other data;

3164



Comparing reported national totals with default values and data from other countries.

3165
3166
3167



Comparing results from two different methods, such as national statistical data versus remote sensing sourceor two different remote sensing sources (e.g. Dymond et al. 2012), on the total area under one activity of
Article 3.3, or Article 3.4 if elected.

3168
3169
3170

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).

3171
3172

2.4.6

3173
3174
3175
3176

Generic good practice guidance for verification is given in Section 6.10, Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines(Verification). It is also good practice to develop verification activities as part of the overall QA/QC andverification system. The specific guidance and issues are provided in the sections below for the elaboration ofverification planning3177

2.4.6.1

3178
3179
3180

Verification

S PECIFIC GUIDANCE FOR V ERIFICATION OF LULUCFI NVENTORIESThe checklist in the Box 2.4.2 summarises some of the tools that can be used for internal verification of an
inventory on the LULUCF sector.

3181

Draft KP Supplement

2.65

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
3182
3183

BOX 2.4.2
VERIFICATION OF INVENTORY OF LULUCF SECTOR IN A NATIONAL INVENTORY

3184

A. Checks:

3185
3186

Does the inventory of the LULUCF sector document the data and assumptions used for estimating
emissions and removals for all IPCC source/sink categories?

3187

Have all important carbon pools been included in the inventory?

3188

If some LULUCF emission/removal categories have been excluded, does the report explain why?

3189

Are emissions and removals reported as positive and negative terms, respectively?

3190
3191

For the total area of the inventory of the LULUCF sector, are the overall changes in land use forthe inventory year equal to zero within the confidence limit?

3192

Are any discontinuities in trends from base year to end year evaluated and explained?

3193

B. Comparisons of emissions and removals from LULUCF:

3194
3195
3196

Compare the inventory of the LULUCF sector with independently prepared national inventories
for the same country or compare regional sub- sets of the national inventory with independently
prepared inventories for those regions. (Approach 1*).

3197
3198

Compare the inventory of the LULUCF sector with national inventories for a different, but similarcountry (Approach 1).

3199
3200
3201
3202

Compare activity data and/or emission factors of the inventory of the LULUCF sector withindependent international databases and/or other countries. For example, compare Biomass
Expansion Factors of similar species with data from countries with similar forest conditions(Approach 1).

3203
3204

Compare the inventory of the LULUCF sector with results calculated using another tiermethodology, including defaults (Approach 2).

3205
3206

Compare the inventory of the LULUCF sector with available high- intensity studies andexperiments (Approach 1-3).

3207
3208

Compare land areas and biomass stocks used in the inventory with remote sensing(Approach 4).

3209

Compare the inventory of the LULUCF sector with models (Approach 5).

3210

C. Comparisons of uncertainties:

3211

Compare uncertainty estimates with uncertainty reported in the literature.

3212

Compare uncertainty estimates with those from other countries and the IPCC default values.

3213

D. Direct measurements:

3214
3215

Carry out direct measurements (such as local forest inventory, detailed growth measurements
and/or ecosystem fluxes of greenhouse gases, Approach 3).

3216* See Section 5.7 of GPG-LULUCF for the details on each Approach.

3217
3218
3219
3220

Taking into account resource limitation, the information provided in the national inventory report should beverified as far as possible, particularly for key categories. The verification approaches in Box 2.4.2 can beapplied as follows:

3221

The checks listed under A are essential and, ideally, these should have been conducted as part of QA/QC.

3222
3223

It is good practice to perform verification with at least one of the approaches listed under B (see Table 5.7.1 andSection 5.7.2 in GPG-LULUCF for more information on the applicable approaches).

3224
3225
3226
3227

If independent estimates on emissions and removals of greenhouse gases by LULUCF are not available, theninternal or external verification will most probably be limited to scrutiny of the data and methods. Under thesecircumstances, it is good practice for the inventory compiler to carry out these checks and to provide sufficient
documentation in its national inventory report and other supporting material to facilitate external verification.

2.66

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

3228
3229
3230
3231
3232
3233
3234

Inventory compilers, taking into account country- specific circumstances and the availability of resources, canassess the proper combination of approaches for verifying their LULUCF inventories. Approaches 1, 2 and 3 arefeasible for verifying several components of the inventory. Among those listed, Approaches 1 and 2 can beeasily implemented by an inventory compiler with low to moderate resources. Remote sensing is the mostsuitable method for the verification of land areas. Direct measurements (under D in Box 2.4.2) are relevant,although this approach can be resource-intensive and, on a large scale, costs may be a constraint. Models can beused as an alternative when direct measurements combined with remote sensing is not feasible.

3235
3236

2.4.6.2

S PECIFIC I SSUES L INKED TO THE K YOTO P ROTOCOL

3237
3238

An inventory compiler can use the questions in Box 2.4.3 to help guide the development of a verification planfor supplementary information reported under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 of the KP.

3239
3240

BOX 2.4.3
GUIDANCE FOR VERIFYING CARBON POOLS AND ACTIVITIES

3241

Which carbon pools to verify?

3242
3243
3244
3245
3246
3247
3248
3249

It is good practice to focus verification on those carbon pools that are expected to be most relevantto the KP but also on non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions. The Decision 2/CMP.7 lists thefollowing pools: aboveground and belowground biomass, litter, dead wood, soil organic carbon
and harvest wood products. A Party may exclude particular pools from reporting, if verifiable
information is provided showing that the pool has not been a source of greenhouse gases for
activities under Article 3.3 and elected activities under Article 3.4. As for LULUCF inventories, if
a pool is expected to change significantly over the inventory reporting period, particular attention
should also be devoted to it.

3250

Which activities to verify?

3251
3252
3253
3254
3255
3256
3257
3258
3259

According to Decision 2/CMP.7, a Party has to report activities under Article 3.3 and FM and may
choose any or all elected activities under Article 3.4 of the KP. For all mandatory or elected
activities, elements which are specific to the reporting under KP inventories include: theidentification of the areas in which such activities have taken place, demonstration that theactivities have occurred since 1st January 1990 and are human induced, demonstration of themethodological consistency between the reference level and reporting for FM including in thetreatment of HWP, and in the accounting of any emissions from natural disturbances and theestablishment of the “1990” base year (reference year for reforestation activities and base year for
net-net accounting).

3260

Specific verification related to estimates developed under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 of the KP may include:

3261
3262
3263

For lands subject to reporting under the KP, it is good practice to verify such lands using geographical andstatistical information, such as remote sensing data. Even if georeferencing was not required, this would
facilitate verification.

3264
3265
3266
3267

The reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and removals of most Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities requires reference
to 1990 or pre-1990 data (classification of forest/non forest lands for 1990, net-net accounting for CM, GM, RV
and WDR, etc.). In some cases, these data may not be available or their reliability may be limited and estimates
may be used. In such cases, it is good practice to verify the estimation approach and values, as much as possible.

3268
3269
3270
3271
3272
3273

As with inventories of the LULUCF sector, inventory compilers, taking specific circumstances and the resource
availability into account, may choose the proper combination of approaches for verifying supplementary
information reported under the KP. Among these approaches, remote sensing is the most suitable for theverification of land areas. Direct measurements are relevant, although this approach can be resource intensive.
Models can be used as an alternative when direct measurements combined with remote sensing is not feasible.
Some verification steps, which are unique to the KP, are presented in Box 2.4.4.

Draft KP Supplement

2.67

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
3274
3275

BOX 2.4.4
VERIFICATION OF LULUCF UNDER THE KYOTO PROTOCOL

3276

Checks:

3277
3278
3279

If a Party reports that an activity has occurred on forest land, is the definition of ‘forest’ provided
and consistent with activities and lands reported? Is information on selected crown cover and treeheight provided?

3280
3281
3282

Are changes in all carbon pools reported (aboveground and belowground biomass, dead wood,
litter, soil organic carbon, harvest wood products)? If not, is the reason and documentation foromitting a pool given?

3283
3284

Are geographical boundaries of land areas specified for the activities eligible under Articles 3.3
and 3.4?

3285
3286

Is the total land area reported under Article 3.3 and 3.4 constant or increasing throughout
subsequent or contiguous commitment periods?

3287
3288

Is information provided that demonstrates that the elected activities under Article 3.4 occurredsince 1990 and are human induced?

3289
3290

For Article 3.3, is information provided to distinguish deforestation from harvesting (clear- cut) orforest disturbance followed by re- establishment of a forest?

3291
3292
3293
3294

The checks listed in Box 2.4.4 are essential and, ideally, should have been conducted as part of QA/QC. In
addition to these specific checks, the comprehensive list presented in Box 2.4.2 under items B to D can be used
to identify additional useful verification activities.

3295
3296
3297

For verification, it is good practice for inventory compilers to choose a key category by giving a priority, oremissions and removals with high uncertainty or with relevance to mitigation policies, or carbon pool with asignificant change, or all of them as criteria to implement their verification plan.

3298

2.68

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

3299

2.5

AFFORESTATION AND REFORESTATION

3300
3301

This section addresses specific methods applicable to Afforestation and Reforestation activities and should beread in conjunction with the general discussion in Sections 2.2 to 2.4.

3302

2.5.1

3303
3304
3305
3306
3307
3308
3309
3310

According to the definitions of the Decision 16/CMP.1, both Afforestation and Reforestation refer to direct
human- induced conversion of non-forested land to forested land. For the first and second commitment period of
the Kyoto Protocol, Afforestation and Reforestation activities are restricted to those which occurred on or after 1
January 1990. The distinction between Afforestation and Reforestation is linked to the period of time the landhas been non-forested. Afforestation occurs on land that has not been forested for at least 50 years. Reforestation
occurs on land that has been forested more recently, though was non-forested on 31 December 198953. Land thatwas subject to Deforestation to non-forested land, and is subsequently subject to regrowth of forests continues tobe reported under Deforestation as a subcategory.

3311
3312
3313
3314
3315
3316
3317
3318
3319
3320

The country’s definition of forest should be consistent with guidance provided in Section 1.2, and consistent
with that used by the country in the first commitment period. A direct-human induced gain in tree cover above
the country-specific forest thresholds (or the potential to meet these thresholds) is required as a precondition toreport a land under Afforestation/Reforestation activity. When a country’s definition of forest takes account ofpredominant land use54 as well as the thresholds adopted by the country, tree cover gain will not necessarily
correspond to a land-use change, because in this case, the gain of tree cover alone is not necessarily enough toresult in the classification of land as forested. For example, fruit orchards or urban trees can meet the thresholdvalues of forest, but since the predominant land-use may be cropland or settlements rather than forest, they may
not meet the country-specific definition of forest. If the land remains classified as Cropland or Settlements, thegrowth of these trees beyond the forest threshold would then not constitute Reforestation.

3321
3322
3323
3324
3325
3326
3327

Afforestation and Reforestation definitions do not include regrowth of forests following harvest or natural
disturbance of forests. This is because the loss of forest cover in these cases is only temporary and therefore notconsidered Deforestation unless a land-use change occurs: the land remains as forested land. Harvesting
followed by re-establishment of forest is considered Forest Management activity (Section 2.7). Lands that would
be subject to Afforestation/Reforestation activity under Article 3.3 but are instead accounted for under Forest
Management activity under the Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion provision should be identified separately(Section 2.7.7).

3328
3329
3330
3331
3332
3333

For identification of lands 55 , 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.

3334
3335
3336
3337

A Party’s choice of methods for the development of an inventory of Afforestation and Reforestation activities
will depend on the national circumstances. For the identification of lands subject to Afforestation and
Reforestation since 1st January 1990, it is good practice to use Approach 3 for consistent representation of lands(see Volume 4, Chapter 3, Section 3.3, of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines), or Approach 2, with supplementary

Definitional issues and reporting requirements

53This date is contained in the definition of reforestation in Decision 16/CMP.1, for the first commitment period:“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 on 31 December 1989. Decision 2/CMP.6 (paragraph 2) indicates that: ...the definitions offorest, afforestation, reforestation, revegetation, forest management, cropland management and grazing land management
shall be the same as in the first commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol. This supplement assumes that the date of 31
December 1989 continues to be applicable in the second commitment period, but notes that a different interpretation may
be possible subject to decisions of the CMP

54

The KP Supplement recognizes whilst the definition of forest adopted by 16/CMP1 and taken over by 2/CMP.7 for thesecond commitment period is based on area, tree height and canopy cover thresholds, in implementing this definition in thefirst commitment period, many countries did not count as forested land which meets these definitions but was
predominantly under agricultural or urban land use, consistent with information reported to FAO or by national inventories.
See section 1.1, step 1 for further guidance.

55“Lands” in this supplement refers to units of land subject to Art 3.3 activities and lands under Art 3.4.

Draft KP Supplement

2.69

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
3338
3339
3340
3341

information provided that allows identification and tracking of lands on a statistical basis56. A general discussionof methods for identifying and reporting on lands subject to Afforestation and Reforestation activities are
discussed in Section 2.2 of this report. It is good practice to provide information on uncertainties in the estimatesof the total area of the lands subject to Afforestation and Reforestation as discussed in Section 2.4.3 of this report.

3342

The annual inventory should, at a minimum, identify (for Reporting Method 1 in Section 2.2.2):

3343
3344
3345



The geographical location of the boundaries of the areas that encompass lands subject to
Afforestation/Reforestation activities. The geographical boundaries which are reported should correspond to
strata in the estimation of land areas as described in Volume 4, Chapter 3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines;

3346
3347



For each of these areas, or strata, an estimate of the area of lands subject to Afforestation/Reforestation
activities under Article 3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol;

3348
3349
3350



The area of lands subject to direct human-induced Afforestation/Reforestation in each of the previous landuse categories (e.g., Cropland, Grassland). This is to support the transparent calculation of carbon stockchanges and non-CO2 emissions and the identification of lands.

3351
3352
3353
3354
3355
3356

A more comprehensive system (Reporting Method 2 in Section 2.2.2) identifies each unit of land subject to
Afforestation/Reforestation activities since 1st January 1990 using the polygon boundaries, a coordinate system(e.g., the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Grid or Latitude/Longitude), or a legal description (e.g., thoseused by land-titles offices) of the location of the land subject to Afforestation or Reforestation activities. Volume
4, Chapter 3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Basis for Consistent Representation of Lands) discusses in detail thepossible approaches for consistent representation of land areas.

3357
3358
3359

In both cases, it is good practice to provide information on the area of Afforestation/Reforestation activities byyear, and on any other information relevant for the estimation of emissions and removals (e.g., species, growthrate by species and / or site conditions, productivity classes, etc.).

3360

2.5.2

3361

Choice of methods for identifying lands subject todirect human-induced Afforestation/Reforestation

3362
3363
3364
3365
3366
3367
3368
3369

Parties are required to report on the carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse emissions during thecommitment period on areas that have been subject to Afforestation and Reforestation activities since 1990. The
first step in this process is to make national parameter choices for the forest definition within the ranges allowed
by Decision 16/CMP.1, namely minimum area of 0.05 – 1 ha, minimum tree crown cover of 10-30% (orequivalent stocking level), minimum height at maturity of 2 to 5 meters and to report on these parameters, in theannual greenhouse gas inventory as set out in Table 2.4.1. As explained in Section 2.2.6.1, it is also goodpractice to choose a parameter for the minimum width of forested areas. Once the parameters have been chosen,
they will be used in identifying of lands subject to Afforestation and Reforestation.

3370
3371

The identification of lands subject to Afforestation/Reforestation activities requires the determination of areas
that:

3372
3373

1.

Meet or exceed the size of the country’s minimum area in the applied forest definition (i.e., 0.05 to 1 ha),
and

3374

2.

Did not meet the country’s definition of forest on 31 December 1989, and

3375
3376

3.

Do meet (or have the potential to meet) the definition of forest at the time of the assessment as the result of
direct human-induced activities, and

3377
3378

4.

Do not meet the criteria for Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion at the time of the assessment if thisprovision is applied.

3379
3380

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.

3381
3382
3383
3384
3385

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-forested on
31 December 1989, because only the latter areas are eligible for Afforestation and Reforestation activities underDecision 16/CMP.1. Decision 16/CMP.1 requires that Parties provide information on the criteria used to
distinguish harvesting or forest disturbance that is followed by the re-establishment of a forest from56

In the case of Afforestation and Reforestation, the minimum information required is the land-use which preceded theAfforestation and Reforestation event. This is particularly important for estimating the carbon stock change in soil, which
may depend on the previous land-use and soil type.

2.70

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

57

3386
3387
3388
3389
3390
3391
3392
3393

deforestation . It is good practice to apply the same criteria when evaluating whether a unit of land meets thedefinition 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 more than X years prior to 31 December 1989 and that have not regenerated
would be eligible for reforestation, as only they would be considered non-forested on 31 December 1989.
Similarly, areas that have been disturbed by wildfire or other natural disturbances (Section 2.3.9) more than X
years prior to 31 December 1989, and that have not regenerated to forest are classified as non-forested on 31
December 1989 and would therefore be eligible for Reforestation.

3394
3395
3396
3397
3398
3399
3400

As discussed in Section 2.2.2 (Reporting Methods for lands subject to Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities), Parties havethe option either to report a wall-to-wall estimate of all lands subject to Article 3.3 activities, or to stratify theland into areas, i.e., defining the boundaries of these areas, and to then develop for each area statistical estimatesof the lands subject to Afforestation, Reforestation and Deforestation activities. Combined approaches are also
possible: wall-to-wall can be developed for some strata, while estimates based on sampling approaches aredeveloped for other strata in the country, ensuring consistency in land representation in order to avoid double
counting.

3401
3402
3403
3404
3405
3406
3407
3408

It is necessary to provide information demonstrating that all afforestation and reforestation activities included in
the identified lands are direct human-induced 58 . 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 and practices. In the absence of such
documentation or information, forest regrowth as a consequence of abandonment does not qualify as direct
human-induced Afforestation or Reforestation59. Forest regrowth as a consequence of environmental change(including global climate change) is not direct-human induced and therefore does not qualify as
Afforestation/Reforestation, for example, vegetation thickening at high elevation or high latitude tree lines.

3409
3410
3411
3412
3413
3414
3415
3416
3417
3418

In some cases it may be unclear whether newly established trees will pass the forest threshold. A difference
between Afforestation/Reforestation activities and Revegetation is that Revegetation is not required to meet (inX years) the Party’s definition of a forest. Where it is uncertain whether the trees on a unit of land will exceed
the thresholds of the definition of forest, it is good practice that the carbon stock changes on these lands continue
to be reported as under the Article 3.4 activity which was previously reported, or reported under Revegetation,and to await confirmation (at a later time) that all the thresholds have been or will be passed before reportingthese areas as Afforestation or Reforestation. This approach is consistent with the treatment of Deforestation, i.e.,
after loss of forest cover that may be temporary; lands remain as forested lands until confirmed as Deforestation(see Section 2.6.2.1). A decision tree for determining whether an area will qualify for
Afforestation/Reforestation or for Revegetation is given in Figure 2.5.1.
57

Paragraph 5 of the Annex to Decision 16/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3, p.6; Paragraph 4 of the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change andforestry) contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.11.

58

Decision 16/CMP.1 defines Afforestation/Reforestation as the direct human-induced conversion of [land that has not been
forested for 50 years/non forested land] to forested land through planting, seeding and/or the human-induced promotion ofnatural seed sources. Decision 2/CMP.7 maintained the same definitions. According to Decision 2/CMP.8 (Implications of
the implementation 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(a), 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. It should be noted that the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, used for reporting under the UNFCCC, use the term
“afforestation and reforestation” with a broader meaning: Land is converted to Forest Land by afforestation andreforestation, 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 by drainage), establishment of plantations on
non-forest lands or previously unmanaged Forest Land, lands of settlements and industrial sites, abandonment ofcroplands, pastures or other managed lands, which re-grow to forest. Due to this difference, some areas that have beenreported as Land Converted to Forest Land since 1990 in the UNFCCC inventory may not have been converted throughdirect human-induced activity and cannot therefore be accounted under Afforestation/Reforestation activity under the
Kyoto Protocol.

59

When forest regrowth that does not meet the definition for Afforestation/Reforestation is on land already included in KP
reporting and accounting, then it must continue to be so, either under an elected (CM, GM, WDR) or mandatory (FM)Article 3.4 activity. If the land was not previously under a mandatory or elected KP activity, it should nevertheless be
included in Convention reporting. Thus the total area accounted as forest under KP may be less than that reported under
UNFCCC.

Draft KP Supplement

2.71

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
3419

2.72

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

3420
3421

3422
3423
3424
3425
3426
3427

Figure 2.5.1
Decision tree for determining whether a unit of land qualifies for direct
human-induced (dhi) Afforestation/Reforestation (AR)Note:(1) Direct human induced (dhi) Afforestation/Reforestation activities occur if trees are growing as a result of laws, policies,
regulations, management decisions and practices aimed at planting, promoting or allowing forest regeneration.
(2) Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion (CEFC): refer to Section 2.7.7

Draft KP Supplement

2.73

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
3428
3429

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.

3430
3431
3432

BOX 2.5.1
IDENTIFICATION OF AR LANDS: LINKS WITHIN THIS REPORT AND WITH OTHER IPCC REPORTS

3433
3434

LINKS WITH OTHER CHAPTERS OF THIS REPORT

3435

Section 2.2.2: Reporting Methods for Lands subject to Article 3.3 and Article 3.4 activities

3436
3437
3438
3439
3440
3441
3442
3443
3444

LINKS WITH THE 2006 IPCC GUIDELINES
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.

3446

Choice of methods for estimating carbon stockchanges and non-CO 2 emissions

3447
3448
3449
3450
3451
3452

Estimation of carbon stock changes from Afforestation and Reforestation activities should be consistent with themethods set out in Volume 4, Chapter 4 (Forest Land), Section 4.3 (Land Converted to Forest Land) of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines and the 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 be needed where the UNFCCC inventory (prepared according to Section 4.3: Land Converted toForest Land) is not sufficiently detailed to provide information that applies to young stands.

3453
3454
3455
3456

For Afforestation and Reforestation under Article 3.3 activities, gross-net accounting rules are applied andinformation on carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions in the base year (i.e., 1990) is
therefore not required. Only the carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions during each yearof the commitment period are estimated and reported.

3457
3458

At Tier 1, biomass growth is determined using the data in Volume 4, Chapter 4, Section 4.3 (Land Converted toForest Land) in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

3459
3460
3461
3462
3463
3464

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.

3465
3466
3467
3468
3469

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.

3470
3471
3472

Determination of the size and dynamics of litter, dead wood and soil organic carbon pools prior to the
Afforestation/Reforestation activity may require the use of methods developed for Cropland or other land uses
(Chapter 5 and other relevant chapters of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines).

3473
3474

Definition of pools under Afforestation/Reforestation should be consistent with Volume 4, Chapter 1, Section
1.2.2 (Carbon pool definitions and non-CO2 gases) and Table 1.1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

3475
3476
3477
3478

It is good practice to estimate emissions and removals of the harvest wood products pool associated with
Afforestation 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 greenhouse gas emissions fromorganic soils associated with drainage and rewetting of wetlands under Afforestation and Reforestation activities

3445

2.5.3

2.74

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

3479
3480

using the guidance provided in Section 2.12.3 (Wetland Drainage and Rewetting) of this report and the Wetlands
Supplement.

3481
3482

Links with methodologies in this report and the 2006 IPCC Guidelines on reporting of carbon stock changes andnon-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions in inventories under the UNFCCC are given in Box 2.5.2 below.

3483
3484
3485
3486

BOX 2.5.2
METHODOLOGICAL GUIDANCE ON ESTIMATING CARBON STOCK CHANGES AND NON-CO2 EMISSIONS ON AR
LANDS: LINKS WITHIN THIS REPORT AND WITH OTHER IPCC REPORTS

3487
3488

LINKS WITH CHAPTERS OF THIS REPORT

3489

Section2.8: Harvested Wood Products

3490

Section 2.12.4: Wetland Drainage and Rewetting

3491

LINKS WITH THE 2006 IPCC GUIDELINES

3492

Section 4.3, Chapter 4 (Land Converted to Forest Land)

3493
3494
3495
3496

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).

3497

LINKS WITH THE WETLANDS SUPPLEMENT

3498
3499
3500

Guidance on estimation of carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions from lands with organic
and wetland mineral soils in all land-uses with these soil types is provided in Chapters 2-5 of the
Wetlands Supplement.

3501
3502

2.5.3.1

3503

P OOLS AFFECTED BY AFFORESTATION / REFORESTATIONACTIVITIES

3504
3505
3506
3507

Afforestation/Reforestation activities may 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 below-ground biomass pools, but also soil, as well as dead wood, and litter, if (inthe latter instances) land with woody shrub or sparse tree cover was afforested.

3508
3509
3510
3511
3512
3513
3514
3515
3516
3517
3518
3519
3520
3521
3522
3523

Decision 16/CMP.1 requires 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 source60, for which good practice guidance is set out
in Section 2.3.1. Decision 2/CMP.7 further requires Parties to estimate carbon stock changes in the harvested
wood products pool. It is good practice to include carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions
that result from pre-planting activities, such as site preparation or shrub removals. Afforestation/Reforestation onmineral soils may either maintain or create conditions that increase belowground 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; Laganière et al., 2010; Don et al., 2011). However, under certain circumstances, soil carbon may
decline with afforestation of grasslands or wetlands for several years following conversion (Davis and Condron,
2002; Guo and Gifford, 2002; Paul et al., 2003; Tate et al., 2003; Vesterdal et al., 2002), and net losses of carbon
after planting or` seeding can persist over many years. Therefore, it is good practice to ensure that estimates ofpre-activity 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 Chapter 4, Section 4.3 (Land Converted to Forest Land) of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines.

60

Paragraph 26 of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.16; Paragraph 2 (e) of Annex II to Decision 2/CMP.8 contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2012/13/Add.1, p.19.

Draft KP Supplement

2.75

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
3524
3525
3526
3527

For Article 3.3 Afforestation or Reforestation activities that begin during the commitment period, reporting forthat unit of land shall begin at the beginning of the year in which the activity commences61. Site preparation andseeding/planting activities should be considered part of the activity, and associated emissions during thecommitment period should therefore be included.

3528
3529
3530

The methods given in 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Volume4, Chapter 4, Section 4.3: Land Converted to Forest Land)for estimating non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions on Land Converted to Forest Land are applicable for the
Afforestation and Reforestation activities.

3531

2.5.3.2

3532
3533
3534
3535
3536
3537

Calculation of carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions on areas subject to Afforestation
and Reforestation can be influenced by the presence of natural disturbances, i.e. non-anthropogenic events or
non-anthropogenic circumstances that cause significant emissions in forests and are beyond the control of, andnot materially influenced by a Party. Decision 2/CMP.7 allows that 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. Methods for addressing natural disturbances are provided by Section 2.3.9 Disturbances.

M ETHODS TO ADDRESS NATURAL DISTURBANCE

3538

61

Paragraph 2(d) of Annex II to Decision 2/CMP.8 contained in the document FCCC/KP/CMP/2012/13/Add.1, p.19.

2.76

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

3539

2.6

3540
3541

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.

3542

2.6.1

3543
3544

According to the definition in Decision 16/CMP.1, Deforestation is the direct, human-induced conversion offorested to non-forested land62.

3545
3546
3547
3548
3549
3550
3551
3552
3553

The country’s definition of forest should be consistent with guidance provided in Section 1.2 and consistent withthat used in the first commitment period. A loss in tree cover below the country-specific forest thresholds isrequired as a precondition to report a land under Deforestation. When a country's definition of forest takes
account of predominant land63 use as well as the thresholds adopted by the country, permanent loss of tree coveralone is not necessarily enough to define direct human induced Deforestation. For example, fruit orchards orurban trees can meet the threshold values of forest, but since the predominant land-use may be cropland or
settlements rather than forest, they may not meet the country-specific definition of forest. If the land wasclassified as Cropland or Settlements, the removal of trees below the forest threshold would then not constitute
Deforestation.

3554
3555
3556

The definition of Deforestation does not include loss 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 in these cases, loss offorest cover is only temporary and therefore not considered Deforestation, the land remains as forested land.

3557
3558
3559
3560
3561
3562
3563
3564
3565
3566

Harvest followed by re-establishment of forest is considered Forest Management activity and reported according
to Section 2.7. Natural disturbance followed by re-establishment of forest is not counted as Deforestation anddisturbance emissions may be excluded from accounting following the methodologies in Section 2.3.9. Humanactivities (since 1990) such as agricultural practices or the construction of roads or settlements, that prevent
forest regeneration by changing land-use on areas where forest cover was removed by a natural disturbance, areconsidered direct human-induced deforestation. All emissions and removals on lands subject to Deforestationmust continue to be reported under Deforestation, even if they are subsequently subject to regrowth of forests; itis good practice to report these lands as a separate subcategory (e.g. forest regrowth) 64. Lands that were subject
to elected activities under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol prior to tree cover loss and remain classified under
the same activity, are reported under the relevant Article 3.4 activity (and not under Deforestation).

3567
3568

Following Decision 2/CMP.7,65 it is mandatory to report and account for conversion of natural forest to planted
forest under Forest Management. It is not considered Deforestation, because the land remains under forest land
62

DEFORESTATION

Definitional issues and reporting requirements

Paragraphs 3 and 4 in the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.13, specifies that:

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.
63

The KP Supplement recognizes whilst the definition of forest adopted by 16/CMP.1 and taken over by 2/CMP.7 for thesecond commitment period is based on area, tree height and canopy cover thresholds, in implementing this definition in thefirst commitment period, many countries did not count as forested land which meets these definitions but was predominantly
under agricultural or urban land use, consistent with information reported to FAO or by national inventories. See Section 1.2,
step 1 for further guidance64

This is consistent with the treatment in GPG-LULUCF. Treating Deforestation and Deforestation which is subsequently
subject to forest regrowth as separate sub-categories is useful for transparency purposes, because different methods may be
applied and different emission patterns may be reported for these subcategories.
65

Paragraph 5 in the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.13: Each Party included in
Annex I shall report and account for, in accordance with Article 7, all emissions arising from the conversion of naturalforests to planted forests. Paragraph 5(d) in Annex II to the Decision 2/CMP.8 contained in the document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2012/13/Add.1, p.21, specifies this activity as being reported under Forest Management.

Draft KP Supplement

2.77

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
3569
3570
3571

use (Section 2.7). Under the Decision 2/CMP.7, planted forest lands subject to conversion to non-forested landmay, in special circumstances, be identified and accounted for as a Forest Management activity under the Carbon
Equivalent Forest Conversion provisions and are not considered Deforestation (Section 2.7.7).

3572
3573
3574
3575
3576
3577
3578
3579
3580

Parties will need to use the methods outlined in Volume 4, Chapter 3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Consistent
Representation of Lands), and the guidance in Section 2.2 to ensure that lands subject to Deforestation are
adequately identified in land-use change and other inventory databases and can be tracked over time onceaccounted under the Kyoto Protocol. Land identification and tracking provide means to associate the relevant
activity data to the correct emission factor. The Decision 2/CMP.8 requires that areas subject to direct humaninduced Deforestation since 1990 (Article 3.3) be identified separately from areas subject to direct humaninduced Deforestation that are also subject to other activities under Article 3.4 (such as Cropland Management)66.
Providing information on these areas will improve transparency and ensure that carbon stock changes and nonCO2 greenhouse gas emissions are not counted twice.

3581
3582
3583
3584
3585
3586
3587
3588

A Party’s choice of methods for the development of an inventory of lands subject to Deforestation activities will
depend on the national circumstances. For the identification of lands subject to Deforestation since 1st January
1990, it is good practice to use Approach 3 for consistent representation of lands (see Volume 4, Chapter 3,
Section 3.3.1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines), or Approach 2 with supplementary information provided that allows
identification and tracking of lands on a statistical basis 67 . Section 2.2.2 of this report provides a general
discussion of methods for reporting on lands subject to Article 3.3 activities. It is good practice to provide
information on uncertainties in the estimates of the total area of the lands subject to Afforestation and
Reforestation as discussed in Section 2.4.3 of this report.

3589

The annual inventory should, at a minimum, identify (for Reporting Method 1 in Section 2.2.2):

3590
3591
3592



The geographical location of the boundaries of the areas that encompass lands subject to direct humaninduced deforestation activities. The geographical boundaries which are reported should correspond to strata
in the estimation of land areas as described in Volume 4, Chapter 3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines;

3593
3594
3595
3596



For each of these areas, or strata, an estimate of the area of the lands subject to direct human-induced
Deforestation activities under Article 3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol, and the area of these lands which would
otherwise be included in lands subject to elected activities under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol (CroplandManagement, Grazing land Management, Revegetation and Wetland Drainage and Rewetting).

3597
3598
3599
3600



The area of lands subject to direct human-induced deforestation in each of the new land-use categories(Cropland, Grassland, Settlements) and areas of lands subject to direct human-induced deforestation that aresubsequently subject to forest regrowth. This is to support the transparent calculation of carbon stockchanges and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions and identification of lands.

3601
3602
3603
3604
3605
3606

A 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., theUniversal 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 deforestation activities.
Volume 4, Chapter 3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Basis for Consistent Representation of Lands) discusses indetail the possible approaches for consistent representation of lands.

3607
3608

It is good practice to provide information on the area deforested by year, and on any other information relevantto the estimation of emissions and removals (e.g. forest type, site conditions, etc.).

2.6.2

3609
3610

Choice of methods for identifying lands subject todirect human-induced deforestation

3611
3612
3613

Parties are required to report carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions during the commitment period onland areas that have been subject to direct human-induced deforestation activities since 1990 (after 31 December
1989) .

3614
3615
3616
3617

It is good practice that the identification of areas subject to Deforestation is consistent with the country’s
definition of forest. The identification of areas subject to Deforestation requires the detection of a permanent
reduction in forest cover from above to below the country-specific threshold of forest. Forest is required to be
first defined in terms of potential height, tree crown cover and minimum area as already described for
66

Paragraph 2(b) in Annex II to Decision 2/CMP.8 contained in the document FCCC/KP/CMP/2012/13/Add.1, p.18.

67

In the case of Deforestation, the minimum information required is the land-use (or land uses) that followed theDeforestation event.

2.78

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

3618
3619
3620
3621
3622
3623

Afforestation and Reforestation activities. When a country's definition of forest takes account of predominantland-use as well as the thresholds adopted by the country, the permanent loss of tree cover should beaccompanied by a change in land-use (from forest to non-forest) to define direct human induced Deforestation.
The same parameter values for the definition of forest are required to be used for determining the area of land
subject to Deforestation. Once a Party has chosen its definition of forest, the forest area can be identified for any
point in time. Only areas within these boundaries are potentially subject to deforestation activities.

3624

The identification of lands subject to deforestation activities requires the determination of areas that:

3625

1.

Meet or exceed the size of the country’s minimum forest area (i.e., 0.05 to 1 ha), and

3626

2.

Have met the country’s definition of forest on or after 31 December 1989, and

3627
3628

3.

Have ceased to meet the definition of forest at some time after 1 January 1990 as the result of direct
human-induced conversion from forested to non-forested land, and

3629

4.

Do not meet the criteria for Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion if this provision is applied.

3630
3631
3632
3633
3634
3635
3636
3637
3638
3639
3640

Lands can only be classified as Deforestation if they have been subject to direct human-induced conversion fromforested land to non-forested land. Areas in which forest cover was lost as a result of natural disturbances are
not considered deforested, even if changed physical conditions delay or prevent regeneration, provided no landuse change has occurred (Section 2.3.9). If, however, the natural disturbance is followed by a non-forest landuse, then this will prevent the regeneration of forest, and the disturbance emissions count as Deforestation andcannot be excluded from accounting. Change in management or policy that could be reasonably expected todirectly result in forest cover loss is considered to be direct human-induced Deforestation. For example, loss offorest cover in areas that have been flooded as a result of changed drainage patterns due to hydroelectric dams orroad construction. Loss of forest cover due to environmental change (i.e., not direct human induced), which is
not subject to land use change, would not be considered Deforestation (e.g. naturally raising or lowering of watertables in areas with permafrost thawing or river/coastal erosion).

3641
3642
3643

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.

Draft KP Supplement

2.79

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
3644
3645

BOX 2.6.1
IDENTIFICATION OF D LANDS: LINKS WITHIN THIS REPORT AND WITH OTHER IPCC REPORTS

3646

LINKS WITH OTHER CHAPTERS OF THIS REPORT

3647

Section 2.2.2: Reporting Methods for Lands subject to Article 3.3 and Article 3.4 activities

3648
3649

Provides methods for identifying lands subjected to direct human induced Deforestation, alongwith conditions for identifying areas of lands subject to Deforestation activities.

3650

LINKS WITH THE 2006 IPCC GUIDELINES

3651

Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use

3652

Chapter 3: Consistent Representation of Lands

3653
3654
3655

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.

3656
3657
3658

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.

3659
3660
3661

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.

3662
3663
3664

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.

3665
3666
3667

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.

3668

2.6.2.1

3669

D ISCRIMINATING BETWEEN DEFORESTATION AND
TEMPORARY LOSS OF FOREST COVER

3670
3671
3672
3673
3674
3675
3676
3677
3678
3679
3680
3681
3682
3683
3684

Parties are required to report on how they distinguish between deforestation and areas that remain forests butwhere tree cover68 has been removed temporarily69, notably areas that have been harvested or have been subject
to other human disturbance but for which it is expected that a forest will be replanted or regenerated naturally. It
is good practice to develop and report criteria by which temporary removal or loss of tree cover can be
distinguished from 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 timesince forest cover loss is shorter than the number of years within which tree establishment is expected. After thattime period, lands that were forest on or after 31 December 1989, that since then have lost forest cover due to
direct human-induced actions and that failed to regenerate are identified as deforested and the carbon stockchanges and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions for this land are to be recalculated and added to those of otherdeforested 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).

3685
3686
3687
3688
3689
3690

Although the loss of forest cover is often readily identified, e.g., through change detection using remote sensing
images or field inventories, the classification of this area as deforested is more challenging. It involves assessing
the lands on which the forest cover loss has occurred, as well as the surrounding area, and typically requires datafrom multiple sources to supplement the change detection information. In some cases a new land-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 and68

Or equivalent stocking level

69

Paragraph 4 of Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.13; Paragraph 4 (b) in the Annex 2 to Decision 2/CMP.8 contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2012/13/Add.1, p.20.

2.80

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

3691
3692
3693
3694
3695
3696
3697
3698
3699
3700
3701

actual or planned forest regeneration activities can be used to distinguish deforestation from temporary loss offorest cover. Where such information is missing or unavailable, only a lapse of time will reveal 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 lands remain classified as forest. It could occur that the information needed to
distinguish Deforestation from temporary loss of forest cover (e.g. the expected time for regeneration has elapsed)
will be available only in the following commitment period. To avoid a potential underestimation of emissions
from Deforestation in the commitment period, it is good practice to estimate by the last inventory reporting of
the commitment period, the proportion of the lands without forest cover that is expected not to regenerate toforest based on country-specific or regional averages or other spatial data consistent with the national inventory
methods. This proportion of the area will then be assigned to lands subject to deforestation, while the remaining
proportion will remain classified as forest70.

3702
3703
3704
3705
3706
3707
3708
3709
3710

It is good practice for Parties to identify and track the lands with loss of 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 on these lands, whether or not regeneration occurred within
the expected time period. Lands for which, at the end of a commitment period, no direct information wasavailable to distinguish deforestation from other causes of cover loss, could be reassessed annually or at aminimum prior to the end of the next commitment period. If regeneration did not occur or if other land-use
activities are observed, then these lands that had remained classified as forest should be reclassified asDeforestation and the carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions recalculated accordingly(see also Volume1, Chapter 5 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Time Series Consistency)

3711
3712
3713
3714
3715
3716
3717

The task of distinguishing temporary forest cover loss from 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 oflands subject to deforestation.

3718
3719

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.

3720

70

For instance, in the last inventory year of the commitment period, an area of 1000 ha was subject to loss of forest cover;
800 ha of this area was classified as Deforestation, while for remaining 200 ha the information needed to classify it
definitively was still not available. Of these 200 ha, based on country-specific or regional statistics or other data, thecountry estimates that 150 ha are expected not to regenerate. This 150 ha are assigned to Deforestation, while theremaining 50 ha remain classified as forest.

Draft KP Supplement

2.81

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
3721
3722

Figure 2.6.1

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

3723

3724
3725
3726
3727
3728

Note:
1. Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion (CEFC): refer to Section 2.7.7: Carbon Equivalent Forest
2. Refer to country-specific criteria for distinguishing harvesting from deforestation. Reassess annually or at a minimum prior to the end of
the next commitment period.

2.82

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

2.6.3

3729
3730

Choice of methods for estimating carbon stockchanges and non-CO 2 emissions

3731
3732
3733
3734
3735
3736
3737
3738

All carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions during the commitment period on lands subject to direct
human-induced Deforestation since 1990 are required to be reported71. Where deforestation occurred between 1
January 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 period72. After the deforestation event,losses during the commitment period will result primarily from the continuing decay of dead wood, litter, belowground biomass and soil carbon remaining on the site. These losses can be offset by increase in biomass pools.
Definitions of pools under Deforestation should be consistent with provisions introduced by 2006 IPCC
Guidelines (Volume 4, Chapter1, Section 1.2.2: Carbon pool definitions and non-CO2 gases and Table 1.1).

3739
3740

Harvested wood products derived from Deforestation activity are accounted for as an instantaneous emission at
the time of deforestation (see Chapter 2.8).

3741
3742
3743

It is good practice to report carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions from organic soils
associated with drainage and rewetting under Deforestation activities using the guidance provided in Section
2.12.4 (Wetland Drainage and Rewetting) of this report, and in the Wetlands Supplement.

3744
3745
3746
3747

On areas subject to Article 3.3 activities, gross-net accounting rules are applied73 and information on carbon
stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions in the base year (i.e., 1990) is therefore not required. Only
the carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions during each year of the commitment period are
required to be estimated and reported.

3748
3749
3750

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 Volume 4, Chapters 5,6,7,8,9(Conversion from Forest Land to any other land-use category).

3751
3752
3753
3754
3755
3756
3757
3758
3759
3760
3761
3762

Carbon stock changes on lands subject to Deforestation activities during the commitment period can be
estimated by determining the carbon stocks in all pools prior to and after the deforestation event. Alternatively,
the stock changes can be estimated from the carbon transfers out of the forest, e.g., the amount harvested(Volume 4, Chapter 2 of the 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 the estimation 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 andon management practices on that site is required for the estimation of carbon stock changes and non-CO2
greenhouse gas emissions.

3763
3764

Harvested wood products derived from Deforestation activity are required to be accounted for as an
instantaneous emission at the time of Deforestation

3765
3766
3767
3768
3769

Where lands subject to Deforestation become land under other land-use categories such as Cropland or
Grassland, the established methodologies described in relevant sections of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines should be
used to estimate carbon stocks changes. Several of these categories may contain little or no carbon, or the change
in carbon stocks may be very small. Box 2.6.2 summarises links with methodologies for estimation of carbon
stock changes and non-CO2 emissions in this report and with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

3770

71

Paragraph 17, 18 and 19 of the Annex to Decision 16/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in
document FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3, p.8; Paragraph 22 and 23 of the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in
document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.16.

72

Pools which are not a source can be excluded from accounting, though this is unlikely in the case of deforestation.
Except for Parties that fall under the provisions of the last sentence of Article 3.7 of the Kyoto Protocol. as adopted in
Annex I decision 1/CMP.8 (Amendment to the Kyoto protocol pursuant to its article 3, paragraph 9) contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1.

73

Draft KP Supplement

2.83

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
3771
3772
3773

BOX 2.6.2
METHODOLOGICAL GUIDANCE ON ESTIMATING CARBON STOCKS CHANGES AND NON-CO2 EMISSIONS ON D
LANDS: LINKS WITHIN THIS REPORT AND WITH OTHER IPCC REPORTS

3774

LINKS WITH OTHER CHAPTERS OF THIS REPORT

3775

Section 2.8: Harvested Wood Products

3776

Section 2.12.3: Wetland Drainage and Rewetting

3777
3778
3779

LINKS WITH THE 2006 IPCC GUIDELINES (Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other
Land Use)

3780
3781
3782

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.

3783
3784
3785

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.

3786
3787
3788

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.

3789
3790
3791

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.

3792
3793
3794

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.

3795
3796

LINKS WITH THE WETLANDS SUPPLEMENT

3797
3798
3799

Guidance on estimation of carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions from lands with organic
and wetland mineral soils in all land-uses with these soil types is provided in Chapters 2-5 of the
Wetlands Supplement.

3800
3801

2.84

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

3802

2.7 FOREST MANAGEMENT

3803
3804
3805

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
mandatory74 , and based on a reference level75 .

3806
3807
3808

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 greenhouse gas emissions for those areas(Sections 2.7.1, 2.7.2, 2.7.3).

3809

This section also addresses the new elements introduced by Decision 2/CMP.7, including:

3810



Reporting of emissions arising from the conversion of natural forests to planted forest (within Section 2.7.1);

3811



Methodological requirements related to the forest management reference level (Section 2.7.5);

3812



Performance of Technical Corrections for accounting purposes (see Section 2.7.6);

3813
3814



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).

3815
3816
3817

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. Disturbances as they relate to Forest
Management are dealt with in 2.7.4 below and in greater depth in Section 2.3.9.

3818

This section should be read in conjunction with the general discussion in Sections 2.2 to 2.4.

3819

2.7.1

3820
3821

Decision 2/CMP.7 maintains the same definition of “forest” and “Forest Management” as in Decision
16/CMP.176.

3822
3823
3824
3825
3826
3827
3828
3829

Decision 16/CMP.1 defines “forest” using area and vegetation threshold criteria77, including the potential tomeet them, and including areas that are temporarily unstocked. Decision 2/CMP.7 specifies that, for the purposeof applying the definition of “forest”, each Party shall apply the definition selected in the first commitment
period. If a country’s definition of forest differs from the definition they use for UNFCCC or FAO or reporting it
is good practice to explain why. The country’s definition of forest should be consistent with guidance provided
in Section 1.1, including the information to be provided in case areas which would otherwise meet the area andthe vegetation criteria for forest are excluded on the grounds that they are Cropland (e.g., orchards), Grassland(e.g. grazed savannah) or Settlements (e.g., urban trees).

3830
3831
3832
3833
3834

Decision 16/CMP.1 defines “Forest Management” as a system of practices for stewardship and use of forest land
aimed at fulfilling relevant ecological (including biological diversity), economic and social functions of theforest in a sustainable manner. It includes forests meeting the definition of “forest” in Decision 16/CMP.1 withthe parameter values for forests that have been selected and reported by the Party, and that have not beenclassified by the Party under Afforestation/Reforestation category.

3835
3836
3837
3838
3839
3840

There are two 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 since 1990. In thisapproach, 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

Definitional issues and reporting requirements

74

See paragraph 7 in the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry), contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.14.

75

See paragraph 12 in the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry), contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.14.

76

See paragraphs 1, 20 and 21 of the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry), contained in
document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.13 and 16.

77

See footnote 19 and Section 1.2, step 1 for further guidance.

Draft KP Supplement

2.85

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
3841
3842

practices, and identify the area that is subject to this system of practices during the inventory year of thecommitment period.

3843
3844
3845
3846
3847
3848
3849
3850
3851

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 the circumstances under which a transition fromnatural forest to planted forest occurs, and apply these definitions consistently throughout the commitment
periods. It is good practice that emissions and removals on lands subject to conversion from natural forest toplanted forest are reported and accounted within Forest Management.

3852
3853
3854

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 under Forest Management.

3855
3856
3857

Section 2.2 (Generic Methodologies for Area Identification, Stratification and Reporting) explains that thegeographical location of the areas containing land subject to forest management activities need to be defined andreported. Two Reporting Methods are outlined in Section 2.2.2.

3858
3859
3860
3861
3862
3863
3864

In Reporting Method 1, a boundary may encompass multiple Forest Management lands and other kinds of landuse such as agriculture or unmanaged forests. 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 greenhouse gas emissions in the above-ground biomass,
below-ground biomass, dead wood, litter, and soil organic carbon. Accounting for the harvested wood products
pool is at the national level. For both Reporting Methods, Forest Management lands include also non-forest land
accounted for under Forest Management through the Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion provision.

3865

2.7.2

3866

Choice of methods for identifying lands subject toForest Management

3867
3868
3869
3870
3871

It is good practice for each Party to describe in its National Inventory Report how it applies the definitions of“forest” and “Forest Management” under Decisions 16/CMP.1 in a consistent way across space and time, andhow it distinguishes areas subject to Forest Management from other areas. It is good practice to base theassignment of land to activities following the guidance in Sections 1.1. and 1.2 of this report and Volume 4,
Chapter 3 (Consistent Representation of Lands) of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines .

3872
3873
3874
3875

Furthermore, land subject to “Forest Management” as defined by Decision 16/CMP.1 is not necessarily the same
area as “managed forests” in the context of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines used for UNFCCC reporting. The latterincludes all forests under direct human influence, including forests that may not meet the requirements of theDecision 16/CMP.1.

3876
3877

2.86

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

3878
3879
3880

Figure 2.7.1

Relationship between different categories under UNFCCC reporting andforest activities under Kyoto Protocol reporting. See Sections 2.7 and 2.7.1
for further explanation.
Grey boxes are reported related to forest land

UNFCCC Reporting

All Lands

ManagedUnmanaged

ForestForestRemaining
ForestKP Reporting

Other lands

Land
Converted toForestNon-direct
human

Other

Direct humaninducedAR under KP

ForestForestConverted to
Other lands

Carbon Equivalent
ForestDeforestation*

Other lands

D under KP*Land subject to FM under KP**

* Direct human induced conversion after 31 Dec 1989.
** Activity after 31 Dec 1989 which meets the requirements of the Decision 16/CMP.1.
If land under Forest Land Remaining Forest Land or Land Converted to Forest Land or Forest Land Converted toother land-use categories does not meet the requirements of the Decision 16/CMP.1, they are not included under forestrelated activities (AR, D, FM) under KP reporting.

3881
3882
3883
3884
3885
3886
3887
3888
3889
3890
3891
3892
3893
3894
3895
3896
3897
3898
3899
3900
3901
3902
3903
3904
3905
3906

* 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).

Figure 2.7.1 outlines the relationship between different forest categories. For UNFCCC reporting, countries may
have subdivided 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. However, since most countries
have in place policies to manage forests sustainably, and/or use practices for stewardship and use of forest land
aimed at fulfilling relevant ecological (including biological diversity), economic and social functions of theforest in a sustainable manner78 , 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 the identification of land
subject to Forest Management such that there is consistency between the area of managed forest (as reported
under the UNFCCC) and the area of forest subject to Forest Management. Where differences occur between thetwo, it is good practice to explain and document the extent of the differences. In particular, where areas that areconsidered managed forest are excluded from the area subject to Forest Management, it is good practice toprovide the reason for the exclusion (including the use of the narrow approach), and to document how any
possible unbalanced accounting is avoided (Figure 2.7.1). Unbalanced accounting can occur if areas that areconsidered 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 HumanInduced Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types (IPCC, 2003) discusses the issue of
unbalanced accounting. The inclusion of non-forested areas within Forest Management accounting under the
Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion provision can also lead to differences between the reported area ofmanaged forest and the area under Forest Management – all such areas must be clearly identified (see Section
2.7.7).
78

See paragraph 1(f) in the Annex to Decision 16/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3, p.5.

Draft KP Supplement

2.87

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
3907
3908
3909

Figure 2.7.2 gives the decision tree for determining whether land qualifies for Forest Management. Land that isclassified as subject to Forest Management is required to meet the country’s criteria for forest or, if non-forest, isrequired to be subject to CEFC provision.

3910

2.88

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

3911
3912
3913

Figure 2.7.2

Decision tree for determining whether land qualifies for Forest Management.
This decision tree applies to lands which are not eligible for direct humaninduced AR (see Figure 2.5.1).

3914

3915
3916

Draft KP Supplement

2.89

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
3917
3918
3919
3920
3921
3922
3923
3924
3925
3926

It is good practice for each Party to describe its application of the definition of Forest Management and to
identify the areas of land subject to Forest Management in the inventory year of the commitment period. In mostcases, this will be based on information contained in national forest inventories including criteria such asadministrative, zoning (e.g., protected areas or parks) or ownership boundaries, since the difference between
managed and unmanaged forests or, possibly, between managed forest meeting the definition of Forest
Management in Decision 16/CMP.179 and managed forest not doing so, may be difficult or impossible to detectby remote sensing or other forms of observation.
It is good practice for each Party to provide information to show when a transition from natural forest to planted
forest has occurred based on their national definitions, how reporting and accounting of emissions and removals
has been captured within Forest Management.

3927
3928
3929

According to Decision 2/CMP.7, the carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions on lands
subject to Forest Management under Article 3.4 can be excluded from accounting if they are associated withnatural disturbance (See Section 2.3.9).

3930
3931
3932
3933
3934
3935
3936
3937
3938
3939

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 management activities, the area ofland subject to Forest Management is increasing and the associated carbon stock changes need to be estimatedaccordingly. If an area of forest expansion after 1990 does not qualify for direct-human induced
Afforestation/Reforestation, and if this area meets the requirements of the Decision 16/CMP.1, it may be
included under Forest Management (see Figure 2.7.1). On the other hand, Deforestation decreases the area under
Forest Management. Where changes in area occur over time, it is essential that the methods for carbon stockchange calculation are applied in the sequence outlined in Section 2.3.3 of this report. Failure to use the correctcomputational methods may result in an apparent but incorrect increase in carbon stocks that is the result of thearea change.

3940
3941
3942
3943
3944

Once an area has been included in the carbon stock change reporting under the Kyoto Protocol it cannot be
removed, but the reporting category of the area can change (as outlined in Section 1.3). Lands that are deforested
are, however, subject to the rules of Article 3.3 and future carbon stock changes must be reported. Accordingly
the area reported under Article 3.4 would decrease, and the area reported under Article 3.3 would increase by thesame amount.

3945
3946
3947

Figure 2.7.3

Relationship among forest lands, lands subject to FM, lands subject tonatural disturbance and Carbon Equivalent Forests. Grey areas are reported
under FM.

3948
3949

All land-uses

3950

Non-forest
land-uses

Forest lands

3951

Land subject to FM

3952
3953
3954

Carbon Equivalent Forest provision
Naturaldisturbance(optional
accounting)

3955
3956

Equivalent
forests (ifany)

Forests
converted toother land uses

3957
3958
3959
3960
3961
3962
3963
3964

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 thearea reported under Forest Management may increase without an increase in forested land. It is good practicethat lands subject to the Carbon Equivalent Forest provision are transparently identified separately. All lands
under the Carbon Equivalent Forest provision are subject to Forest Management, and these lands include newly79

See paragraph 1 in Annex to Decision 16/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3, p. 5

2.90

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

3965
3966

planted Carbon Equivalent Forests and forests converted into other land-uses. Figure 2.7.3 shows relationships oflands subject to Forest Management.

3967
3968

Box 2.7.1 summarises links with methodologies in this report and with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for theidentification of land areas.

3969
3970

BOX 2.7.1
LINKS WITH CHAPTER 3 OR 4 OF THE 2006 IPCC GUIDELINES

3971
3972

Volume 4: Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Use

3973

Chapter 3: Consistent Representation of Lands

3974

Chapter 4, Section 4.2: Forest Land Remaining Forest Land

3976

Choice of methods for estimating carbon stockchanges and non-CO 2 emissions

3977
3978
3979
3980
3981
3982
3983
3984
3985
3986

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 below-ground biomass, deadwood, litter and soil organic carbon. For HWP, estimation methods in line with Decision 2/CMP.7 are provided
in Section 2.8 of this report. including guidance to distinguish among HWPs originated from lands subject toeach forest-related activity, i.e. AR, FM or D, or from lands not subject to any of those activities. 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 emissions andremovals reported for Forest Management during the commitment period and the Forest Management Reference
Level (FMRL) inscribed in the Appendix to the Decision 2/CMP.7 (see Section 2.7.5). In certain cases, it is goodpractice to apply Technical Corrections for accounting purposes (see Section 2.7.6).

3987
3988
3989
3990

It is good practice to use the same tier or a higher tier for estimating stock changes and greenhouse gas
emissions as the one that was used for the corresponding land-use in the UNFCCC inventory, following theguidance on methodological choice and identification of key categories included in Volume 1, Chapter 4 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines. In particular:

3991
3992
3993
3994
3995
3996
3997
3998
3999
4000
4001



Tier 1 can only be applied if Forest Management is not considered a key category, or if the pool is not“significant”, 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 below-ground biomass,
litter, dead wood, and SOC shall all be accounted unless the country chooses not to report changes in a pooldemonstrating it is not a source. Therefore Tier 1 can only be applied if the litter, dead wood and SOC pools
can be shown not to be sources using the methods outlined in the Section 2.3.1 (Pools to be reported). It is
important to note that, once a pool has been included in the FMRL, for consistency reasons it is goodpractice 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 isprovided in Section 2.8.

4002
4003
4004
4005



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 FMRL, a country may decide to exclude those pools that can be shown not to be a net-source, using themethods described in Section 2.3.1.

4006
4007
4008



Where it is possible to obtain estimates from both the Gain-Loss method and the Stock-Difference methods,
it is good practice to use the comparison for verification purposes because this may help identify errors andunderstand better the trends and reasons of interannual variations.

4009
4010
4011

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:

4012
4013
4014

1.

3975

2.7.3

The areas subject to Forest Management are the same as the areas of the managed forest (Figure 2.7.1), or
where these are not the same the area and carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions on
the areas subject to Forest Management are known, andDraft KP Supplement

2.91

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
4015
4016

1.

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

4017
4018
4019

2.

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 and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions on this
area.

4020
4021

3.

There are no non-forest lands within managed forest lands reported to the UNFCCC, even if non-forest land
are accounted for within Forest Management as Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion.

4022
4023
4024

4.

Even if forest lands have been subject to natural disturbance for which emissions and subsequent uptake
have been excluded from accounting, lands and associated emissions and removals have not been excluded
from UNFCC reporting.

4025
4026
4027

5.

Harvested wood products are reported in a manner consistent with the requirements for accounting as
defined in Decision 2/CMP.7 (e.g. harvested wood products from Deforestation are reported on the basis of
instantaneous oxidation and imports are excluded)80.

4028
4029
4030
4031
4032
4033
4034
4035
4036

To meet the Kyoto Protocol reporting requirements, national inventory systems need be able to identify and track
all forest areas 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 and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions in all relevant categories for both UNFCCC
and Kyoto Protocol reporting. Properly implemented, such a comprehensive approach ensures consistency
among the methods used for calculating and reporting carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas
emissions, because the same forest and land-use change inventories is the basis for the computations used in both
UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol reporting.

4037
4038

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.

4039
4040
4041
4042

BOX 2.7.2
METHODOLOGICAL GUIDANCE FOR ESTIMATION OF CARBON STOCK CHANGES AND NON-CO2 EMISSIONSFROM FM ACTIVITIES; LINKS WITHIN THIS REPORT AND WITH OTHER IPCC REPORTS

4043

LINKS WITH THE 2006 IPCC GUIDELINES

4044

Chapter 4 Section 4.2: Forest Land Remaining Forest Land

4045
4046

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.

4047

LINKS WITH THE WETLANDS SUPPLEMENT

4048
4049
4050

Guidance on estimation of carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions fromlands with organic and wetland mineral soils in all land-uses with these soil types is provided in
Chapters 2-5 of the Wetlands Supplement.

4051

4052

2.7.4

4053
4054
4055
4056
4057
4058
4059
4060
4061

Calculation of carbon stock changes and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions on areas subject to Forest
Management can be influenced by the presence of natural disturbances, i.e. non-anthropogenic events or nonanthropogenic circumstances that cause significant emissions in forests and are beyond the control of, and notmaterially influenced by a Party. Emissions from Forest Management can be influenced by natural disturbancesin two ways: 1) through emissions from natural disturbances occurring in the commitment period and; 2) throughan inconsistency between the treatment of natural disturbances in the reporting of Forest Management emissions
in the commitment period and the FMRL. Methods for addressing natural disturbances in case 1) are provided by
Section 2.3.9 Disturbances. Guidance to address inconsistencies in the treatment of natural disturbances inreported data and the FMRL are presented in Sections 2.7.5 and 2.7.6.

80

Methods to address natural disturbanceSee Section 2.8 (Harvested Wood Products)

2.92

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

4062

2.7.5

Forest Management Reference Levels

4063
4064
4065
4066
4067
4068
4069
4070
4071
4072
4073
4074
4075
4076
4077

According to Decision 2/CMP.781, for the second commitment period, accountable anthropogenic greenhousegas emissions by sources and removals by sinks resulting from Forest Management under Article 3.4, shall beequal to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks in the commitment period,
less the number of years of the commitment period to be accounted times the FMRL inscribed in the Appendix
to the decision. 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 be compared for accounting purposes.

4078
4079
4080

The guidance on how to construct the FMRL is provided by the Appendix II to the Decision 2/CMP.6 and is notprovided in this section. The overview of approaches, methods and elements used in construction of FMRLs isprovided to clarify the discussions on methodological consistency and Technical Corrections.

4081

2.7.5.1

This section addresses methodological issues related to the FMRL, including: (i) an overview of approaches andmethods 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 the commitment period; and (iii) a description of how and when to perform TechnicalCorrections for accounting 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.

4082

O VERVIEW OF A PPROACHES , METHODS AND ELEMENTSCONSIDERED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF FMRL

4083
4084
4085
4086
4087
4088
4089
4090

Decision 2/CMP.6 requested Annex I Parties to submit information on how the country’s FMRL was constructed
and provided guidelines for the submission of such information. The objectives of the submissions were: (a) toprovide information consistent with the general reporting principles set out by the Convention and elaborated by
the IPCC on how the elements contained in footnote 1 in paragraph 4 of decision 2/CMP.682 were taken 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) toprovide transparent, complete, consistent, comparable and accurate methodological information used at the timeof the construction of the FMRL.

4091
4092
4093
4094
4095

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 Secretariat83.

4096
4097

APPROACHES AND METHODS USED TO CONSTRUCT FMRL

4098
4099
4100
4101

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 National
Inventory Report. Based on the submissions on FMRL made by Parties, the following general approaches used
to set FMRLs may be recognized (see Box 2.7.3 for more details):

4102

2.

4103

FMRLs based on projections under a business-as-usual scenario. This approach includes two methods:a) modelled projections under a business as usual scenario.

81

Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1.

82

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 ‘businessas 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.

83

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 KP Supplement

2.93

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
4104
4105

b) projections based on the average of or the linear extrapolation of historical data from GHG inventories,
assumed as proxy for a business-as -usual scenario.

4106

6.

FMRLs based on a single year (1990).

4107

7.

FMRL set as zero.

4108
4109

BOX 2.7.3
APPROACHES AND METHODS USED FOR CONSTRUCTING FOREST MANAGEMENT REFERENCE LEVELS

4110
4111
4112
4113
4114
4115

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 and methods used,aggregated into three groups:

4116
4117

1)

4118

a)

4119
4120
4121
4122

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.

4123
4124
4125
4126
4127
4128
4129
4130
4131

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.

4132
4133

b) projections based on the elaboration of historical data from GHG inventories, assumed asproxy for a ‘business-as-usual’ scenario

4134
4135
4136

Average of historical data. One Party for its revised FMRL used the average removals under theForest land Remaining Forest Land category, as reported for the period 1990–2009 in the 2011
GHG inventory.

4137
4138

Extrapolation from a historical time series trend. Two Parties used a linear extrapolation of net
emissions historical data (1990–2008) to construct the FMRLs.

4139

2)

4140

Three Parties proposed the use of a historical FMRL based on 1990 data.

4141

3)

4142
4143
4144

One Party used the narrow approach for Forest Management, and set its FMRL equal to zero,
which is equivalent to a Forest Management scenario in which emissions and removals are
assumed to balance to zero.

FMRLs based on projections under a business as usual scenario. This approach includes
the following methods:
modelled projections under a business-as-usual scenario

Historical FMRL based on the single year 1990
FMRL equal to zero

4145
4146

ELEMENTS CONSIDERED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF FMRL

4147
4148
4149
4150
4151

Pools and gases

4152
4153
4154

Decision 2/CMP.7 also specified that for the second commitment period Party shall account for all changes inabove-ground biomass, below-ground biomass, litter, dead wood, soil organic carbon and harvested wood
products (see Section 2.3.1 for additional information and methodological guidance). Nevertheless, with theDecision 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.

2.94

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

4155
4156

exception of HWP, a Party may choose not to account for a given pool in a commitment period, if transparent
and verifiable information is provided that demonstrates that the pool is not a source.

4157
4158
4159
4160
4161
4162
4163
4164
4165
4166

Area under Forest Management

4167
4168
4169
4170
4171
4172
4173
4174
4175
4176

Historical data from greenhouse gas inventory

4177
4178
4179
4180
4181
4182
4183
4184
4185
4186

Forest characteristics and related management

4187
4188
4189
4190
4191
4192
4193

Historical and assumed harvesting rates

4194
4195
4196
4197
4198
4199
4200
4201
4202

For projected FMRLs, Parties provided information on the assumptions about the future harvesting rates, basedon 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 associated with the actual age-class structure. For transparency purposes,
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 by assortment 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 thebiomass used for HWP estimates.

4203
4204
4205

Harvested wood products

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 period84 , 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 area.
Parties were 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 for Forest Management or Forest Land Remaining
Forest Land from the GHG inventory or that ex-post calibrations have been carried out to align the model resultswith the historical data.
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.).

84

Some Parties 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 KP Supplement

2.95

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
4206
4207
4208

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.

4209
4210
4211
4212
4213
4214
4215

Natural disturbances

4216
4217
4218
4219

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.

4220
4221
4222
4223
4224
4225
4226
4227
4228
4229
4230
4231
4232
4233
4234
4235
4236

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 (assuming that both include or exclude these effects). Similarly, thedynamic effects of differing age-class structures across the forests resulting from past activities and practices andnatural disturbances are included in both the construction of the FMRL and the estimation of net emissions
during the reporting period and therefore they cancel out.

4237
4238
4239
4240
4241
4242
4243
4244

Continuity with the treatment of Forest Management in the first commitment
period

4245
4246
4247
4248
4249
4250
4251
4252
4253

Policies included

4254

Parties proposing historical FMRLs based on 1990 do not take into account policies and measures since that year.

This is not a relevant element for most approaches used to calculate the FMRL. For one Party, the continuity
with the treatment of Forest Management in the first commitment period means that the same narrow approachwith gross–net accounting will continue, 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 does not include assumptions about changes to domestic policies adopted and implemented after
December 2009. The aim of this information is also to document the feasibility of the policies and theassumptions included in the FMRL, in relation to the country-specific circumstances. A few Parties also clarified
the effects of policies related to biofuel or the use of biomass as a renewable source in the calculation of their
FMRLs.

2.96

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

4256

M ETHODOLOGICAL CONSISTENCY BETWEEN FMRL AND
REPORTING FOR F OREST M ANAGEMENT DURING THE

4257

COMMITMENT PERIOD

4255

2.7.5.2

4258
4259
4260
4261
4262

According to Decision 2/CMP.7, when accounting for Forest Management, Parties shall demonstrate
methodological consistency between the FMRL 85 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.

4263
4264
4265
4266
4267
4268
4269
4270
4271

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 greenhouse gas emissions during the whole period. Under certain
circumstances 86 , an inventory using different methodologies for different years can be considered to beconsistent if it has been recalculated in a transparent manner, and if potential inconsistencies are minimized inaccordance with the guidance provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Volume 1, Chapter 5) and with GPGLULUCF (Chapter 5).

4272
4273
4274
4275
4276
4277
4278
4279
4280

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-Difference toGain-Loss, 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 adifferent level of 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 andgases.

4281

In the context of FMRL, the following distinction needs to be made:

4282

3.

Approach used to construct FMRL (see Section 2.7.5.1 and Box 2.7.3)

4283

4.

Methodological elements , including:

4284
4285

(iii)

The method used to establish the FMRL (for projected FMRL only), as reported in the FMRL
submission: model or average/extrapolation of historical data;

4286
4287
4288

(iv)

The historical data (i.e. prior to FMRL submission87 ) used to establish the FMRL, as reported in
the FMRL submission (e.g. area, harvest, increment, age structure, forest characteristics andmanagement, net emissions and related estimation parameters, etc.);

4289
4290

(v)

Other methodological elements used to establish the FMRL as reported in the FMRL submission,
including: pools and gases, the treatment of HWP, the treatment of natural disturbances;

4291
4292
4293
4294

(vi)

Elements newly introduced or modified by Decision 2/CMP.7 (as compared to the text in Decision
2/CMP.6), including: the CEFC provision (see Section 2.7.7); the accounting HWP removed fromareas under Forest Management (see Section 2.3.8); the possible exclusion of emissions associatedwith natural disturbances (see Section 2.3.9).

4295
4296
4297
4298

8.

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 oramounts.

4299
4300
4301
4302
4303

During the commitment period, it is essential to ensure consistency between the methodological elements (see 2
above) used in the construction of FMRL and those used in the reporting of Forest Management. To this end it isgood practice 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).
85

As inscribed in the Appendix of Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1

86

Referred to in Annex I paragraph 4(b) of Decision 15/CP.17 contained in document FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.2, p.27.

87

Depending on the country, the FMRL may have been constructed using historical data up to 2008 or 2009.

Draft KP Supplement

2.97

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
4304
4305
4306

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), does not represent
methodological inconsistencies, and thus should not be considered for Technical Corrections.

4307
4308
4309
4310
4311
4312
4313
4314
4315
4316

A common situation of methodological inconsistency is the change, after the FMRL has been set, of one or moreof the methodological elements used in the construction of FMRL when reporting Forest Management during thecommitment period. For instance, a methodological change (e.g. from Stock-Difference to Gain-Loss) or
refinement (e.g. updated data) may lead to the recalculation of historical 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 methodological inconsistencies. Other possible cases of inconsistency
between the FMRL and reporting for Forest Management during the commitment period are possible. For thisreason, for the purpose of demonstrating that the accounting of emissions and removals 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.

4317
4318
4319
4320
4321
4322
4323
4324
4325
4326
4327
4328
4329
4330
4331
4332
4333
4334

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 carbon balance in the short term, it is good practice to show that, e.g., a higher (or lower) sink during
the second commitment period, as compared to what was assumed in the business-as-usual scenario, isquantitatively consistent with the observed lower (or higher) harvest rate, and/or to provide evidence that othermajor factors are involved. It increases transparency to report on any differences between policies assumed andpolicies implemented, and how these might have affected actual emissions and removals. The aim of thisinformation is to show that the accounted quantity in the second commitment period can be explained in terms ofdeviations 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 showthat a model used for constructing a projected FMRL reproduces the historical 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 Use of Models and Facility-level
Data in Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Report of the IPCC Expert Meeting on the Use of Models andMeasurements in GHG Inventories (IPCC, 2010), including information on model selection and development, onmodel calibration and evaluation, on input data used, on uncertainties, on model implementation and on theevaluation of model results.

4335
4336
4337
4338
4339

According to Decision 2/CMP.7, a Party may choose not to account for a given pool in a commitment period(with the exception of harvested wood products) if transparent and verifiable information is provided that
demonstrates that the pool is not a source. However, for any of the approaches used to set FMRL, once a poolhas been included in the FMRL inscribed in the Appendix to Decision 2/CMP.7, for consistency reasons it isgood practice to report this pool during the commitment period, irrespective of the pool being a sink or a source.

4340

2.7.6

4341
4342
4343
4344
4345

Estimation of the FMRL typically relies upon data inputs, assumptions, and models brought together in aconsistent 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 the commitment period
are as methodologically consistent as possible (see Section 2.7.5.2).

4346
4347
4348
4349
4350
4351

If the reported data on Forest Management or Forest Land Remaining Forest Land used to establish thereference level are subject to recalculations, or if other methodological inconsistency exists between the FMRL
and the Forest Management reporting during the commitment period, to ensure consistency, Parties are
required 88 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 the impact of any methodological inconsistency when accounting.

4352
4353
4354
4355

Essentially, the Technical Correction is a net value of 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 yr-1):

88

Technical Corrections for accounting purposes

Paragraphs 14 and 15 of Annex to the Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.15.

2.98

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

4356
4357

EQUATION 2.7.1
TECHNICAL CORRECTION

4358

Technical _ Correction  FMRL corr  FMRL

4359

Where:

4360
4361
4362

Technical Correction= net value of 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

4363

FMRL = Forest Management Reference Level inscribed in the Appendix of Decision 2/CMP.7

4364
4365

FMRLcorr = Forest Management Reference Level recalculated for the purpose of calculating theTechnical Correction.

4366
4367
4368
4369

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.

4370
4371

This section describes how to detect the need for Technical Correction, how to calculate FMRLcorr, and when to
apply the Technical Correction.

4372

2.7.6.1

4373
4374
4375

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.

H OW TO DETECT THE NEED FOR T ECHNICAL C ORRECTIONS

4376

Draft KP Supplement

2.99

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
4377
4378

Figure 2.7.4

Decision tree for identifying methodological inconsistency and the need forTechnical Correction during the second commitment period.

4379
4380
4381
4382
4383
4384

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 at least one of the following
conditions is met (see Table 2.7.1 for a full list of criteria and elements to be checked):

4385
4386
4387

5.

The method used for GHG reporting changed after the adoption of FMRL, as part of improving inventory
quality. This change will lead to a recalculated time series which, in turn, leads to an inconsistency between
FMRL and reporting of Forest Management in second commitment period.

4388
4389

6.

Any of the following methodological elements used to establish the FMRL (as reported in the FMRL
submission) changed after the adoption of FMRL:

4390(i) pools and gases and the historical data (i.e. prior to FMRL submission) used to establish the FMRL;

4391
4392

(ii) treatment of the elements newly introduced or modified by Decision 2/CMP.7 (i.e. accounting of HWP,
treatment of natural disturbances).

4393
4394

9.

Any other methodological inconsistency, e.g., the FMRL model’s outputs are inconsistent with historical
data (prior to FMRL submission) reported in GHG inventory.

4395

Technical Corrections can neither be triggered by changes in policy assumptions nor responses to them.

4396
4397

Specifically, common cases where it is good practice to apply a Technical Correction for accounting purposes
may include:

4398
4399



Methodological changes (i.e. moving to a different method or tier) or refinements (i.e. improvements withina method or tier) are implemented in the reporting of Forest Management, which lead to recalculation of

2.100

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

4400
4401

reported historical data (prior to FMRL submission) of Forest Management or Forest Land Remaining
Forest Land, e.g.:

4402
4403
4404
4405
4406
4407

(i)

In the future, new methods may be developed that take advantage of new datasets, and modelling
tools, new technologies or improved scientific understanding. For example, remote-sensing
technology and site-specific modelling are making it feasible to estimate historic emissions fromland clearing activities more accurately than by using simple aggregate emission factors andactivity data. The development of new or refined inventory methods for reporting is part of thebroader process of continuous improvement, which countries are encouraged to follow.

4408
4409
4410
4411
4412
4413

(ii)

New data become available. For example, forest inventory data may be compiled only once in afive or ten year period. In the case new historic (prior to FMRL submission) 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, and this new data is used in
GHG reporting in the second commitment period, a Technical Correction could allow theinclusion of such new information in the FMRLcorr.

4414
4415

(iii)

Errors have been identified in the previous inventory methods or data that affect the data used toestablish the FMRL.

4416
4417
4418
4419



New pools or GHG sources are included in the reporting for Forest Management in the second commitment
period. For instance, if a pool that was not a source and therefore not reported earlier (and also not includedin the FMRL) becomes a source in the future, it is good practice to include this pool in the reporting ofForest Management and applying a Technical Correction.

4420
4421



The FMRL and the reporting of Forest Management in the second commitment period are not consistent
with respect to:

4422
4423
4424

(i)

The treatment of harvested wood products as agreed in Decision 2/CMP.7. Since the final
agreement on HWP was reached after the FMRL submissions, a Technical Correction related to
HWP is expected to be a common case.

4425
4426
4427
4428

(ii)

The treatment of natural disturbances as agreed in Decision 2/CMP.7. For instance, if thecalculation of the background level of natural disturbances indicates that one or more events need
to be excluded, it is good practice to remove these events from historical emissions and to calculate
FMRLcorr (see end of this section).

4429
4430
4431
4432
4433



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 (prior to 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 toprovide additional evidence demonstrating consistency or to apply a Technical Correction.

4434
4435
4436



In the case of FMRLs based only on the elaboration of historical data from GHG inventories (average ofpast data, linear extrapolation) or FMRLs based on the single year 1990, any recalculation of the time series
used to establish the FMRL will trigger a Technical Correction.

4437

Draft KP Supplement

2.101

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
TABLE 2.7.1
CHECK LIST TO DETECT METHODOLOGICAL INCONSISTENCIES AND THE NEED FOR TECHNICAL CORRECTION
Criteria
1

The method used for GHG reporting (for Forest Land Remaining Forest Land or
Forest Management) changed after the adoption of FMRL

2.

Any of the following methodological elements used to establish the FMRL (asreported in the FMRL submission) changed after the adoption of FMRL

Comment /action
Calculate FMRLcorr ensuringconsistency between reported FM and
FMRL (see examples in Box 2.7.4)

Elementa) Pools and gases

Change in GHG inventory
New pools or gases89b)

Area under Forest
Management
Historical data from
GHG inventory

New historical area (prior to FMRL submission)
New historical data (prior to FMRL submission) for FL-FL
or FM, due to recalculation.

Calculate FMRLcorr using the new data

Forest characteristics
and related
management90
Historical Harvesting
rates
Harvested wood
products
Natural disturbances

New historical data (prior to FMRL submission)

Calculate FMRLcorr using the new dataand information

New historical data (prior to FMRL submission)

Calculate FMRLcorr using the new
harvesting rates
Calculate a FMRLcorr by applying the
new data and/or method
Calculate a FMRLcorr by applying the
new data and/or method
If needed, calculate a FMRLcorr, e.g.,
by applying IPCC methods toensuretime-series consistency.

c)
d)
e)
f)
g)

New data and/or methods
New data and/or method

3. Other possible methodological inconsistencies, e.g., the FMRL model’s outputs areinconsistent with historical data (prior to FMRL submission) reported in GHG
inventory (for FM or FL-FL)

Calculate FMRLcorr by including thenew pools or gases
Calculate FMRLcorr using the new area

4438
4439
4440
4441
4442
4443
4444
4445
4446

Table 2.7.1 provides a full list of criteria and general guidance on the cases for which methodologicalconsistency is affected and Technical 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. area under Forest Management, harvesting rates, and forest characteristics and related
management including, among others: age-class structure, increment, species composition, rotation lengths,
management practices) represent a deviation from the policy assumptions described in the FMRL submission.
These deviations do not imply a methodological inconsistency, and therefore do not trigger TechnicalCorrections.

4447
4448
4449
4450
4451
4452
4453
4454
4455
4456
4457
4458

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 under Forest Management, provided thata forest of at least the same area and carbon stock potential must be created on non-forest land (Carbon
Equivalent Forest Conversion, CEFC, see Section 2.7.7). Whether included in the projected FMRL, this activityof converting plantation forest to non-forest while simultaneously establishing a “Carbon Equivalent Forest” on
non-forest land elsewhere is a policy assumption, and the comparison between the FMRL and the carbon stockchanges on CEFC land either will create debits for failing to achieve equivalence or may create credits forachieving higher stock increases. These credits and debits are due to a policy change during the commitment
period to replant rather than deforest (even if replanting is elsewhere). The same applies to the case if CEFC is
not included in the projected FMRL. Therefore, implementation of the CEFC provisions under Decision
2/CMP.791 does not trigger a Technical Correction because this activity is regarded as a change in policy. The
effects of this will be accounted for against the FMRL (see Section 2.7.7).

4459

89

Note that, when accounting, it is not possible to exclude a pool or gas already included in the FMRL.
This includes, among others: age-class structure, increment, species composition, rotation lengths, management practices,etc.
91
Paragraphs 37-39 of Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.19.
90

2.102

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

4460
4461
4462
4463

BOX 2.7.4
EXAMPLES OF METHODOLOGICAL CHANGES FOR GHG REPORTING (FOR FOREST LAND REMAINING FOREST
LAND OR FOREST MANAGEMENT) WHICH MAY LEAD TO METHODOLOGICAL INCONSISTENCY BETWEENFMRL AND REPORTING OF FOREST MANAGEMENT DURING THE SECOND COMMITMENT PERIOD.

4464
4465

Case 1:

4466
4467
4468
4469
4470
4471
4472
4473
4474
4475
4476

At the time of FMRL submission:-The GHG inventory uses a Stock-Difference or Gain-Loss method (i.e. not a model)-The FMRL was constructed using model X
Can this country apply a different method in GHG reporting during the second commitment
period?
Yes, but this will create a methodological inconsistency, which needs to be addressed through aTechnical Correction process.
Can this country apply the model X (same version used for FMRL) in GHG reporting?
Yes, this will ensure consistency between the methods used for FMRL and FM reporting.
However, it is always good practice to check the need for Technical Correction during the second
commitment period (Figure 2.7.4).

4477
4478
4479
4480
4481
4482
4483

Can this country apply a new model Y (or a new version of model X) in GHG reporting?
Yes, but this will create a methodological inconsistency, which needs to be addressed through aTechnical Correction process. In this case, a possible way to address the inconsistency is using the
new model Y (or a new version of the model X) also for calculating the FMRLcorr as part of theTechnical Correction process.

4484
4485
4486
4487
4488
4489
4490
4491
4492
4493
4494

At the time of FMRL submission:- The GHG inventory using model X- FMRL constructed using model X
Can this country use a new model Y (or a new version of model X) in GHG reporting?
Yes, this will create a methodological inconsistency, which may be addressed by using the newmodel Y (or new version of the model X) also for calculating the FMRLcorr as part of a TechnicalCorrection process.

Case 2:

When the method for GHG reporting changes, it is always good practice checking the ability ofthe model used for FMRL to reconstruct historical data (as reported in the latest GHG inventory).
The inability to reconstruct historical data

4495
4496

Natural disturbances

4497
4498
4499
4500
4501
4502
4503
4504
4505

According to Dec 2/CMP.7, when accounting for Forest Management, Annex I Parties shall demonstrate
methodological consistency between the FMRL and reporting for Forest Management during the second
commitment period, including in the accounting of any emissions from natural disturbances. The FMRLs
contained in the Appendix to the Annex of Decision 2/CMP.7 were submitted and reviewed before theprovisions related to natural disturbances in the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 were agreed. The FMRLs may
therefore be inconsistent with the agreed provisions, including those specifying that the expectation of neither
credits not debits are to arise from application of the disturbance provisions. Using the methods set out in Section
2.3.9 (on natural disturbances) Parties should provide information in National Inventory Reports that this is thecase, and make Technical Corrections if needed to ensure that it is so.

4506

2.7.6.2

4507
4508
4509
4510
4511
4512
4513

H OW TO PERFORM AND DOCUMENT THE CALCULATION OF
FMRL C O R R

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 therecalculations. 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.

Draft KP Supplement

2.103

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
4514
4515
4516
4517

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.

4518
4519
4520
4521
4522
4523

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.

4524
4525
4526
4527
4528
4529
4530

It is essential that 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 a recalculation of historical time series occurs. This is because, for the FMRL submission, theperiod selected was assumed as proxy for a business-as-usual scenario, and changing the period would meanchanging the policy assumptions. In the case of FMRL based on elaboration of historical data only (average ofpast data, linear extrapolation) or on the single year 1990, any recalculation of the time series will automatically
produce FMRLcorr.

4531
4532

Irrespective of the method applied to calculate FMRLcorr, it is good practice to accompany any TechnicalCorrection with transparent information on:

4533



Rationale for calculating FMRLcorr (description of which criteria in Table 2.7.1 has been met);

4534
4535
4536



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);

4537



Results, i.e. the FMRLcorr;

4538
4539
4540
4541



Discussion of the differences between FMRLcorr and FMRL. For this purpose, it is good practice to report a
comparison 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.
TABLE 2.7.2
EXAMPLE OF SUMMARY TABLE WHEN PERFORMING A TECHNICAL CORRECTION
Emissions and Removals
FMRL-10000 [Gg yr-1]

FMRLcorr-10500 [Gg yr-1]

Difference in per cent =100●[(FMRLcorr–FMRL)/FMRL] %5%

Technical Correction= FMRLcorr - FMRL

-500 [Gg yr-1]

FM reported during the commitment period-12000 [Gg yr-1]

Accounted Quantity92 = reported FM – (FMRL + Technical Correction)-1500 [Gg yr-1]

4542

2.7.6.3

W HEN TO APPLY T ECHNICAL C ORRECTION

4543
4544

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.

92
The accounting quantity is the total quantity of units to be added to or subtracted from a Party's assigned amount for a particular activity inaccordance with the provisions of Article 7.4 of the Kyoto Protocol. Negative values means credits, positive values means debits.

2.104

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

4545
4546
4547
4548
4549

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 non-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.

4550

Draft KP Supplement

2.105

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
4551

2.7.7

Carbon Equivalent Forests4552

2.7.7.1

4553
4554
4555
4556
4557
4558

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 under Forest Management, provided thatcertain conditions are met.. The main condition is a requirement that a forest of at least the same area and carbon
stock potential is created on non-forest land. Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion (CEFC) is the activity of
converting plantation forest to non-forest while simultaneously establishing a “Carbon Equivalent Forest” on
non-forest land elsewhere.

4559
4560
4561
4562

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 shall meet the criteria for
CEFC set out in Decision 2/CMP.793 in order to be accounted for under Forest Management. Figures 2.7.5 and2.7.6 provide decision trees for categorising forest clearance and establishment activities.

4563

Figure 2.7.5

D EFINITIONAL ISSUES AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

CEFC decision tree for land cleared of forest

4564

4565
4566

93

Paragraphs 37-39 of Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.19.

2.106

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

4567

Figure 2.7.6

CEFC decision tree for forest establishment

4568

4569
4570
4571
4572
4573
4574
4575

In accordance with Decision 2/CMP.7 Parties shall identify, monitor and report all lands and associated carbon
pools subject to the CEFC provision, including the geo-referenced location and year of conversion. Accounting
for Forest Management lands is with respect to the FMRL, so pools should be consistent with the pools included
within the FMRL, including HWPs.
It is good practice for the Party to apply Reporting Method 2 (Section 2.2.2) to identify the area and polygon
boundaries of lands subject to the CEFC provision. It is good practice for the Party to provide:

4576
4577
4578



The year of conversion, which will be between 1 January 2013 and the end of the last inventory year. The
year of forest land conversion to non-forest under the CEFC provision is taken as the year in which CEF-dland is cleared and corresponding CEF-ar land is identified.;

4579
4580



The area of lands 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;

4581
4582



Documentation that demonstrates the relationship between forest and cleared and the corresponding landestablished in forest under the CEFC provision;

4583
4584



The rotation length, carbon stock at the end of the rotation and long term average carbon stock on CEF-dlands, as assumed under business as usual management in the FMRL.

4585
4586
4587

It is good practice for Parties to provide, according to their national circumstances, the definition of forest
plantation that is used in the application of the CEFC provision. This definition should be consistentthroughout the time series and the inventory.

4589

C HOICE OF METHODS FOR IDENTIFYING LANDS SUBJECT TOC ARBON E QUIVALENT F OREST C ONVERSION

4590
4591
4592

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 shall meet the following criteria:

4588

2.7.7.2

Draft KP Supplement

2.107

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
4593
4594



Is plantation forest at the time of conversion, meeting or exceeding the thresholds for the country’s
definition of forest as well as their specific definition of plantation forest;

4595



Had been plantation forest on 31 December 1989;

4596



Had been first established by direct-human induced planting and/or seeding;

4597
4598
4599
4600
4601
4602



Had been first established onto non-forest land. If this non-forest land was previously forested (that is to say
it had been converted from forest to another land use), it is good practice to apply the same criteria used to
distinguish Deforestation from harvesting or forest disturbance that is followed by the re-establishment of aforest. For example, if normal practice in a country is to re-establish forests within three years after
harvesting, then a plantation that was first established on land that had remained non-forest for more than
three years would normally be eligible under the CEFC provision;

4603
4604



Is still the original forest established, or, if re-established after harvesting, this had last occurred throughdirect human induced planting and/or seeding after 1 January 1960.

4605
4606
4607
4608
4609

It is good practice to apply the methods described in Section 2.6.2 for identifying units of land subject to direct
human-induced Deforestation, to also identify units of land cleared of forest which may be accounted for under
the CEFC provision, since only land that qualifies as Article 3.3 D land will qualify as CEF-d land. In addition,
the land should be identified as under consideration for accounting under the CEFC provision and thecorresponding land at least equal in area to be established in forest should be identified.

4610
4611

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.

4612

2.108

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

4613
4614

Figure 2.7.7

Decision tree for determining the eligibility of land to be converted to nonforest under CEFC provision (CEF-d land)

4615
4616
4617
4618
4619

According to Decision 2/CMP.7 the land on which a forest is to be established under the CEFC provision- (CEFar land) shall meet the following criteria:
 Did not contain forest at the time of conversion;

4620



Did not contain forest on 31 December 1989;

4621



Be converted to forest land through direct human-induced planting and/or seeding;

4622



The forest established shall be at least equal in area to the forest converted to non-forest.

4623
4624
4625
4626

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 may
be accounted for under the CEFC provision, since only land that qualifies as Article 3.3 AR land will qualify as
CEF-ar land.

4627
4628

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.

4629

Draft KP Supplement

2.109

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
4630
4631

Figure 2.7.8

Decision tree for determining eligibility of land to be established in forest
plantation under CEFC provision (CEF-ar land)

4632
4633
4634
4635
4636
4637

All lands and associated carbon pools subject to the CEFC provision should be accounted for as Forest
Management under Article 3.4. This includes any harvested wood products resulting from the conversion offorest to non-forest 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/or seeding.

4638
4639

DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN ARD LAND AND CARBON EQUIVALENTFOREST CONVERSION LAND

4640
4641
4642
4643
4644

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. Both the CEF-d and CEF-ar land should bereported as Article 3.4 Forest Management lands from the time of conversion. Documentation should be
provided to demonstrate that all the requirements for the CEFC provision have been met and there is no doublecounting of emissions or removals.

4645
4646
4647

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.

4648
4649

DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN CM, GM AND RV LAND AND CARBON
EQUIVALENT FOREST CONVERSION LAND

4650
4651
4652
4653
4654

It is a requirement under Decision 2/CMP.7 that areas subject to the CEFC provision are reported under Forest
Management which has priority over elected activities under Article 3.4. This means that there may be land
units that are subject to elective 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 andelected Article 3.4 lands. Methodologies appropriate to the actual land-use should be applied, such that

2.110

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

4655
4656

emissions and removals are neither under- nor over-estimated. It is good practice to provide documentation toshow how double counting of emissions and removals has been avoided.

4657

2.7.7.3

4658

C HOICE OF METHODS FOR ESTIMATING CARBON STOCKCHANGES AND NON -CO 2 EMISSIONS

4659
4660
4661
4662
4663
4664
4665

It is good practice to apply the same methods for estimating carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions on
CEFC lands as are applied on Forest Management land, described in Section 2.1.3. The same or a higher tiershould be used. In addition, forest land converted to non-forest under the CEFC provision may be subject tomanagement that results in carbon stock changes and non-CO2 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 andremovals by applying the methods for the appropriate land-use (e.g. cropland or grazing land) found in the 2006
IPCC Guidelines.

4666
4667
4668
4669
4670

Accounting for Forest Management is based on a reference level approach. The FMRL is described in Section
2.7.5. The basis for determining accounting credits or debits is a comparison of emissions and removals in the
FMRL with those on CEF-d and CEF-ar lands combined. Accounting against the FMRL should be cumulative,
with credits and debits accrued annually or periodically from the time of conversion. If exact equivalence isreached at the end of the normal harvesting cycle, the cumulative credits and debits will sum to zero.

4671
4672
4673
4674
4675
4676
4677
4678
4679
4680
4681
4682

In the case where the average long term stock is lower on CEF-ar land than it would have been on
CEF-d land, it is possible that cumulative net credits and debits will not reflect the net increase in atmosphericgreenhouse gases relative to business-as-usual. In these cases a one-off adjustment needs to be made at the timeof felling of CEF-ar, in addition to the cumulative accounting against the FMRL. The adjustment is equal to thedifference between average carbon stocks for CEF-d and those for CEF-ar. In both cases the average stock is
calculated as the stock at the end of the normal rotation divided by the normal rotation. It is good practice torepeat this comparison each time CEF-ar is harvested, calculating a new long-term average stock on CEF-ar land
each time. If the long-term average stock on CEF-ar land is lower than the equivalent stock on CEF-d land
under business- as-usual management, the debit incurred is the difference between average stocks minus any
adjustment made at the end of the previous CEF-ar rotation. No adjustments are required if a Party candemonstrate that the average increment of CEF-ar is higher than that of CEF-d throughout the normal rotation
length of CEF-d, or if the rotation length of CEF-ar is longer than that of CEF-d.

4683
4684
4685
4686
4687

It is good practice to provide documentation to show that artefact removals due to the increase in area under
Forest Management have been avoided. Guidance is provided in Section 2.3.3. The accounting methodology
should take into account whether the CEF-ar land was previously accounted for under the Kyoto Protocol. For
example, if the CEF-ar land was previously accounted for under an elective activity (e.g. CM, GM), then thestock increase in FM caused by shifting this land to FM will be balanced by a stock loss in the elective activity.

4688
4689
4690
4691
4692

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.

4693

Draft KP Supplement

2.111

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
4694

2.8

HARVESTED WOOD PRODUCTS (HWP)

4695
4696
4697
4698

Section 2.8 provides good practice guidance for estimating annual changes in carbon stocks and CO2 emissions
and removals from the Harvested Wood Products (HWP) pool (hereinafter referred to as the HWP contribution)
to be accounted for in accordance with Decision 2/CMP.7.94 It gives guidance for selecting the adequate data andmethods consistent with the system boundaries of the accounting approach defined the Decision.

4699
4700
4701
4702
4703
4704
4705
4706

Various approaches have been proposed to estimate and report the HWP contribution. They differ in thereference to the atmosphere and/or the treatment of HWP trade, due to different interpretations of some key
terms relevant for the reporting framework (Winjum, et al. 1998, Cowie, et al. 2006). This situation is reflectedin Volume 4, Chapter 12 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines which states that the guidance given “does not prefer anyof these approaches and does not attempt to prejudge whether these, or any other approach, should be used toaccount” for the HWP contribution (IPCC 2006). Hence, it suggests calculating different variables that areneeded to estimate the HWP contribution according to the different approaches (see Table 12.1, Chapter 12,
Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines).

4707
4708
4709
4710
4711

One of the implications of Decision 2/CMP.7 is that accounting of HWP is confined to products in use where thewood was derived from domestic harvest, i.e. trees harvested in the reporting country.95 In principle, this issimilar to basing estimates of the HWP contribution on changes in the pool (i.e. stock-changes) reflected byvariable 2A in Table 12.1, Chapter 12, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, but Decision 2/CMP.7 imposessome additional constraints and limits the extent of HWP which can be included in the estimates.

4712

2.8.1

4713
4714

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 below.

4715
4716
4717
4718
4719
4720
4721

STEP 1: Check the construction of FMRL and the availability of transparent
and verifiable activity data on HWP
According to Decision 2/CMP.7 Parties are required to account for HWP on the basis of the change in the HWPpool during the second and subsequent commitment periods, provided that transparent and verifiable activity
data are available for the three HWP categories, sawn wood, wood panels and paper.96 In case the country’s
FMRL is based on a projection, accounting shall be on the basis of the change in the HWP pool (i.e. Tier 2 or 3
methods).97 To meet the requirements of the Decision 2/CMP.7 countries should:

4722
4723

STEP 1.1: Check whether the FMRL has been based on a projection (See 2.7.5). If this is the case, skip thenext step and go to STEP 1.3.

4724
4725
4726
4727

STEP 1.2: Check databases of international organizations, such as the public database of the Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)98 for the availability of production and trade statistics on
the HWP categories defined in the Decision 2/CMP.7. Detailed guidance is given in Section 2.8.1.1. In casesuch data are available go to Step 1.3, otherwise apply Tier 1 (Section 2.8.2).

4728
4729

STEP 1.3: Check whether other activity data (i.e. country-specific) are available which fulfil the requirement
to be “transparent and verifiable”. Further guidance is given in Section 2.8.4.1.

4730
4731
4732
4733
4734

STEP 1.4: 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 (products in service) in order to exclude HWP used for energy purposes and HWP in solid waste disposalsites 99 and cross-check the information with guidance given in Sections 2.8.1.1 and 2.8.4.1. If activity data
represent information on material use of HWP in service go to STEP 2, otherwise apply Tier 1 (Section 2.8.2).

Initial steps to estimate the HWP contribution

94

References to paragraphs in this chapter refer to the Annex of Decision 2/CMP.7 contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, unless indicated otherwise

95

Cf. paragraphs 27 and 32

96

Cf. paragraph 29

97

Cf. paragraph 1698

http://faostat.fao.org/site/630/Default.aspx

99

Cf. paragraph 32

2.112

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

4735
4736

Figure 2.8.1

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

STEP 1Has
the FMRL been
constructed on the basisof a projection?
(2.7.5)

Start

Yes

No

No

Are
transparent andverifiable activity data
available for the specified
HWP categories?
(2.8.1.1)
Yes

No

Do HWP
activity data represent
information on material use of
HWP in service?
(2.8.1.1 / 2.8.4.1)

Yes
STEP 2No

Do HWP
originate from forests
which are accounted for by
the country under
Articles 3.3
and 3.4?

Yes

Calculate the domestic feedstock
and allocate to the relevant forest
activities ARD and FM (2.8.1.2)

STEP 3Yes

Do HWP
originate from
Deforestation (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‘Instantaneous oxidation’(2.8.2)

Apply Tier 2(2.8.3)

Apply Tier 3(2.8.4)4737
4738

Draft KP Supplement

2.113

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
4739
4740
4741
4742
4743
4744
4745

Decision 2/CMP.7 limits the mandatory accounting to HWP originating from domestic forests which areaccounted for under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4. Imported HWP, irrespective of their origin, are excluded100.
Figure 2.8.1 shows that Decision 2/CMP.7 specifies the methods to be used for the estimation of the HWP
contribution depending on the origin of HWP.101

4746

Detailed guidance on how to implement all the following steps is given in Section 2.8.1.2.

4747
4748
4749
4750

STEP 2.1: Estimate the share of HWP originating from forests within the country. The default assumption isthat domestically consumed industrial roundwood represents the production feedstock for the subsequent
processing of the semi-finished product categories sawnwood and wood panels. Domestically consumed wood
pulp is the feedstock for paper production.

4751
4752
4753
4754

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).

4755
4756
4757

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 activity accounted for under Article 3,
paragraphs 3 (ARD) and 4 (FM) (STEP 2.2).

4758
4759
4760
4761

STEP 3:Check availability of country-specific information and estimate
carbon stock in HWP and its annual change

4762
4763
4764
4765
4766
4767
4768

Tier 1 method specifies the assumption of instantaneous oxidation and 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 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. In order to choose the appropriate tier method, please follow all the steps
below.

4769
4770

STEP
2.8.2).

4771
4772
4773
4774

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 the country
following guidance given in Section 2.8.4.1. If this is the case, allocate HWP activity data in line with STEP 2
and apply Tier 3 (Section 2.8.4).

4775
4776
4777

STEP 3.3: Check whether country-specific half-life values for the three HWP categories and/or theirdisaggregates (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).

4778
4779
4780

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).

4781
4782

STEP 3.5: In case the 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. Guidance on Tier 2 is given in Section 2.8.3.

4783

2.8.1.1

STEP 2:Check whether HWP categories originate from forests that are
accounted for by the country and allocate HWP to the particular forest related
activity

Depending on the results of STEPS 1 and 2, as well as the availability of country-specific half-lives and/or
country-specific methodologies, the estimation of the HWP contribution follows different tier methods.

4784
4785
4786

3.1: In case HWP originate from Deforestation (D) within the country use Tier 1 method (Section

A VAILABILITY OF TRANSPARENT AND VERIFIABLE
ACTIVITY DATA

A prerequisite for Parties when accounting for HWP on the basis of the change in the HWP pool is theavailability of “transparent and verifiable activity data” for the three specified HWP categories “paper, […]100

Cf. paragraph 27

101

Cf. paragraphs 28, 29, 31 and 32

2.114

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Methods for estimation, Measurement, monitoring and reporting
Second Order Draft
102

4787
4788

wood panels, and […] sawnwood” (cf. STEP 1). This section gives guidance on when available data is to beconsidered transparent and verifiable for estimating the HWP contribution.

4789
4790
4791
4792
4793
4794
4795
4796
4797
4798
4799

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 2010). It is thus good practice to assume that the three HWP categories named in Decision 2/CMP.7 accord
with these commodities. “Removals” (i.e. roundwood) are a subset of “forest harvesting” of biomass (i.e. fellings)
at the beginning of the forest-wood chain (see definitions below). 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 roundwood”. Its subcategories provide the feedstock for the subsequent processing of thethree named semi-finished HWP commodities along the value chain (cf. FAO 2012). The internationalclassification system for forestry products can be related to the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding
System (HS) of tariff nomenclature provided by World Customs Organization (WCO).103

4800
4801

Figure 2.8.2

Forest-wood chain based on simplified classification of wood products basedon FAO forestry products definitions

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

Finished products in different end uses

4802
4803
4804
4805
4806
4807
4808
4809

In the following, definitions of semi-finished product commodities, which are relevant for the application of theguidance on estimating the HWP contribution in line with Decision 2/CMP.7, are listed (cf. Figure 2.8.2). They
are drawn from the definitions of the Joint Forest Sector Questionnaire as established by the Intersecretariat
Working Group on Forest Sector Statistics104 and form the basis for the forest products statistics e.g. provided by
FAO (2010).105 Datasets for these aggregate product categories are freely and easily accessible, are updated on atleast an annual basis with a 6-month or one year reporting lag, and time series are available for most countries
worldwide.106

4810
4811
4812
4813
4814
4815
4816

SAWNWOOD (Decision 2/CMP.7 refers to this as “sawn wood”): “Wood that has been produced from both
domestic and imported roundwood, either by sawing lengthways or by a profile-chipping process and thatexceeds 6 mm in thickness. It includes planks, beams, joists, boards, rafters, scantlings, laths, boxboards and"lumber", etc., in the following 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, Vjointed, beaded, moulded, rounded or the like) and sawnwood produced by resawing previously sawn pieces. It
is reported in cubic metres solid volume.”105

4817
4818
4819

WOOD-BASED PANELS (Decision 2/CMP.7 refers to this as “wood panels”): “This product category is anaggregate comprising veneer sheets, plywood, particle board, and fibreboard. It is reported in cubic metres solid
volume.”105
102

Paragraph 29103

http://www.wcoomd.org/en/topics/nomenclature/instrument-and-tools/hs-online.aspx (2012/11/26)

104

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)

105

http://www.fao.org/forestry/80570/en/106

http://faostat.fao.org/site/630/default.aspx

Draft KP Supplement

2.115

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
4820

For the definitions of these subcategories please see FAO 2010. 105

4821
4822
4823
4824

PAPER AND PAPERBOARD (Decision 2/CMP.7 refers to this as “paper”): “The paper and paperboard category is
an aggregate 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.”105

4825
4826
4827
4828
4829
4830
4831
4832
4833
4834

By definition, these three aggregate commodities of 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. Vjointed sawnwood) might be the result of subsequent processing and therefore fall under the category of finishedwood products as illustrated in Figure 2.8.3. This also applies e.g. to wooden flooring that is produced fromsawnwood and/or hardboard which belongs to the category of wood-based panels; wooden flooring is therefore
implicitly covered by the semi-finished HWP categories sawnwood and wood-based panels and included in theestimates for the HWP contribution. Thus, using statistical data both for sawnwood and for wooden flooring
would result in double counting.

4835
4836

Figure 2.8.3

Examples of different processing stages of wood products along the process
and value chain

Raw material

Semi-finished products

Finished products and uses
(Energy)

Sawlogs

Sawnwood
Wood chips

Pulpwood,
round and split

V-joint sawnwood(E.g. wall panelling)
Wood-based panels(E.g. particle board)

Wall system

Wooden house

Furniture(E.g. book shelf)

Wood pulp
Recovered paper

Window

Paper(E.g. graphic paper)Book, newspaper or magazine

4837
4838
4839
4840
4841
4842

To avoid potential double counting, countries are encouraged to consult e.g. FAO 2010 for further clarificationon the mass flows along the forest wood processing chain and definitions of the relevant commodities. The
inclusion of the commodity wood pulp under the HWP category “paper” would for example result in double
counting, as wood pulp by definition constitutes the feedstock for the production of paper and paperboard (cf.
definition below and Figure 2.8.2).

4843
4844
4845
4846
4847
4848

In order to implement STEP 2, further information is needed on commodities representing the processing stagesof forest harvesting eventually used as feedstock for the production of the semi-finished HWP categories listed
above (cf. Figure 2.8.2). This is provided below. Some possible feedstock commodities are not included due todifficulties in determining sources and multiple uses, e.g. wood chips used in wood-based panel production assome chips come from industry co-products, others could be recycled products and others go to energy use (seeFigure 2.8.3).

4849

According to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, “WOOD-REMOVALS are generally a subset of fellings”.

4850
4851
4852
4853
4854
4855
4856

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).” 105

4857
4858
4859
4860

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

2.116

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

4861
4862

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.” 105

4863
4864
4865
4866

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.” 105

4867
4868
4869
4870
4871
4872
4873
4874
4875
4876

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 World Customs Organisation Harmonised
System (HS) nomenclature (see Section 2.8.1.1) also includes some commodities for finished HWP (e.g.
furniture, builders' joinery and carpentry of wood). Accordingly, information on such commodities could beavailable in national production and trade statistics (See Section 2.8.4.1). Consequently, good practice inproviding transparent and verifiable activity data for HWP, which qualifies for the provision of Decision
2/CMP.7 to account for the HWP contribution on the basis of changes in the HWP pool, is achieved by theavailability of data for the three aggregate HWP commodities sawnwood, wood-based panels and paper andpaperboard in publicly available databases of international organizations (e.g. FAO). It is good practice to reporton uncertainties and, wherever it is applicable, levels of confidence related to these datasets (see Section 2.8.6)

4877
4878

In addition, countries with available data on finished wood products produced from the default HWP categories
are encouraged to use these data following the guidance given in Section 2.8.4.

4879

2.8.1.2

4880

A LLOCATION OF HWP TO DOMESTIC FOREST ACTIVITIESUNDER A RTICLE 3, PARAGRAPHS 3 AND 4

4881
4882
4883
4884
4885
4886

According to Decision 2/CMP.7, accounting for the HWP contribution is restricted to carbon in HWP fromforests which are accounted for by the particular Party under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4. Carbon in imported
HWP is to be excluded. 107 As the accounting framework 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.

4887
4888

This section provides a default method on how to implement STEP 2 (See 2.8.1) for estimating the HWP
contribution originating from forests that are accounted for under the particular forest activities.

4889
4890
4891
4892
4893
4894
4895
4896

Implementation of STEP 2.1
Firstly, the share of carbon in HWP coming from domestic forests is estimated. For this purpose, the domestic
consumption 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 the country (i.e. domestic production, cf. Figure 2.8.1) (Rüter 2011, Johannsen, et al. 2011). Similarly it isassumed that the domestic consumption of wood pulp being produced from pulpwood serves as feedstock for thesemi-finished HWP commodity paper and paperboard. Generally, domestic consumption is computed fromproduction data plus imports less exports.

4897
4898
4899
4900
4901
4902
4903
4904

However, commodities other than industrial roundwood and/or wood pulp can also serve as feedstock for the
production of HWP and the fraction of domestic feedstock in reality differs within the different productcategories (Rüter and Diederichs 2012). For example, substantial amounts of industrial wood residues including
wood chips are being used for producing particle board (Wilson 2010) (cf. Figure 2.8.3). If detailed andrepresentative information on the composition of feedstock and the associated wood flows is available for thesedomestically produced HWP commodities, countries are encouraged to use this country-specific information toestimate the fraction of feedstock from domestic harvest for HWP production and apply Tier 3 (see Section
2.8.4.1).

4905
4906
4907
4908

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.

4909

107

Cf. paragraph 27

Draft KP Supplement

2.117

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
4910
4911
4912
4913

EQUATION 2.8.1
ESTIMATION OF ANNUAL FRACTION OF FEEDSTOCK FOR HWP PRODUCTION ORIGINATINGFROM DOMESTIC HARVEST

4914
4915

Where:

4916
4917= share of industrial roundwood for the domestic production of HWP originating from domestic
forests in year i.

4918= production of industrial roundwood in year i, Gg C yr-1

4919

= import of industrial roundwood in year i, Gg C yr-1

4920

= export of industrial roundwood in year i, Gg C yr-1

4921
4922
4923
4924

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 (

4925
4926
4927
4928
4929

EQUATION 2.8.2
ESTIMATION OF ANNUAL FRACTION OF DOMESTICALLY PRODUCED WOOD PULP AS FEEDSTOCK
FOR PAPER AND PAPERBOARD PRODUCTION

4930
4931

Where:

4932
4933= share of domestically produced pulp for the domestic production of paper and paperboard inyear i.

4934= production of wood pulp in year i, Gg C yr-1

4935

= import of wood pulp in year i, Gg C yr-1

4936

= export of wood pulp in year i, Gg C yr-1

4937
4938
4939

is then applied for the aggregate commodities sawnwood and wood-based
The resulting feedstock factor
panels in Equation 2.8.4 below. For estimating the HWP contribution of the aggregate commodity paper andandapply.
paperboard, both feedstock factors

4940
4941
4942
4943
4944
4945
4946

Implementation of STEP 2.2

4947
4948
4949
4950
4951

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.7109 (See Section 2.8.1.2 and Figure 2.8.4). In both cases, guidance on estimation methods isprovided in Sections 2.8.3 and 2.8.4. For HWP originating from D activities the Tier 1 method “shall” be applied(Section 2.8.2).

In a next step, the carbon in HWP needs to be allocated to the particular forest activities under Article 3,
paragraphs 3 and 4 (see Figure 2.8.1) as the HWP contribution is estimated differently depending on the originof the wood. Under Article 3 paragraph 3, the HWP contribution originating from forest activities Afforestation(A), Reforestation (R) and Deforestation (D) is estimated since the base year 1990. The HWP contribution from
HWP originating from the activity Forest Management (FM) under Article 3 paragraph 4 is accounted for in thesecond commitment period on the basis of a forest management reference level (FMRL) 108 (See Section 2.7.5).

108

Paragraphs 12 and 14

109

Paragraph 16, 29 and 30

2.118

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

4952
4953

Figure 2.8.4

Relationship between sources of feedstock for HWP, forest activities and theapplication of the relevant tier method for estimating the HWP contribution

Lands not accounted for under Art.
3.3 and 3.4 forest activities (e.g. CM)
Forests not accounted for under Art. 3.3 or
3.4 activities (e.g. Forest Management)

4954
4955
4956
4957
4958
4959
4960

Forests accounted for under Art. 3.4(Forest Management)

Carbon in HWP estimated for accounting in FMRL (HWPFM).
Apply Tier 2 or Tier 3 methods

Forests accounted for under Art. 3.3(Afforestation and Reforestation)

Carbon in HWP estimated on the basis of changes in the HWPpool since 1990 (HWPAR). Apply Tier 2 or Tier 3 methods

Forests accounted for under Art. 3.3(Deforestation)

Carbon in HWP estimated on the basis of instantaneousoxidation. Apply Tier 1 method

If no country-specific approaches are available to allocate domestic harvest and subsequently produced products
therefrom to the activities ARD and/or FM (e.g. by track and trace systems), it is good practice to apply
Equation 2.8.3 for estimating the annual fraction of HWP derived from the specific forest activity () as adefault. This also includes harvest that has been subject to salvage logging. The identified share of the total
harvest is then be assigned to the HWP associated with the particular forest activity by application of Equation
2.8.4.

4961
4962
4963
4964
4965

EQUATION 2.8.3
ESTIMATION OF ANNUAL FRACTION OF FEEDSTOCK FOR HWP ORIGINATING FROM FOREST
ACTIVITIES UNDER ARTICLE 3, PARAGRAPHS 3 AND 4

4966
4967

Where:

4968= share of harvest originating from the particular activity j in year i.

4969= activity FM or AR or D in year i.

4970
4971
4972
4973

Where countries already collect data of harvesting discriminating among different activities (i.e. lands subject toFM, lands subject to AR, lands subject to D, and any other treed land) – and among material and energy use of
harvested roundwood (i.e. industrial roundwood and fuelwood, cf. Figure 2.8.2), this information can be used.
This is usually the case where countries apply the gain-loss (i.e. flux data) method.

4974
4975
4976
4977
4978
4979
4980
4981
4982
4983
4984
4985

Most countries only report industrial roundwood from forests to the statistics and the uncertainties associatedwith feedstock for HWP production (cf. Figure 2.8.2) originating from lands other than forests (see Figure 2.8.4)
are generally expected to be insignificant. 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 does not originate from forests which are accounted for under Article 3, paragraphs 3 (AR andD) and 4 (FM) (cf. Figure 2.8.2).110 In the Kyoto Protocol accounting framework, activities on lands which are
not considered to be forests (cf. Figure 1.1) 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 basis111 (e.g. as perennial crops including trees, see Section 2.9.2). Following the guidance given in
Sections 2.9.1 and 2.9.2 countries are encouraged to provide information on how lands that could potentially be
the source of industrial roundwood have been included in their accounting. This is relevant also for forest lands
which are not subject to FM, depending on the countries’ interpretation of FM (see Section 2.7.1). It is thus good110

Cf. Paragraph 27

111

Paragraph 6

Draft KP Supplement

2.119

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
4986
4987

practice to ensure that no significant amounts of biomass not originating from forests-related activities have beenused as feedstock for the production of the HWP default commodities.

4988
4989
4990
4991
4992

Countries that apply the stock-difference method may need to collect additional data for estimating harvest
fractions associated with the particular activity j related to forests under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4 to apply
Equation 2.8.3. When countries cannot track the harvested wood by the land of origin (FM, AR, D, or from treed
lands, cf. Figure 2.8.4) and by different uses of wood (i.e. industrial roundwood, fuelwood), the following goodpractice applies:

4993
4994

For deforested lands, the starting information is the standing volume of tree before the deforestation event, whichcorresponds to the total harvest (i.e. fellings). The following steps should be applied:

4995

STEP 1: Separate roundwood from slash. To this aim:

4996
4997



Either multiply the standing volume by the ratio of roundwood to total harvested removals that has been
calculated for other activities or at national level;

4998
4999



Or divide the standing volume by the biomass expansion factors (BEF2) provided in Table 3A.1.10, Chapter
3 of the GPG-LULUCF, so deriving the amount of roundwood.

5000

STEP 2: Disaggregate the roundwood into industrial roundwood and fuelwood (cf. Figure 2.8.2). To this aim:

5001
5002



Either multiply the roundwood by the ratio of industrial roundwood to roundwood that has been calculated
for other activities or at national level;

5003
5004
5005



Or use the proportion calculated by comparing production data from FAOSTAT of the commodities
industrial roundwood and fuelwood (i.e. wood fuel) and after having multiplied wood fuel data by a factor112
of 0.7 in order to exclude all fuelwood originating from slash.

5006
5007
5008
5009
5010

For afforested/reforested lands, the starting information is the standing volume of trees from which fellings isderived according with the age-class structure and/or yield tables and/or information on the timing of harvesting
and thinning operations for each management system. Then, same steps, as described for deforested lands,
should be applied to separate roundwood from slash and disaggregate roundwood into industrial roundwood andfuelwood.

5011
5012
5013

For treed lands that are not reported under any forest-related activity (See Sections 1.1 and 1.2), and that produce
significant amounts of harvest (cf. Figure 2.8.4), then the country should estimate the amount of industrial
roundwood annually produced from those lands in order to exclude it from the HWP estimation.

5014

Industrial roundwood from treed lands could be estimated:

5015
5016
5017
5018
5019



Either by knowing, for each tree species, the total amount of harvest, from which the amount of harvest
originating from AR and D lands is subtracted and the remaining amount is apportioned among lands
subject to FM and other treed lands on the basis of the proportion of the total area covered by each species
under FM and under treed lands. Once the fellings amount has been apportioned to treed lands the industrial
roundwood is estimated by applying same steps as described for afforested/reforested lands;

5020
5021
5022



Or by subtracting from the total harvest the amount of fellings originating from AR and D lands, as
quantified by available data or as estimated according to above-listed guidance, and, then, apportioning theremaining quantity on the basis of the proportion of the area under FM and under treed lands.

5023
5024
5025

Finally, the amount of industrial roundwood produced from FM lands is estimated by subtracting from the total
harvest the quantity of fellings originating from AR, D and treed lands and by calculating the amount ofindustrial roundwood associated with FM in line with the above-listed guidance.

5026
5027
5028
5029

For each forest-related activity, for the years of the time series for which a ratio of industrial roundwood
originated by the activity to the total produced roundwood cannot be estimated, it is good practice to derive
missing values from the values of the ratio that have been calculated according to methods of gap-filling as
provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

5030
5031
5032

Countries that use the stock-difference method, and that apply the above-listed good practice for estimating thefellings for D, AR and/or FM, are encouraged to ensure the quality of estimated values of harvesting by checking
their consistency with the estimated net changes in aboveground biomass.

5033
5034
5035

In case it is not possible to differentiate between the harvest from AR and FM, it is a conservative approach andgood practice to assume that all HWP entering the accounting framework originate from FM. The reason is thatthe potential contribution to the reported carbon stock changes is higher if HWP originate from AR rather than
112

This factor has been derived from the publication “Le bois-énergie en France” of the Institut d'évaluation des stratégies
énergétiques en Europe (INESTENE) published on Les cahiers du CLIP - N°8 (1994)

2.120

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

5036
5037

from FM, as for AR, the estimates start in 1990 and gross-net accounting rules apply (cf. Sections 2.5.3 and2.8.3).

5038
5039
5040
5041

It is furthermore a conservative approach and good practice to assume that all harvested wood prior to the startof the first commitment period is derived from FM as the annual fraction of feedstock for HWP originating fromcan only be estimated from information available
forest activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4 (from the first and second commitment periods.

5042
5043
5044
5045
5046
5047
5048

Implementation of STEP 2.3
In order to 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.

5049
5050
5051
5052
5053

EQUATION 2.8.4
ESTIMATION OF ANNUAL HWP AMOUNTS BEING PRODUCED FROM DOMESTIC HARVESTRELATED TO ACTIVITIES UNDER ARTICLE 3, PARAGRAPHS 3 AND 4
•

5054
5055
5056
5057
5058

=

with:

for HWP categories ‘sawnwood’ and ‘wood-based panels’; and

•
with:

•

for HWP category ‘paper and paperboard’= 0 if< 0 and= 0 if<0

Where:

5059
5060= share of domestic feedstock for the production of particular HWP category originating fromdomestic forests in year i

5061
5062

= HWP amounts being produced from domestic harvest associated with activity j in year i, in m³
or Mt yr-1

5063
5064

= 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 Mt yr-1

5065
5066

Note: 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).

5067
5068
5069
5070
5071

The estimates associated with the forest related activities 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 country-specificactivity 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.

5072

2.8.2

5073
5074
5075
5076
5077
5078

The method presented in this section is to be applied by countries as the default method to estimate the HWPContribution.113 It is based on the assumption that the annual amount of carbon leaving 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).

5079
5080
5081

For the first commitment period, the storage of carbon in HWP was not included in the reporting since the mere
presence of carbon stocks is excluded from the accounting and HWP were not listed as a pool covered by the
Marrakesh Accords.114 Countries following the good practice guidance as described in GPG-LULUCF (IPCC

Tier 1: “Instantaneous oxidation”

113

Paragraph 28

114

Decision 11/CP.7

Draft KP Supplement

2.121

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
5082
5083

2003) and applying instantaneous oxidation, did thus not report and/or account for emissions from HWP in thefirst commitment period.115

5084
5085
5086
5087
5088
5089
5090
5091

Decision 2/CMP.7 establishes mandatory accounting of all changes in the HWP pool. 116 A prerequisite foraccounting HWP on the basis of delayed emissions is the availability of transparent and verifiable HWP activity
data (see Section 2.8.1.1). Consequently, it is good practice to apply the Tier 1 method as outlined in this section(i.e. reporting no net-emissions from HWP) only in case no transparent and verifiable activity data for the default
HWP categories sawnwood, wood-based panels and paper and paperboard as outlined in Section 2.8.1.1 areavailable.117 However, Decision 2/CMP.7 specifies that “the treatment of HWP in the construction of a projected
forest management reference level (FMRL, see Section 2.8.5) shall not be on the basis of instantaneousoxidation”.115.

5092

For the following HWP fractions instantaneous oxidation (i.e. Tier 1) “shall be” applied (see Figure 2.8.1):

5093



HWP resulting from D activities under Article 3 paragraph 3 (see Section 2.8.1.2);118

5094



HWP in solid waste disposal sites;119

5095



Harvested wood being used for energy purposes.119

5096
5097
5098
5099
5100
5101
5102

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 the HWP contribution and instantaneous oxidation is applied. Inline with the requirements of Decision 2/CMP.8 120 , it is good practice to demonstrate that harvested wood
originating from D (i.e. harvestD, see Equation 2.8.3) has not been included in the estimates on the basis of thechange of the HWP pool. This could be done by reporting the annual share of the overall harvest originatingfrom D (harvestD (i)).

5103
5104
5105
5106
5107
5108

By estimating the HWP contribution on the basis of methodologies as outlined in Sections 2.8.3 and 2.8.4, only
the HWP contribution of HWP in use is estimated. HWP in solid waste disposal sites and wood harvested forenergy are thus implicitly treated on the basis of instantaneous oxidation (i.e. reporting no net-emissions from
HWP). Estimates that are based on the three default commodities are per definition not derived from wood
harvested for energy purposes. Where CO2 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”.

5109

2.8.3

5110
5111
5112
5113

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 are available (cf. Section 2.8.4), Parties are required to obtain estimates on
the HWP contribution by application of the Tier 2 method as outlined in this section.121

5114
5115
5116
5117

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 originating from AR (HWPAR) and from FM (HWPFM) as estimated from Equation 2.8.4.
For this purpose, 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, Chapter 12, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, is to be applied:

Tier 2: First order decay

5118

115

Cf. Paragraph 16

116

Paragraph 26

117

Cf. Paragraph 29

118

Paragraph 31

119

Paragraph 32

120

Paragraph 2 of the Annex II of Decision 2/CMP.8 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2012/13/Add.1

121

Paragraph 29

2.122

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

5119
5120
5121
5122

EQUATION 2.8.5
ESTIMATION OF CARBON STOCKS AND ANNUAL CARBON STOCK CHANGES IN HWP POOL OF THE
REPORTING COUNTRY

•

1

1

•

5123
∆
5124
5125

1

Sources: IPCC 2006 ; Pingoud and Wagner 2006

Where:

5126

i = year

5127

C (i) = the carbon stock in the particular HWP category at the beginning of year i, Gg C

5128
5129

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).

5130

Inflow (i) = the inflow to the particular HWP category (HWPj) during year i, Gg C yr-1

5131

ΔC(i) = carbon stock change of the HWP category during year i, Gg C yr-1

5132
5133
5134
5135
5136
5137
5138
5139

It is good practice to apply Equation 2.8.5 with activity data for the semi-finished wood product categories
sawnwood, wood-based panels and paper and paperboard that have been assigned to the particular forest
activities (HWPAR and HWPFM) (see Section 2.8.1). In combination with semi-finished wood productcommodities, 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 2.8.2) aredescribed realistically by the exponential decay pattern” (Pingoud and Wagner 2006). Emissions from woodprocessing residues used for energy purposes along the process chain of HWP are also well described by FOD(cf. Rüter and Diederichs 2012).

5140
5141
5142

Whereas Equation 12.1, Chapter 12, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines suggests to start with i = 1900,
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).

5143
5144
5145
5146
5147
5148
5149
5150
5151
5152
5153
5154
5155
5156

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.”122 The term “emissions” from HWP (which are defined as apool123) 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.124 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).

5157
5158
5159

In order to account for the 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 inherited 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.

5160
5161
5162
5163

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.125 In this case, the122Paragraph 16

123

Cf. Paragraph 26

124

For more information see IPCC FAQ, Q4-29 (http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/faq/faq.html)

125

Paragraph 16

Draft KP Supplement

2.123

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
5164
5165

estimation 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.

5166
5167

), it is also good practice to separately estimate and report by the above
As reflected by Equation 2.8.4 (procedure the annual HWP contribution for:

5168



HWP from AR activities (HWPAR) and for HWP from FM activities (HWPFM)

5169
5170



HWP for each of the particular commodities (i.e. sawnwood, wood-based panels, paper and paperboard ortheir subcategories)

5171
5172
5173
5174

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 1961.126 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.

5175
5176
5177
5178
5179
5180

As a proxy in the Tier 2 method it is assumed that the HWP pools are in steady state at the initial time t0 fromwhich the activity data start. This means that as a proxy ΔC(t0) is assumed to be equal to 0. This steady statecarbon stock C(t0) for each HWP commodity category is approximated by means of Equation 2.8.6 based on the
average of Inflow(i) during the first 5 years of which statistical data are available. By substituting C(t0) in
Equation 2.8.5, the C(i) and ΔC(i) in the sequential time instants can be calculated. In the Tier 2 method, it isgood practice to use Equation 2.8.6 for estimating stock at t = t0.

5181
5182
5183
5184
5185

EQUATION 2.8.6
APPROXIMATION OF THE CARBON STOCKS IN HWP POOLS AT INITIAL TIME, I.E. SINCE WHEN
ACTIVITY DATA ARE AVAILABLE

5186
where

5187

∑

⁄5

5188
5189
5190
5191
5192
5193
5194

Only in case a projected FMRL is applied (cf. Section 2.8.5), also other methods could be used. Further
estimation methods for calculating the carbon inflow to the HWPFM pool (Inflow(i)) back to the year 1900 areprovided 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) or in Rüter
2011 (i.e. calculate missing activity data since the year 1900 on HWPFM carbon pool inflow from the average ofthe first five years for which activity data are given for the country).

5195
5196
5197
5198
5199
5200

In case the FMRL has been based on a projection representing a ‘business as usual scenario’ (see Section 2.7.5
and 2.8.5), in line with Decision 2/CMP.8, it is good practice to provide information whether and how inherit
emissions have been included in the HWP estimates. Otherwise, if the inclusion of HWP in the countries’ FMRL
is not based on a projection, it is good practice to explain that the approach chosen to include inherited emissions
in the estimates of the HWP carbon pool reflects best the countries’ circumstances (e.g. data availability).
Further guidance on the consideration of HWP in the FMRL is provided in Section 2.8.5.

5201
5202
5203

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 by –44/12.

5204
5205
5206
5207
5208
5209

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 the HWP contribution.
In order to increase transparency and facilitate potential changes in the methodology used to estimate the 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.

126

http://faostat.fao.org/site/630/default.aspx

2.124

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

5210

2.8.3.1

A CTIVITY DATA

5211
5212
5213

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 2.8.5, it is goodpractice to determine C(i) and Inflow (i).

5214
TABLE 2.8.1
DEFAULT CONVERSION FACTORS FOR THE DEFAULT HWP CATEGORIES AND THEIR SUBCATEGORIESHWP categories

Oven drydensity

Carbon fraction(per oven dry
density)

C conversion factor(per air dry
density)[Mg C / m-3]

Source[Mg / m-3]
Sawn wood (aggregate)

0.458

0.5

0.229

1

Coniferous sawnwood

0.45

0.5

0.225

2

Non-coniferous sawnwood

0.56

0.5

0.28

2

Wood-based panels (aggregate)

0.595

0.454

0.269

3

Hardboard (HDF)

0.788

0.425

0.335

4

Insulating board (Other board, LDF)

0.159

0.474

0.075

5

Fibreboard compressed

0.739

0.426

0.315

6

Medium-density fibreboard (MDF)

0.691

0.427

0.295

4

Particle board

0.596

0.451

0.269

4

Plywood

0.542

0.493

0.267

7

Veneer sheets

0.505

0.5

0.253

8

Paper and paperboard (aggregate)
1[Mg / Mg]

[Mg C / Mg]

0.9

0.386

9

Calculated from the weighted average of coniferous and non-coniferous sawnwood production volumes (FAOSTAT average of the years
2006-2010) of the countries as listed in Appendix of the Annex of Decision 2/CMP.7

2

IPCC 2003, Appendix 3a.1

3Calculated from the weighted average of included subcategories of the production volumes (FAOSTAT average of the years 2006-2010)of the countries as listed in Appendix of the Annex of Decision 2/CMP.7

4

Rüter and Diederichs (2012)5

Derived from Environmental product declarations EPD-GTX-2011111-E, EPD-KRO-2009212-E and EPD-GTX-2011211-E provided by
IBU e.V. (http://bau-umwelt.de/hp550/Insulating-materials.htm)

6

Calculated from 50% of HDF and 50% of MDF

7Derived from Wilson and Sakimoto (2005) and BD for non-coniferous species listed in the table above

8

Calculated from 50% sawnwood (C) and 50% of sawnwood (NC)9Calculated from the weighted average of included subcategories of the production volumes (FAOSTAT average of the years 2006-2010)of the countries as listed in Appendix of the Annex of Decision 2/CMP.7, including information derived from Fengel and Wegener(1984), Paulapuro (2000), Gronfors (2010) and industry information.

5215
5216
5217
5218
5219

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 and, see Section 2.8.1.2).
paperboard), separated by the particular activity (

5220
5221
5222
5223
5224

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.

5225
5226
5227
5228

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.

Draft KP Supplement

2.125

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
5229

2.8.3.2

E MISSION FACTORS

5230
5231
5232
5233
5234
5235

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 Decision 2/CMP.7 refers to HWP in use (cf. Section 2.8.1.1), the half-life to be applied is afunction of the adjusted estimated service life (ESL) of the particular HWP commodities (with HL = Adjusted
ESL * ln(2), cf. Section 2.8.4.2).

5236
5237
5238

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.

5239
TABLE 2.8.2
TIER 2 DEFAULT HALF-LIVES127 OF HWP CATEGORIESHWP categories128

Default half-lives (years)

Paper

2

Wood panels

25

Sawn wood

35

5240
5241
5242
5243
5244
5245

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.

5246

2.8.4

5247
5248
5249
5250
5251
5252
5253
5254
5255
5256

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 HWP contribution. They may include country-specific halflives and/or methodologies and may be applied by Parties where sufficient data are available in line withrequirements as outlined in Section 2.8.1 and the Decision 2/CMP.7129 covering the three semi-finished HWP
categories.130 It complies with good practice to apply country-specific methods “provided that verifiable andtransparent activity data are available and that the methodologies used are at least as detailed or accurate”129 as
those described in Section 2.8.3 (Tier 2). Good practice thus includes a verification of the Tier 3 methods used,
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 the HWP contribution has been estimated.
More information on how to verify Tier 3 methods can be found in IPCC FAQs on HWP.131

5257
5258
5259

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.

5260

FLUX DATA METHODS

127

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.

128

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)

129

Paragraph 30

130

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.

131

http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/faq/faq.html

2.126

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

5261
5262
5263
5264
5265
5266
5267
5268

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.

5269

Following alternatives under a Tier 3 method could be used:

5270
5271



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:

5272
5273
5274

(i)

Default half-lives in combination with country-specific activity data for disaggregated commodity
items of the three HWP commodities that follow the HS nomenclature system as explained in
section 2.8.1.1 (see 2.8.4.1)

5275
5276

(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).

5277
5278
5279



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:

5280

(i)

Default half-lives (See Table 2.8.2), or country specific half-lives as specified in Section 2.8.4.2

5281

(ii)

Country-specific activity data (See Section 2.8.4.1).

5282
5283

Furthermore, it complies with good practice to separately estimate and report the HWP contribution of the HWPpool for the domestic market (i.e. reporting Party) and for export markets, in case:

5284



Country-specific half-lives or decay functions, and/or

5285



Country-specific activity data (i.e. other than specified in Section 2.8.3.1) are used.

5286
5287
5288

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.

5289

COMBINED HWP STOCK INVENTORY AND FLUX DATA METHODS

5290
5291
5292
5293
5294

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 2.8.3) 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.

5295
5296
5297
5298
5299
5300

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 andbeing 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.132

5301
5302
5303

Since in practice inventory data are not available for all finished HWP for domestic and export markets covering
the HWP categories sawnwood, wood-based panels, paper and paperboard (e.g. wooden houses, furniture,
newspaper), it is good practice to apply inventory methods only in combination with flux data methods.

5304
5305
5306
5307
5308

In case a Party applies inventory methods for specific HWP end uses (e.g. the housing sector), it is thus goodpractice to estimate the HWP contribution for the remaining fraction of the three 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 Decision 2/CMP.7.

132

Paragraph 27

Draft KP Supplement

2.127

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
5309

2.8.4.1

5310
5311
5312
5313
5314
5315
5316
5317

Section 2.8.1.1 introduces the international classification system of forestry products following HS nomenclature,
which is also relevant for activity data used for a Tier 3 method. Whereas data for semi-finished HWP can beobtained from national statistics as well as from international databases, HWP activity data other than outlined in
Section 2.8.3.1 (See Table 2.8.1) are available from national sources only. In the case of Parties using countryspecific activity data as described in this section, it is good practice to disclose the source of data and 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.7133 (cf. Figure
2.8.2).

5318

Country-specific HWP activity data to be used for Tier 3 could be:

5319

1.

5320
5321
5322
5323
5324
5325

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.

5326
5327
5328
5329
5330

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.

5331

2.

5332
5333
5334
5335

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 Figures 2.8.2 and2.8.3). This group of products comprise e.g. doors, flooring systems, books or furniture, which could also be
obtained from national production statistics (e.g. furniture production statistics).

5336

3.

5337
5338
5339
5340
5341

These types of products rather represent a market segment where finished products (see above) are used (SeeFigure 2.8.3). Wooden houses are composed of different construction components with different renovationintervals, e.g. long lived roof construction made of beams, wall systems, and comparatively short-lived wooden
flooring systems. Country-specific activity data for buildings could again be derived from the production
statistics (e.g. Building Construction Starts statistics) or from inventories and surveys.

5342
5343
5344
5345
5346
5347

Some of the above mentioned country-specific activity data (1, 2 and 3) might be available from annual statistics
being applicable for flux data methods. Other activity data might be available only at the start and the end of thecommitment period for the use in combined HWP stock inventory and flux data methods. Whereas data derived
from inventories (e.g. for buildings, see 3) could not be used for the share of exported HWP, data fromproduction and export statistics for finished product categories, such as books or furniture, could be used toestimate the contribution of exported HWP.

5348
5349
5350
5351
5352
5353
5354

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.

5355
5356
5357
5358
5359
5360

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 Figure 2.8.3 in Section 2.8.1.2 and 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 from life 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
133

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

Paragraph 30

2.128

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

5361
5362

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 e.g. in Rüter and Diederichs (2012) for Germany.

5363
5364
5365

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).

5366

2.8.4.2

5367
5368

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.

5369
5370
5371
5372
5373
5374

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.

5375
5376
5377
5378
5379
5380

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 transparent and verifiable data.

5381
5382

Several approaches can be used to derive country-specific service- and half-life values based on transparent andverifiable data:

5383
5384
5385



Following ISO 15686 standard series approach, since this is an already established system for service life
estimation on a national, not case specific, level in combination with obsolescence on national level (SeeBox 2.8.1),

5386
5387



A combination of production and trade statistics data with building stock inventory information in order toestimate more realistic country-specific through this calibration, and/or

5388



National surveys on the final market use of wood.

5389
5390
5391

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 ESL (cf. Section 2.8.3.2) incombination with an obsolescence factor and information on its market share.

5392
5393
5394

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:

5395
5396
5397



ISO 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;.

5398
5399
5400



The ESL on the other hand is the service life that a wooden or wood based component would be expected tohave 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);

5401
5402



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

5403
5404
5405



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:

C OUNTRY - SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS

5406

(i)

Functional obsolescence: function no longer required.

5407
5408

(ii)

Technological obsolescence: new alternatives can offer better performance, change the patternof use.

5409
5410

(iii)

Economic obsolescence: Fully functional but less efficient, more expensive than alternatives.
This includes also replacement due to changing fashion or taste.

Draft KP Supplement

2.129

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
5411
5412
5413
5414
5415

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).

5416

For example:

5417
5418
5419
5420
5421

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 the HWP contribution the time actually spent in the HWP carbon pool, not the potential
full service life of a wooden component given by ESL.

5422
5423

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:

5424



Either an additional factor (O) is included, with

5425
5426

(i)

Obsolescence = 1 when there is considered to be no significant effect of obsolescencecompared to RSL

5427

(ii)

Obsolescence is given a value < 1 based on the intensity of obsolescence

5428

(iii)

Obsolescence can never be larger than 1.

5429
5430
5431



5432
5433

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.

134

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.134

For more information see IPCC FAQ, Q4-29 (http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/faq/faq.html)

2.130

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

5434
5435

BOX 2.8.1
EXAMPLE ON THE CALCULATION OF NATIONAL ESL BY MEANS OF FACTOR METHOD

5436
5437
5438

A theoretical example with wooden claddings in Norway is given based on the ISO 15686-8: 2008,
but elevated from the case specific level given in the standard to a national level. Details about
RSL and service life estimation are in ISO 15686-8: 2008.

5439
5440
5441
5442

A factor = 1 when the factor does not to deviate from the RSL conditions. A higher value (x>1) isgiven if the national performance is better than RSL conditions; a lower value (x<1) is given if thenational performance is lower than the RSL conditions. Non relevant factors are excluded from theequation.

5443
5444

The RSL is based on accelerated field trials and failure was defined when the mean decay rating
reached 2 (on a scale from 0–4 where 0 is no decay and 4 is failure).

5445

National ESL = 55(RSL)*1(A)*1(B)*1(C)*1.2(E)*1(F)*0.9(G) = 59.4 years

5446
5447
5448
5449

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. A more detailed explanation for the choice of factors used is to beprovided in the countries’ annual reporting.

5450
5451

A = Inherent performance level ‘represents the grade of the component as supplied’.
- Here equals to RSL.

5452
5453
5454
5455

B = Design level ‘reflects the component’s installation in the building/constructed asset and istypically based on the level of shelter and protection from agents provided by the design of thebuilding/constructed asset’.
- Here equals to RSL.

5456
5457

C = Work execution level ‘considers the level of skill and control in sitework’.
- Here equals to RSL.

5458
5459
5460

D = Indoor environment ‘considers the exposure of the object to indoor agents of degradation andtheir severity’.
– Not relevant in this example.

5461
5462

E = Outdoor environment ‘considers exposure to outdoor agents of degradation and their severity’.
- In this example the climate on a national level is less harsh than at the test sites included in RSL.

5463
5464

F = Usage conditions ‘reflects the effect of the use of the building/constructed asset.’- Here equals to RSL.

5465
5466
5467
5468

G = Maintenance level ‘reflects the level of maintenance assumed. For certain components that are
inaccessible or require special equipment for access, a particularly low maintenance level should
be considered’.
- Here slightly lower than RSL intervals.

5469
5470
5471
5472
5473
5474
5475
5476
5477
5478
5479
5480
5481

Another example in Table 2.8.3 shows how to derive country-specific half-life values 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 (seeabove), ESL and obsolescence. The use of composed HWP categories in different markets, such as in theconstruction 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 the contribution of the different HWP categories or subcategories (e.g. coniferous
sawnwood) to markets and their segments in order to receive improved service life estimates for the particular
HWP categories. Thereby, it is important to keep in mind that the assumed service life is driven by the products
technical properties and, depending on this, its particular application area (e.g. load-bearing beam or wood
panelling, both made of sawnwood). Thus, in order to calculate a country-specific emission factor (i.e. serviceor half-life), different sources of information, e.g. on the market use of different HWP categories, could be
combined as illustrated in Table 2.8.3.

5482

The definition of half-life and also guidance on how to calculate half-life for Tier 2 is provided in Section 2.8.3.2.

5483

Draft KP Supplement

2.131

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
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)
Sawn wood

Wood-based
panelsPaper and
paperboard

Markets*

Marketshare of
HWP
category

National
estimated
service life
(ESL), years

National
obsolescenc
e factor (O)Adjusted ESL of
HWP category(=ESL*O* market
share adjustment)

Half-life(=Adjusted
ESL* ln(2))

41.0

28.4

30.5

21.2

1.5

1

construction

60%

70

0.9

furniture

10%

45

0.6

packaging

30%

6

0.3

paper

0%

-

-

construction

50%

60

0.7

furniture

45%

35

0.6

packaging

5%

6

0.3

paper

0%

-

-

construction

0%

-

-

furniture

0%

-

-

packaging

50%

3

0.3

paper

50%

10

0.2

5484

HALF-LIFE DATA TO BE USED FOR EXPORTED HWP

5485
5486
5487
5488
5489
5490
5491
5492
5493
5494

“In the case of exported HWP, country-specific data refers to country-specific half-lives and HWP usage in theimporting country.”135 Thus, if country specific half-life information should be used also for the exported HWP,
the half-life information from the importing country must be used. For this purpose, it is necessary to quantify
export activity data within the three HWP categories and/or sub categories. Furthermore, in order to ensure thatthe half-life information from the exporting country complies with the categories of the activity data for theexported HWP, it is good practice to only apply country-specific half-life information in case the same
categories of activity data for the exported HWP both in the exporting and importing country are being used.
Otherwise the default values (Tier 2) are to be used. When transparent and verifiable activity data are available,
the categories should be broad enough to capture significant volumes contributing to the pool. The amount ofexported and domestic wood should be separately reported.

5495

2.8.5

5496
5497
5498

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 FMRL as outlined in the Decisions 2/CMP.6136, 2/CMP.7 and 2/CMP.8. Guidance on the
FMRL is provided in Section 2.7.5.

5499

APPROACHES AND METHODS FOR CONSIDERATION OF HWP IN FMRL

5500
5501
5502

Decision 2/CMP.6 requested Parties to inter alia submit descriptions of how HWP were considered in theconstruction of the FMRL.137 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:

5503

1.

5504
5505
5506

In this case, Parties only presented values for a FMRL which do not contain estimates on the HWP
contribution.138 Similar to the treatment of HWP in the first commitment period as described in GPG-LULUCF,
as result of the assumption of instantaneous oxidation, changes in the HWP carbon pool are not reported (cf.

Consideration of the HWP pool in FMRLs

Instantaneous oxidation

135

Paragraph 30, Footnote 6

136

Paragraphs 2, 4 and 9 of Appendix II contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2010/12/Add.1

137

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

138

See FMRL values in column ‘Reference level’ in the table of the Appendix of the Annex of Decision 2/CMP.7

2.132

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

5507
5508

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 2.7.3.

5509

2.

5510
5511
5512
5513
5514
5515
5516
5517

In this case, Parties presented values for the FMRL that include estimates of the HWP contribution based onchanges in the HWP pool.139 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 2.8.2 for the HWP categories sawnwood, wood panels and paper (cf. Section 2.8.1.1).140
However, different approaches had been used as regards the consideration of HWP originating from forests prior
to the start of the second commitment period141, as indicated in the application of HWP activity data (i) since
1900, or (ii) since 1990.

5518
5519

BOX 2.8.2
EXAMPLE ON THE ESTIMATION OF THE HWP CONTRIBUTION AS PRESENTED IN PARTIES’ FMRL

5520
5521
5522
5523
5524

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).

5525
5526
5527

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.

5528
5529

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.

5530

Numeric example:

5531
5532
5533

(i)
(ii)
(iii)

5534
5535
5536

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.

5537

Numeric example:

5538
5539

(i)
(ii)

5540
5541
5542

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.

5543
5544
5545
5546
5547

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.

Inclusion of the HWP pool on the basis of modeled projections under a ‘business as usual’ scenario

Average historic harvest for the years 2005-2009: 50 Mm³ yr-1
Projected harvest (in Mm³ yr-1): in 2013=52, in 2014=53, in 2015=55 …
Rates of change as compared to historic average: in 2013=4%, in 2014=6%, in 2015=10%

Production of sawnwood for the years 2005-2009: 10 Mm³ yr-1
Projected production of sawnwood (in Mm³ yr-1): in 2013=10.4, in 2014=10.6, in 2015=11 …

5548
5549
5550
5551
5552

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 projected139

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

140

Paragraph 27 of Chapter II, Annex I in contained in document FCCC/KP/AWG/2010/18/Add.1.

141

Cf. paragraph 15 sexies, Ibid.

Draft KP Supplement

2.133

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
5553
5554

harvest rates of Parties. An example of how estimates of the HWP contribution in the FMRL could be derived islisted in Box 2.8.2.

5555
5556

METHODOLOGICAL CONSISTENCY BETWEEN HWP IN THE FMRL AND
THE REPORTING DURING THE SECOND COMMITMENT PERIOD

5557

General guidance on methodological consistency in relation to the FMRL is provided in Section 2.7.5.2.

5558
5559

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 FM during the second commitment period.142

5560
5561
5562
5563
5564
5565

Provided that Parties comply with the requirements as outlined in Section 2.8.1.1 to estimate the 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 explainedin 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 startingwith the annual inventory for the first year of the second commitment period143:

5566
5567



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

5568
5569

(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);

5570
5571

(ii)

the method to determine the fraction of HWP originating from FM has been appliedconsistently (See Section 2.8.1.2);

5572
5573

(iii)

the same HWP categories (HWPP) have been applied (See Sections 2.8.1.1, 2.8.3.1 and2.8.4.1);

5574

(iv)

the same carbon conversion factors have been used (See Sections 2.8.3.1 and 2.8.4.1)

5575
5576



5577
5578
5579
5580

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.

5581
5582

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.

5583

2.8.6

5584
5585
5586

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.

5587

METHOD UNCERTAINTIES

5588
5589
5590
5591
5592
5593
5594
5595
5596
5597
5598

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. The reason forusing 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 semi-finished products), butsome knowledge on the service life of wood products. FOD decay is assumed to be a good proxy for the decayof semi-finished products and other type of distributions could be used to describe the true decay process.
However, the real world is even more complex. The service life and decay pattern of wood products are not justa 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 in increasing replacement of
old HWP with new ones. Thus also discards of HWP correlate with their increasing consumption. This is notreflected in the FOD pattern, where the discard rate is a constant fraction of the HWP pools in use over time. As

Emission factors (i.e. service- or half-life information) associated with the particular HWP categories(HWPP)

142

Uncertainty assessment

Paragraph 14

143

This information includes methodological elements as used in the estimation of the HWP contribution to the FMRL andthe reporting during the second commitment period as defined in Annex II of Decision 2/CMP.8

2.134

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

5599
5600

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.

5601
5602
5603
5604
5605
5606
5607
5608
5609
5610

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.

5611
5612
5613
5614
5615
5616

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
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).

5617
5618
5619
5620
5621
5622
5623
5624
5625
5626
5627
5628

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 inapplicable either for thereporting country. Thus it must always be combined with flux data methods inducing double-counting risks ofsemi-finished and final products. Furthermore, it is applicable only in those few countries from which relevant
and sequential statistics are available.

5629

UNCERTAINTIES OF ACTIVITY DATA

5630
5631

Uncertainties related to activity data on HWP from international databases (e.g. FAO) and associateduncertainties of the estimates of the level of the HWP contribution could arise due to:

5632
5633



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).

5634
5635
5636



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.

5637
5638
5639



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.

5640
5641



Double counting (e.g. final products counted in semi-finished commodities, such as cut paper being added topaper in rolls).

5642
5643



Reporting errors in providing correct data that is numbers are put into the wrong category or incorrectly
processed by reporter or collecting agency.

5644
5645
5646
5647



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).

5648
5649
5650

Concerning data on the feedstock of production of semi-finished HWP categories (i.e. industrial roundwood andwood pulp as proposed in section 2.8.1.2), uncertainty could be caused by unreported sources, by-product use ortrade data.

Draft KP Supplement

2.135

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
5651
5652
5653

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%.

5654
5655
5656
5657

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.

5658
5659
5660

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.

5661
5662
5663

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).

5664
5665
5666
5667

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.

5668
5669

UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH EMISSION FACTORS (SERVICEAND HALF-LIFE ESTIMATES)

5670
5671
5672
5673
5674
5675
5676
5677
5678
5679
5680
5681

The half-life parameters are in general the most uncertain part of the Tier 2 calculation method. There is notmuch robust scientific evidence behind the default values given in Table 2.8.2 144 . 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.

5682
5683
5684

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.

5685
5686
5687
5688

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.

5689

2.8.7

5690
5691
5692
5693
5694

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

5695

144

Paragraph 29

2.136

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

5696

2.9

CROPLAND MANAGEMENT

5697

2.9.1 Definitional issues and reporting requirements

5698
5699
5700

Cropland Management (CM) 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.145 CM includes all lands under annual
and perennial crops, and all fallow lands set at rest for one or several years before being cultivated again.

5701
5702
5703
5704
5705

It is good practice to include, in land subject to CM, all the lands in the Cropland category of Volume 4, Chapter
3, Section 3.2 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, namely cropped land, including rice fields. It is also good practicefor countries to specify how land subject to CM is distinguished from other activities under the Kyoto Protocol
using the guidelines provided in Volume 4, Chapter 3, Section 3.3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, together withthe guidance presented here.

5706
5707
5708
5709
5710
5711
5712
5713
5714
5715
5716
5717
5718

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 8 in Section 1.2 of this report for thedefinition of “forest” given in the Marrakesh Accords), it is good practice to include them under CM or Forest
Management (FM), but not under both. Rice paddies are also included under Cropland, but associated methane
emissions are reported under Agriculture in reporting under the UNFCCC and KP and hence not under thisactivity. Treed areas such as orchards or shelterbelts that were established after 1990 and meet the definition of aforest can qualify as Afforestation/Reforestation (AR), and if they do, are included under those categories (seeSection 1.2 of this report). Recognizing that the forest definition is threshold based, in order to achieve
consistency with established practice during the first commitment period, Parties can continue to report taking
account of predominant land use, as reviewed under the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol (Section 1.2 of thisreport). Cropland that is temporarily used for grazing can also be included under CM. Set aside lands areincluded in CM when they return, or are expected to return, to cropping after some period of time. Countries areencouraged to develop consistent criteria for defining set aside lands and their allocation among activities.

5719
5720
5721
5722
5723
5724
5725
5726
5727

The aim of the accounting exercise is to identify and report trends and systematic changes in the carbon stocks
resulting from changes in CM over time. The premise is that changes in soil carbon stocks result from changes inCM that influence the rates of either additions to, or losses of, soil carbon. However, CM is not the only driver ofchanges 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 CM practices, as elements of CM activities. Countries are encouraged
to use higher tier methods (Tier 2 or Tier 3) to develop emissions coefficients or models to represent the effects
of management practices rather than those of inter-annual variability and natural disturbances on carbon stocks.
More information about higher tier methods is provided in Section 2.9.4 of this report.

5728
5729
5730
5731
5732
5733
5734
5735

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 2.9.3 of this report and examples
in Volume 4, Chapter 5, Table 5.5 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines). Broad sets of practices under CM that affectcarbon stocks include tillage practices, rotations and cover crops, fertility management, plant residue
management, erosion control and irrigation management (IPCC 2000b). 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 2.9.4 of this report.

5736
5737
5738
5739
5740

It is a good practice that Parties ensure consistency in methods applied for estimating emissions and removals
from land-use and land-use change categories. Methods across different practices covered under Articles 3.3 and3.4 and management practices occurring on land that was deforested should be consistent with methods used forthe surrounding CM practices, even though they are accounted under Article 3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol and notunder CM.

5741

It is good practice to apply the following steps for estimating emissions and removals from CM:

5742
5743
5744
5745

STEP 1: Define CM 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 CM or under Forest
Management, but not under both. It is important to apply the definitions consistently over time, even though dataand information from the past may be of lower quality.

145

Paragraph 1(g) in the Annex to Decision 16/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3, p.5.

Draft KP Supplement

2.137

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
5746
5747

STEP 2: Identify the land under CM using the approaches described in Volume 4, Chapter 3, Section 3.3 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines and the appropriate sections in this report.

5748

STEP 3: Distinguish between the two subcategories of CM: mineral soils and organic soils.

5749
5750
5751
5752

STEP 4: Select the appropriate tier and methodology for estimating emissions and removals, based on key
category analysis including assessment of significant subcategories (Volume 1, Chapter 4, Section 4.2 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines and Figure 2.9.1 of this report) and subject to available data. For mineral soils, thisincludes methodologies for monitoring land management activities and change.

5753
5754

STEP 5: Stratify by climate. For mineral soils also stratify by other relevant biophysical characteristics of theland and CM practices (see Section 2.9.3 of this report).

5755
5756
5757

STEP 6: For each stratum, estimate the CM emissions/removals for the base year and the commitment year
using Tier 1, Tier 2 or Tier 3 methods (see Section 2.9.4 of this report). Total emissions are the sum of net
emissions or removals from mineral soils plus organic soils.

5758

2.9.2 Base year

5759
5760
5761
5762
5763
5764
5765

Under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol, emissions and removals resulting from CM are estimated using a netnet accounting approach (as are all elective activities under Article 3.4). Net-net accounting requires thatgreenhouse gas emissions and removals are estimated for the base year and each year of the commitment
period 146 . This entails determining the total area under CM for the base year and for each year of thecommitment period and calculating the carbon stock change for those areas. Guidance for estimating thecorresponding non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions from cropland for 1990 are covered in Volume 4, Chapters 10
and 11 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (see the text on non-CO2 gases in this Section 2.9.4 of this report).

5766
5767
5768
5769
5770

If the area under CM changes significantly between the base year and the commitment period, e.g., due to AR or
Deforestation (D), or land moving into another mandatory or elected activity under the Kyoto Protocol, this maylead to estimates on moving land basis (that is, subtraction of stock changes on a land base that changes in size
over time). In cases where land under CM moves under activities which are not mandatory or elected by the
Party, it should continue reporting on these lands under CM (see Box 2.9.1).

146

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/2011/10/Add.1.

2.138

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

5771
5772
5773

BOX 2.9.1
AN EXAMPLE OF CROPLAND MANAGEMENT AREAS IN 1990
AND IN THE COMMITMENT PERIOD (NET-NET ACCOUNTING)

5774
5775
5776
5777
5778
5779
5780
5781
5782

In this example the area under CM in the reporting year during the commitment period is larger
than in the base year. Some of the area was under CM in both the base year and during thereporting period. This includes also lands which are no longer managed as cropland nor reported
under any other activity under the Kyoto Protocol (a). Some of the area under CM in the base year
is no longer under CM in the reporting year but reported under another activity under the Kyoto
Protocol (b). There are also areas under CM in the reporting year that were not under CM in thebase year (c). Area (D) is under CM, but was subject to Deforestation which takes precedence.
Under the Kyoto Protocol, the emissions and removals in areas (a) + (b) in the base year arecompared to emissions and removals in areas (a) + (c) – (D) in the reporting year.

5783

Included in b: CEFC Area under
CM in base year and Forest
Management in reporting period
resulting from the harvest andconversion of forest plantations to
non-forest land according theDecision 2/CMP.8

5784
5785
5786

Area under CM in baseyear and in reporting
periodArea under CM only in reporting
year (could have been settlement, or
grassland, or wetland, in the base
year)

5787
5788
5789

b

5790

Area under CM only inbase year now in other
Article 3.3. or 3.4
activity

5791
5792

a

c
D

EXCLUDED FROM c: Area
under forest in base year andCM in reporting period (notincluded in CM reporting;reported under Article 3.3 asDeforestation land)

5793
5794
5795
5796
5797
5798
5799
5800
5801
5802
5803
5804
5805
5806
5807
5808
5809
5810

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 from CM.
The Tier 1 method described in Volume 4, Chapter 5, Section 5.3.3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for mineralsoils assumes that a change in land-use/land management has an impact on carbon emissions and removals for aduration of 20 years; hence, under this tier and if a change in management has taken place since 1970, it is goodpractice to calculate the net carbon stock change in 1990 taking this change into account. If area and activity
data are available for 1970 to 1990, the net carbon stock change during the 1990 base year can be establishedusing the default carbon emission and removal factors. For organic soils, the inventory time period is treated thesame as long-term cropped organic soils, Tier 1 emission factors provided in Table 5.6 of Volume 4, Chapter 5of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and updated by the Wetlands Supplement (see Footnote 19, Section 2.1 of thisreport).

5811
5812
5813

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 2.9.4 of this report).

5814
5815
5816
5817

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 Volume 1,
Chapter 5, Section 5.3.1 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines. It is good practice to use a time period of sufficient duration(e,g. 20 years) as close to 1990 as possible. For example, the carbon stock for 1990 could be estimated:

5818
5819



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;

5820
5821



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.

Draft KP Supplement

2.139

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
5822
5823
5824
5825
5826
5827
5828

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 2.9.2. This will be reflected in net sinks and sources in the accounting.

5829

2.9.3

5830

Choice of methods for identifying lands subject toCropland Management activities

5831
5832
5833

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 CM provided in Sections 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, and 2.2 ofthis report.

5834
5835
5836
5837
5838
5839
5840

According to the Decision 2/CMP.8147, the geographical location of the boundaries of the area that encompass
land subject to CM needs to be reported annually, along with the total land areas subject to this activity. The
geographical location of boundaries may include a spatially explicit specification of each land subject to CM, butdoes not have to. Instead, the boundaries of larger areas encompassing smaller lands subject to CM may beprovided, along with estimates of the area subject to CM in each of the larger areas. In either case, the land
subject to CM and the management thereon need to be tracked through time because the continuity and durationof management practices and changes affects carbon emissions and removals.

5841
5842
5843
5844
5845
5846
5847
5848

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 in Volume 4, Chapter 5 of the 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 CM from1990 until the end of the commitment period (e.g. see Section 2.9.2 of this report). Alternatively, countries could
develop statistical sampling techniques, consistent with the advice in Volume 4, Chapter 3, Annex 3A.3 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines, which allow the management transitions on CM land to be determined (see also Section
2.4.1 of this report).

5849
5850
5851
5852
5853

If a management practice does not occur continuously on the same land, a Party may use statistical samplingtechniques to estimate the duration and proportion of the management practice of interest. In this case, countryspecific 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, for example, in Volume 4, Chapter 3, Annex 3A.3.3 in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

5854
5855
5856
5857
5858
5859

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, rotation cycles, 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 to match data needs for estimating emissions and removals is provided in Volume 4, Chapter 3,
Section 3.3.2 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

5860

Management factors that may be useful in establishing a national stratification include:

5861



Degree of soil disturbance (e.g. tillage frequency and intensity)

5862



Level of input of crop biomass or organic carbon (e.g. plant litter, roots, manure, other amendments)

5863



Rotation cycle

5864



Frequency of fallow practices

5865



Inclusion of woody biomass in the cropping system (e.g. shelterbelts, orchards, other perennial plantations)

5866



Temporary use for livestock grazing

5867
5868
5869

For all resulting subcategories under CM, the areas derived from the conversion of forests (i.e., D) since 1990
need to be tracked separately as these will be reported as units of lands subject to D under Article 3.3 of the
Kyoto Protocol. Area of CM in base year which converted to FM in reporting period due to the harvest and147

Paragraph 2(d) in Annex II to Decision 2/CMP.8. (Land use, land-use change and forestry), contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2012/13/Add.1., p. 19.

2.140

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

5870
5871

conversion of forest plantations to non-forest land will be reported under carbon equivalent forest conversion
according to the Decision 2/CMP.8148. At higher tiers further subdivision of the CM area may be necessary.

5872

Methods to identify croplands with adequate disaggregation may include:

5873
5874
5875
5876



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.

5877
5878



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.

5879

2.9.4

5880

Choice of methods for estimating carbon stockchanges and non-CO 2 greenhouse gas emissions

5881
5882

For CM, the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, updated by the Wetlands Supplement for organic soils and wetlands, give
methodological guidance for estimates of:

5883



Annual changes in C stocks of above- and below-ground biomass

5884



Annual changes of dead organic matter (DOM; dead wood and litter)

5885



Annual changes in organic carbon stocks of mineral and organic soils

5886



Annual emissions of non-CO2 gases from biomass burning

5887
5888
5889
5890
5891
5892

Section 2.3.6 of this report gives guidance about the choice of methods and identification whether CM is a key
category. If CM is a key category, the inventory compiler should determine which subcategories, such as mineralsoil or organic soil or above-ground biomass, are particularly significant. Volume 1, Chapter 4, Section 4.2 ofthe 2006 IPCC Guidelines suggests ranking subcategories according to their contribution to the aggregate key
category. It may be appropriate to focus efforts towards methodological improvements of these most significant
subcategories.

5893
5894
5895
5896
5897
5898
5899
5900

The Decision 2/CMP.7149 specifies that a Party may choose not to account for a particular pool in a commitment
period, if transparent and verifiable information is provided that demonstrates that the pool is not a source.
Requirements for reporting excluded pools and documenting that a pool is not a source can be found in Section
2.3.1 of this report. It is possible that Parties will use different tiers to prepare estimates for individual
subcategories (e.g., soil organic C stocks changes in mineral 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 andmethodology for estimating carbon emissions and removals from each subcategory and pool for the full timeseries, for example, in 1990 and during the commitment period.

5901
5902
5903

Methods for estimating cropland CO2 emissions and removals or carbon stock changes for the base year and thecommitment period are provided in Volume 4, Chapters 2 and 5 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. The following
sections of this report highlight aspects of these methods specific to the Kyoto Protocol.

5904

2.9.4.1

5905
5906
5907
5908
5909

Crop biomass carbon from herbaceous and annual 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 in other pools(above-ground, below-ground biomass, litter and dead wood) associated with perennial crop biomass (e.g., trees,
shelterbelts and orchards) should be estimated unless the Party to the Kyoto Protocol chooses not to report on acertain pool and provides verifiable information that carbon stocks are not decreasing.

5910
5911
5912
5913
5914

For carbon stock changes in biomass resulting from changes in CM, it is good practice for Parties to use thedecision tree in Figure 2.9.1 to identify the appropriate tier to estimate carbon stock changes in biomass and deadorganic matter under the Kyoto Protocol. Relevant methods for estimating carbon stock changes in above- andbelow-ground biomass, and dead organic matter can be found in Volume 4, Chapter 5, Sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, respectively. Default coefficients for above-ground woody biomass and harvest

B IOMASS AND DEAD ORGANIC MATTER

148

Paragraph 5(g) in Annex II to Decision 2/CMP.8 (Land use, land-use change and forestry), contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2012/13/Add.1, p. 21.

149

Paragraph 26 in the Annex to the Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry), contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p16.

Draft KP Supplement

2.141

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
5915
5916
5917
5918

cycles in cropping systems containing perennial species are provided in Table 5.1; potential C storage foragroforestry systems in different eco-regions of the world are provided in Table 5.2; default above-groundbiomass for various types of perennial croplands are given in Table 5.3 in Volume 4, Chapter 5 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines.

5919

Box 2.9.2 is an example of how estimating carbon stock changes for biomass for fruit orchards.

5920
5921

BOX 2.9.2
EXAMPLE OF ESTIMATING BIOMASS CARBON CHANGES FOR FRUIT ORCHARDS

5922
5923
5924
5925
5926
5927
5928
5929
5930
5931
5932
5933
5934
5935
5936

Canada chose to consistently include the orchards of fruit trees as a practice within CM. The
general Canadian orchard recommendations are to replace about 5% of the orchard each year.
Therefore it was assumed that the orchard consisted of an even representation of all age classes
from 0 to 20 years. With this constant tree removal and addition to the orchard area, the gain in
carbon from growing trees would equal the loss of carbon from removed trees. The loss of C fromremoved trees was assumed instantaneous. Because of intense pruning, above- and below-groundcarbon stocks of fruit trees was considered to increase linearly with age. The average carbon stockof an orchard was therefore the equivalent of 10-year old fruit trees. The loss of orchards was
assumed to be from fundamental change to different land use purpose and that decision would not
be affected by the age class structure of the eradicated orchard. Consequently, the loss of orchard
was the equivalent of losing an average orchard of carbon stocks equivalent to an orchard ofentirely 10-year old trees. New orchard areas were assumed to accumulate carbon stock linearlyfor 10 years to the amount of a 10-year old tree. After new orchard area had existed for 10 years, it
was assumed that carbon stock removal equalled carbon stock gain because of regular tree removal
and pruning so there is no further gain or loss of carbon.

5937

2.9.4.2

S OIL CARBON

5938
5939
5940

In most croplands, the main soil carbon flux associated with changes in land-use and management for CM
activities is from changes in soil organic carbon in soils. Volume 4, Chapter 5 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines
identifies two sources or sinks of CO2 from agricultural soils:

5941



Net changes in organic carbon associated with changes in land use and management on mineral soil;

5942



Emissions of CO2 from cultivated organic soils (updated by the Wetlands Supplement).

5943
5944
5945

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 Volume 4, Chapter 5 and Equation 2.24 of
the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and updates in the Wetlands Supplement (see footnote 19, Section 2.1 of this report).

5946

MINERAL SOILS

5947
5948

Methods for estimating mineral soil carbon stock changes resulting from changes in CM fall into one of threemethodological tiers described in Volume 4, Chapter 1, Sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.3 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

5949
5950
5951
5952

Methods for estimating carbon stock changes in mineral soils
It is good practice to use the decision tree in Figure 2.9.1 to decide which tier to use for estimating carbon stockchanges associated with changes in CM under the Kyoto Protocol. It is good practice to use Tier 2 or Tier 3
methods for reporting carbon stock changes from mineral soils if CM is a key category.

5953
5954
5955
5956
5957
5958

Tier 1

5959
5960
5961
5962
5963
5964

Volume 4, Chapter 5, Section 5.2.3.4 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines outlines the steps for estimating average annual
rates of carbon 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 Chapter 2. The Tier 1 method can be used toestimate carbon flux resulting from changes in land-use, CM or the level of carbon input across a range oftemperature and moisture regimes and soil types. It only applies to persistent changes in management, not torotational changes.

The Tier 1 method for estimating carbon stock changes in mineral soils is described in Volume 4, Chapter 2,
Section 2.3.3.1 and Chapter 5, Section 5.2.3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. This guidance assumes continuous
practice for a 20-year period applying stock change factors provided in Table 5.5 and default reference soilorganic carbon stocks for mineral soils given in Table 2.3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and applying updates
using Chapter 5 of the Wetlands Supplement.

5965

2.142

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

5966
5967
5968
5969

Figure 2.9.1

Decision tree for selecting the appropriate tier for estimating carbon stockchanges in mineral soils under Cropland Management for Kyoto Protocol
reporting (see also Volume 4, Chapter 2, Figure 2.4 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines)

5970
Are data
available tocalculate regional orcountry-specific carbon
stock changes from
Cropland Management?

Are
CO2 emissions
from CMa key category?

No

No

Yes
Yes
Obtain data from regional or
national measurement/ research
programmes or other reliable
sources

Are data
available tocalculate dynamic or
geographically explicit
carbon stock changes
by management
practices?

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.

5971

Note 3: Use more sophisticated modelling techniques, often linked to geographical databases.

5972
5973

Draft KP Supplement

2.143

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
5974
5975
5976

Since the Tier 1 default methods assume continuity of practice on the land subject to CM, it is good practice tofollow continuously the land subject to CM from the base year through the commitment period. Methods forcontinuously tracking land are described in Section 2.9.3 of this report.

5977
5978
5979
5980
5981
5982

The carbon stock change estimated using Equation 2.25 in Volume 4, Chapter 2 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines
can be used to calculate a yearly emission/removal of carbon resulting from CM activities (a carbon stockchange factor) by multiplying the carbon stock change factor by the cropland area to which the managementchange has been applied. For net-net accounting, the calculation using Equation 2.25 has to be performed for thebase year and each year of the commitment period. For discussion of how to estimate the CM area, see Section
1.3 of this report.

5983
5984

Box 2.9.3 provides illustration of estimating carbon stock changes for CM practices that are not continuous over
time.

5985
5986
5987
5988
5989
5990

Tier 2

5991
5992
5993
5994
5995
5996

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.

5997
5998

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 CM on soil carbon emissions and removals.

5999
6000
6001
6002

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).

6003
6004

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.

Soil C content

Schematic representation of a change in soil carbon stocks after a carbonsequestering management changeb.
a.
Time to new equilibrium

Broken stick
Asymptotic

Management
Change

Time

6005
6006
6007
6008
6009
6010
6011
6012
6013

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

2.144

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

6014
6015

to generate either stock change factors, or the intensity relationships described above, for different soils in
different climatic regions.

6016
6017
6018
6019
6020
6021
6022

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 inVolume 4, Chapter 2, Section 2.3.3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, and to use the experimental values if they are
more appropriate than the default values to the region and management practice. Factors based on models should
only be used after the model has been tested against experiments such as those described above and any model
should be widely evaluated, well-documented and archived. It is good practice to provide confidence limits
and/or uncertainty estimates associated with regional, country-specific or local stock change factors.

6023
6024
6025
6026
6027
6028
6029
6030
6031
6032
6033
6034
6035

Tier 3Tier 3 methods generally encompass a range of methodologies that are more elaborate than Tier 2, usually basedon sophisticated modeling techniques, and often linked to geographical databases. Compared with the static
matrix used at Tiers 1 and 2, Tier 3 can represent the management history of a land that facilitates calculation ofsoil carbon changes resulting from multiple changes in management practices over time including rotationalchanges in land use. Tier 3 (like Tier 2) methods can also take into account longer time period to reachequilibrium than 20 years. Current computing power makes it possible to link spatially disaggregated (stratified)land data to management practice data. Using these analytical systems, carbon stock changes can be tracked overtime by linking equations describing the rate of change in soil carbon under specific management practices withcarbon 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 Volume 4, Chapter 3, Annex 3A.3 of 2006
IPCC Guidelines. The sampling protocol should be of sufficient density to capture the soil types, climatic
regions and management practices.

Draft KP Supplement

2.145

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
6036
6037
6038

BOX 2.9.3
ILLUSTRATION OF ESTIMATING CARBON STOCK CHANGES FOR DISCONTINUOUS CROPLAND MANAGEMENT

6039
6040
6041
6042
6043
6044
6045
6046
6047
6048

Many compilers need to use Reporting Method 1 (non-spatially explicit aggregate statistics, see
Section 2.2.4 of this report) for representing areas of CM practices because of availability ofactivity data. From such data it is not possible to discern if practices are continuous over time. The
effect of discontinuity of practices is expected to affect soil carbon change. This is a particularconcern for no-till (NT) practices because it is not uncommon for there to be occasional tillage
within NT cropping systems. The amount of reduction of accumulated additional carbon fromsingle tillage on land under long-term NT ranges from 0-11% (Conant et al., 2007; Koch andStockfisch, 2006; Quincke et al,. 2007; VandenBygaart and Kay, 2004). However, in somesituations, more than a 30% loss of accumulated soil carbon occurs from single plowing of landthat had been in long-term NT (VandenBygaart and Kay, 2004).

6049
6050
6051
6052
6053
6054
6055
6056
6057
6058
6059
6060
6061
6062
6063
6064
6065
6066
6067
6068

The lack of data on continuity of practice does not invalidate the use of Tier 1 estimation methods
for discontinuous CM practices. To illustrate, consider a parcel of land under NT with occasional
full tillage (FT) and having consistent medium input on sandy soils in warm, moist temperate zone.
From Table 2.3 in Volume 4, Chapter 2 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, the reference soil organic C
stock is 34 Mg ha-1 and FLU=0.69 ( This land parcel under long term cultivation and continuing
medium input that is put under NT in year 1 but undergoes FT in years 5, 11, 14, and 18. As isnecessary using approach 1, each decrease of NT is assumed to occur on land that has been under
NT for at least 20 years and each increase on land that has been under FT for at least 20 years.
Following guidance in Volume 4, Chapters 2 and 5 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, the effect ofcarbon change is calculated using Formulation A (Box 2.1) of annual soil organic carbon stockchange (applying Equation 2.25 and Table 5.5). As shown in the Figure below, the calculated
ΔCmineral is lower with occasional FT than for continuous NT (e.g. 80% of carbon change ofcontinuous NT at year 20) until that land has been under NT for 20 years continuously (i.e. year38). This is consistent with understanding of effect of intermittent tillage on soil organic carbon onland otherwise under NT. Using Reporting Method 1 to represent land areas, the discontinuous
tillage practice on any individual land parcel would not be discernible from the data of land areas
under different tillage practices. Nevertheless, this example illustrates that Tier 1 methods are valid
for discontinuous practices embedded within the data of net areas under different CM practices. If
there is knowledge about discontinuous CM practices on land parcels and about the effect ofpractice discontinuity on soil organic carbon change, it is good practice to use higher tier methods.

PRACTICES

6069
6070
6071
6072
6073
6074
6075
6076
6077
6078
6079
6080
6081
6082
6083
6084

2.146

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

6085
6086

Choice of carbon stock change factors for mineral soils

6087
6088
6089
6090
6091
6092
6093
6094

Tier 1

The carbon emission/removal factors used at each tier are described briefly in the following sections.
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 formulated in Equation 2.25 in Volume 4, Chapter 2 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
Default reference (under native vegetation) soil organic C stocks (SOCREF) for mineral soils, full details ofdefault relative stock change factors for land use (FLU), input (FI) and management (FMG) factors (over 20 years)
can be found in Table 2.3 (for SOCREF), Chapter 2 and Table 5.5 (for FLU, FI and FMG), Chapter 5 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines, respectively. Management practice is assumed to influence stocks to a depth of 30 cm. For asummary of the steps, see Sections 2.3.3 and 5.2.3.4 of Volume 4, Chapters 2 and 5 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

6095
6096
6097
6098
6099
6100
6101
6102
6103

Tier 2

6104
6105
6106
6107
6108
6109
6110

Tier 3

6111
6112
6113
6114
6115
6116
6117

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 Volume 4,
Chapter 5, Sections 5.2.3.5 and 5.3.3.5 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Default carbon stock change factors may also
be replaced by values generated as part of national/regional carbon accounting systems (see Section 2.7.3 of thisreport).

6118
6119
6120
6121

Choice of management data for mineral soils

6122
6123
6124
6125
6126
6127
6128
6129
6130
6131
6132
6133

Tier 1

6134
6135
6136
6137

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 Volume 1,
Chapter 5, Section 5.3.1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. It is good practice to use a time period of sufficientduration (e.g., 20 years) as close to 1990 as possible.

6138
6139



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 for
examples). It is good practice to derive relative stock change factor values for a higher resolution classificationof management, climate and soil types if there are significant differences in the stock change factors among moredisaggregated categories based on an empirical analysis. Reference soil organic C stocks (SOCREF) can also bederived from country-specific data in a Tier 2 approach. Additional guidance is provided in Volume 4, Chapter 2,
Section 2.3.3.1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
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.

Area data on land uses and practices need to be available in accordance with Approach 2 or Approach 3 as
described in Volume 4, Chapter 3, Section 3.3.1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and guidance given in Section
2.2.4 of this report. The data on management required for each of three tiers are outlined briefly below.
Following Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, 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 baseyear, 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
the 2006 IPCC Guidelines: differing cultivation, differing tillage, and differing input levels. Within these
specific land-use or land-management changes, activities are defined semi-quantitatively, e.g., low, medium,high without manure, and high with manure input levels, full, reduced and no-till systems. Areas may beobtained 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 for1970 and 1990, a 1990 baseline net carbon stock change can be established using the default carbon stockchange factors described above and the area and activity data for 1970 and 1990.

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;

Draft KP Supplement

2.147

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
6140
6141



6142
6143
6144
6145
6146
6147
6148
6149
6150
6151

Tier 2

6152
6153
6154
6155
6156

Tier 36157

CARBON STOCK CHANGES IN ORGANIC SOILS

6158
6159
6160

It is good practice to use the decision tree in Figure 2.9.1 to decide which tier to use for estimating carbon stockchanges in organic soils associated with changes in CM under the Kyoto Protocol. It is good practice to use Tier
2 or Tier 3 methods for reporting carbon stock changes from organic soils if CM is a key category.

6161
6162
6163
6164
6165
6166
6167
6168
6169
6170
6171
6172

Methods for estimating CO 2 emissions/removals from organic soils

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.

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.

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 2.9.4.5 of this report). Drained organic soils under CM can be (partially)
rewetted while remaining under CM. Guidance on (partially) rewetted organic soils can be found in Section 2.12of this report. For all tier levels it is good practice to follow the methods for on- and off-site CO2 emissions set
out in Chapter 2 of the Wetlands Supplement (see Footnote 19, Section 2.1 of this report).

6173
6174
6175

Tier 1

6176
6177
6178
6179
6180
6181

Tier 2

6182
6183
6184
6185
6186

Tier 3

The Tier 1 approach is based on default emission factors per hectare of land under CM. The methods for on- andoff-site CO2 emissions are set out in Chapter 2 of the Wetlands Supplement.
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.
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 under Agriculture, 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.

6187
6188
6189

Choice of carbon emission/removal factors for organic soils

6190
6191
6192

Tier 1

6193

Tier 2For 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 Wetlands Supplement.
The tier 1 default emission factors for on- and off-site CO2 emissions are described in Chapter 2 of the Wetlands
Supplement.

2.148

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

6194
6195
6196
6197
6198

For organic soils, it is good practice to replace the default values identified in Chapter 2 of the Wetlands
Supplement with country- or region-specific factors. It is good practice to use country- or region-specificemission/removal factors derived from measurements or experiments within the region that are well-designed
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.

6199
6200
6201
6202
6203
6204

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.

6205
6206
6207

Choice of management data for organic soils

6208
6209
6210

Area data on land uses and management practices need to be available in accordance with Approach 2 orApproach 3 following Section 2.2.2 and guidance given in Section 2.2.4 of this report. The data on management
required for each of the three tiers are outlined briefly here.

6211
6212
6213
6214
6215
6216

Tier 1

6217
6218
6219
6220
6221
6222
6223
6224
6225

Tier 2

6226
6227
6228
6229
6230

Tier 36231

2.9.4.3

The same considerations apply as for management data for CM activities on mineral soils, as described in
Section 2.9.4.2 of this report.

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 types of land-use changes and management practices that
occur at Tier 1 are in principle 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 may not be 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.

6232

N ON -CO 2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM IN - SITUABOVE - GROUND WOODY BIOMASS BURNING

6233
6234
6235
6236
6237
6238
6239

N2O and CH4 emissions from CM related field burning of agricultural residues are reported under Agriculture
whereas in-situ above-ground woody biomass burning is reported under CM. The decision tree in Figure 2.9.1
provides general guidance on the choice of appropriate Tier to be applied. Equation 2.27 in Chapter 2 andSection 5.2.4 in Chapter 5, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines give guidance for estimating N2O and CH4
emissions from in-situ above-ground woody biomass burning. It is good practice that a Party improve inventory
and reporting approaches by applying the highest Tier possible. If CM is a key category and in-situ aboveground woody biomass burning is significant, Parties should use either Tier 2 or Tier 3 method.

6240

2.9.4.4

6241
6242
6243

R EPORTING N ON -CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES EMISSIONS AND
CO 2 EMISSIONS FROM LIMING AND UREA APPLICATION

The following N2O and CH4 emissions are reported under CM, whilst avoiding double-counting with Agriculture:

N2O emissions from N mineralised during soil organic matter losses in mineral soils

Draft KP Supplement

2.149

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
6244
6245



N2O and CH4 emissions from in-situ burning of woody biomass (but not field burning of agriculturalresidues which are reported under Agriculture)

6246
6247
6248



CH4 emission from drainage and rewetting of organic soils. The Wetlands Supplement of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines provides updated methodologies for drained and wet organic soils. Further guidanceon non-CO2 emissions related to land management on organic soils is given in Chapter 2.12 on WDR.

6249
6250

In contrast, N2O and CH4 emissions from the following management practices under cropland are reported under
Agriculture and not included under CM150:

6251



Direct N2O emissions from agricultural soils due to

6252

(iii)

Use of synthetic fertilisers;

6253

(iv)

Use of animal excreta as fertiliser;

6254

(v)

Crop residue and sewage sludge application;

6255

(vi)

Cultivation of soils with high organic content;

6256

(vii)

Urine and dung N deposited by grazing animals on pasture, range and paddock.

6257



Indirect N2O emissions from nitrogen used in agriculture, including emissions from

6258
6259

(viii)

Volatilisation and subsequent atmospheric deposition of NH3 and NOx (originating from theapplication of fertilisers and manures);

6260

(ix)

Nitrogen leaching and runoff

6261



6262

Also emissions from the following practices are reported under Agriculture, irrespective of land use:

6263



CO2 emissions from liming

6264



CO2 emissions from urea application

6265

2.9.4.5

CH4 emissions from rice cultivation

6266
6267
6268
6269
6270
6271
6272
6273
6274

THE TRADE - OFFS OF SYNERGIES OF C ROPLAND
MANAGEMENT ON SOIL CARBON STOCKS AND NON -CO 2
GASES

Some management practices adopted to increase soil carbon may also influence the emissions of non-CO2 gases.
Many of these effects are included in Volume 4, Chapters 5 and 11 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, but there may
be other effects on non-CO2 gases not considered. The effects on non-CO2 emissions of these and othermanagement practices may be included in higher tier methods for CM. Examples of how these effects could be
estimated include: 1) Direct measurement of the non-CO2 greenhouse gases at representative sites; 2) Estimationof emission rates based on literature values taking into account management, soil and climate. Box 2.9.4 gives
examples of such potential trade-offs and synergies.

150

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).

2.150

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

6275
6276

BOX 2.9.4
EXAMPLES OF POSSIBLE INFLUENCES OF CARBON STOCK CHANGES ON EMISSIONS OF NON-CO2 GASES

6277

Example 1: Influence of reduced tillage on N2O emission.

6278
6279
6280
6281
6282
6283
6284
6285
6286
6287
6288
6289

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).

6290

Example 2: Links between organic matter turnover and N2O emission.

6291
6292
6293
6294
6295
6296
6297

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.

6298
6299

2.10 GRAZING LAND MANAGEMENT

6300

2.10.1

6301
6302
6303
6304
6305
6306
6307

Grazing Land Management (GM) is the system of practices on land used for livestock production aimed atmanipulating the amount and type of vegetation and livestock produced151. Lands under GM 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 lands with the following
management activities in GM: grazing, burning, cutting for forage or bedding material as well as
fertilizing/manuring, liming, irrigation, drainage, reseeding, and application of organic amendments or
agrochemicals to control productivity. Note that not all grasslands are necessarily included under GM.

6308
6309
6310
6311

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 Articles 3.3 and elected under Article 3.4. This will enhance thecomparability of reporting across countries and ensure there is no double-counting of greenhouse gas
emissions/removals.

6312
6313
6314
6315
6316
6317
6318
6319
6320
6321
6322
6323
6324

Where land having trees meets the definition of a forest land and the trees have been established since 1990, thelands are included under the AR category (see Section 2.2.6 of this report). Lands that meet the definition offorest land can be included under GM, if grazing is the predominant land-use and the land is not included under
Forest Management, based on the criteria established and consistently applied by the country (see Section 1.2 ofthis report). Some lands included under GM may have trees and/or shrubs. Permanent grasslands, pastures,rangelands or savannahs are normally included under GM if growing of forage crops or grazing is the mostimportant activity on the area (see Section 1.2 of this report). Protected lands, such as those subject to permanent
cover programmes, are also normally included under GM, if they are also used for livestock production. Treed
areas on grassland or being grazed that were established after 1990 and meet the definition of a forest can qualify
as AR, and if they do, are included under those categories (see Section 1.3 of this report). Recognizing that theforest definition is threshold based, in order to achieve consistency with established practice during the firstcommitment period, countries can continue to report taking account of predominant land use, as reviewed under
the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol (Section 1.2 of this report).

Definitional issues and reporting requirements

151

Paragraph 1(h) in the Annex to Decision 16/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry), contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3, p. 5.

Draft KP Supplement

2.151

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
6325
6326
6327
6328
6329
6330
6331

Lands that are only temporarily used for grazing, as part of a cropping rotation, would normally be included
under CM (see Section 2.9 of this report). If CM is not elected, such land can be included under GM, subject tonational criteria that are consistently applied. If a country reports all cropland and grassland used for livestock
production under CM (or GM), then the Party does not need to elect one of CM or GM activities. If GM iselected with CM, it is good practice to include all cropland under CM and all grassland (see Chapter 1 of thisreport) used for livestock production under GM. The criteria used to distinguish between land under CM and
GM needs to be explicitly stated and applied consistently based on national definition.

6332
6333
6334

If GM is elected with Revegetation (RV; see Section 2.11 of this report), the criteria used to distinguish between
land under RV and razing 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.

6335
6336
6337
6338
6339
6340
6341
6342

The aim of reporting is to identify and report trends in the carbon stocks resulting from GM over time. The
methodology for estimating CO2emissions/removals is based on the premise that changes in carbon stocks overtime 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 atequilibrium, and hence the change in carbon stocks is deemed zero. Parties are encouraged to use methods thatshow 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. Box 2.10.1 provides an example of practical application of elected GM.

6343
6344

BOX 2.10.1
GRAZING LAND MANAGEMENT – COUNTRY EXAMPLE

6345
6346
6347
6348
6349
6350
6351
6352
6353
6354
6355
6356

Denmark elected GM. The land included in grazing management is equal to the area of permanent
grassland. Grassland is defined as all land not meeting definition of forest land, cropland, wetland,or settlement land and is identified using remote sensing. All grass in rotation with annual crops isincluded within cropland. Grassland includes land identified as under permanent grazing plus anyother permanent grassland regardless of grazing. Denmark uses the same carbon stock change
estimation methods for Grassland for national inventory reporting as used for GM for reporting for
the Kyoto Protocol. Grazing on grassland is extensive and carbon stocks of mineral soils are
estimated to not change over time. Some carbon stock losses occur under grazing managementfrom emissions from organic soils on grassland and residual C losses from land converted tograssland in the past. The number of days of grazing within GM is included in estimates of N2Oemissions from nitrogen deposited from grazing animals reported under Agriculture for national
inventory reporting and for reporting GM for the Kyoto Protocol.

6357
6358
6359
6360
6361
6362
6363
6364
6365

To use the proposed methodology for determining carbon stock change on those lands, the total GM area needs
to be subdivided into areas under various sets of management practices (which may overlap both in time andspace) for the base year and each of the years in the commitment period, such as those provided in Table 6.2 ofVolume 4, Chapter 6 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Broad families of practices under GM that affect carbon
stocks include animal stocking rate, fertility management, irrigation management, species composition and fire
management. The carbon stock change factors depend on both the current 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 Volume 4, Chapter 6 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. See also
Section 2.10.2 of this report.

6366
6367
6368

Parties 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 GM in the reporting year need to be identified, tracked andreported as a separate category under D (see Section 2.6 of this report).

6369

2.10.2 Base year

6370
6371
6372
6373
6374
6375

Under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol, emissions and removals resulting from GM are estimated using a netnet accounting approach (as are as are all elective activities under Article 3.4). Net-net accounting requires thatgreenhouse gas emissions and removals are estimated for the base year and each year of the commitment
period 152 . This entails determining the total area under GM for the base year and for each year of thecommitment period and calculating the carbon stock change for those areas. Guidance for estimating thecorresponding non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions from GM are covered in Volume 4, Chapters 10 and 11 of the152

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, p. 14.

2.152

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

6376
6377

2006 IPCC Guidelines. Guidance on reporting those non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions under Agriculture is
identical to that provided in Section 2.9.4.4 of this report.

6378
6379
6380
6381

If the area under GM changes significantly between the base year and the commitment period, this may lead toestimates on moving land basis (that is, subtraction of stock changes on a land base that changes in size overtime; see Box 2.10.2). Note that land can move from GM only to mandatory or elected activities under Articles
3.3 or 3.4 but cannot drop from the reporting under the Kyoto Protocol.

6382
6383
6384

BOX 2.10.2
AN EXAMPLE OF GRAZING LAND MANAGEMENT AREAS IN 1990
AND IN THE COMMITMENT PERIOD (NET-NET ACCOUNTING)

6385
6386
6387
6388
6389
6390
6391
6392
6393

In this example the area under GM in the reporting year during the commitment period is larger
than in the base year. Some of the area was under GM in both the base year and during thereporting period. This also includes lands which are no longer managed as grazing land, which are
not reported under any other activity under the Kyoto Protocol (a). Some of the area under GM in
the base year is no longer under GM in the reporting year but reported under another activity under
the Kyoto Protocol (b). There are also areas under GM in the reporting year that are not under GM
in the base year (c). Area (D) is under GM, 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.

6394
6395
6396
6397
6398
6399
6400

b

6401
6402

6405
6406

Area under GM only inreporting year (could
have been settlement, or
cropland, or wetland, inthe base year)

a

c
D

6403
6404

Area under GM in baseyear and in reporting
periodIncluded in b: Area under GM inbase year and Forest Management
in reporting period resulting fromthe harvest and conversion offorest plantations to non-forest
land according the decision
2/CMP.8

Area under GM only inbase year now included
in other Art. 3.3 or 3.4
activity

EXCLUDED FROM c:Area under forest in baseyear and GM in reporting
period (not included in GM
reporting; reported under
Article 3.3 as Deforestation
land)

6407
6408
6409
6410
6411
6412
6413
6414
6415
6416
6417
6418
6419
6420
6421
6422

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 from GM.
The Tier 1 method described in Volume 4, Chapter 6, Section 6.3.3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, for mineralsoils assumes that a change in land-use/land management has an impact on carbon emissions and removals for aduration of 20 years; hence, in this approach and if a change in management has taken place since 1970, the net
carbon stock change in 1990 has to be calculated taking this change into account. If area and activity data are
available for 1970 to 1990, the net carbon stock change during the 1990 base year can be established using thedefault carbon emission and removal factors. For organic soils, the inventory time period is treated the same as
long-term drained organic soils, with Tier 1 emission factors provided in Chapter 2 of the Wetlands Supplement.

6423
6424
6425

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 2.10.4 of this report).

Draft KP Supplement

2.153

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
6426
6427
6428
6429

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 Volume 1,
Chapter 5, Section 5.3.1 in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. It is good practice to use a long time period (e.g., 20
years) as close to 1990 as possible. For example, the carbon stock for 1990 could be estimated:

6430
6431



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;

6432
6433



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.

6434
6435
6436
6437
6438
6439
6440
6441

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 carbon levels of land under GM
approaches a new equilibrium carbon stock. The rate of carbon sequestration in land under GM following achange in management in 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 2.9.2. This will be reflected in net sinks and sourcesin the accounting.

2.10.36443

Choice of methods for identifying lands subjected toGrazing Land Management

6444
6445
6446

General guidance on identification of lands relevant to GM is provided in Sections 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, and 2.2 of thisreport. The geographical location of the boundaries of the area that encompass land subject to GM need to bereported annually, along with the total land areas subject to this activity153.

6447
6448
6449
6450
6451
6452
6453

The geographical location of the boundaries may include a spatially explicit specification of all land subject toGM, but that is not necessary. This is analogous to the case for CM as discussed in Section 2.9.1. It is goodpractice to follow continuously the management of land subject to GM. This could be achieved either bycontinuously tracking each land subject to GM from 1990 until the end of the commitment period (see Section
2.10.1). Alternatively, countries could develop statistical sampling techniques, consistent with the advice inVolume 4, Chapter 3, Annex 3A.3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, which allow the management transitions on
GM land to be determined (see also Section 2.4.1 of this report).

6454
6455
6456
6457
6458
6459

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 factors and disturbance information which may be useful in establishing a national stratification
include:

6460
6461



Level of input of biomass or grassland productivity, organic amendments (e.g., vegetation growth,manure/compost, other amendments)

6462



Grazing intensity (stocking rate, frequency, seasonality)

6463



Prescribed fire

6464



Re-seeding

6465



Irrigation management

6466



Inclusions of woody biomass (shrubland, shelterbelts, other perennial plantations on grazed lands)

6467



Land use history since 1990 (land-use change)

6468
6469

For all resulting subcategories under GM, the area derived from conversion of forests (i.e., D) since 1990 need to
be tracked separately as these will be reported as units of lands subject to D (See Section 2.6 of this report).

6470
6471

At higher tiers further subdivision of the area subject to GM may be necessary. Methods to identify lands subject
to GM with necessary disaggregation available in some Annex I countries include the following:

6442

153

“Implications of the implementation 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”

2.154

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

6472
6473
6474



National land use and management statistics: the agricultural land base including land subject to GM issurveyed in most countries on a regular basis. These may be derived, in part, from remote sensing ofpasture/rangeland and soil surface condition and changes in stocking rate.

6475
6476



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.

6477
6478
6479
6480

Information on these areas would have to be compiled either for all lands subject to GM or summarised as
estimates for all the strata (defined by the boundaries of the areas of GM) that a Party chooses to apply for thereporting of its land use statistics. Further good practice guidance on identifying land areas is given in Section
2.2 of this report.

2.10.46481
6482

Choice of methods for estimating carbon stockchanges and non-CO 2 greenhouse gas emissions

6483

It is good practice to report GM following the 2006 IPCC Guidelines methodologies for grassland estimates of:

6484



Annual changes in carbon stocks of above- and below-ground biomass;

6485



Annual changes of dead organic matter (dead wood and litter; DOM);

6486



Annual changes in organic carbon stocks of mineral and organic soils;

6487



Annual emissions of non-CO2 gases from woody biomass burning.

6488
6489
6490
6491
6492

Section 2.3.6 gives guidance about the choice of methods and identifying whether GM is a key category. If GM
is a key category, the inventory compiler can determine if certain subcategories, such as mineral soil or aboveground biomass, are significant. Volume 1, Chapter 4, Section 4.2 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines suggests ranking
subcategories according to their contribution to the aggregate key category. It may be appropriate to focus efforts
towards methodological improvements of these most significant subcategories.

6493
6494
6495
6496
6497
6498
6499
6500

The Decision 2/CMP.7154 specifies that a Party may choose not to account for a particular pool in a commitment
period, if transparent and verifiable information is provided that demonstrates that the pool is not a source.
Requirements for reporting excluded pools and documenting that a pool is not a source can be found in Section
2.3 of this report. It is possible that Parties will use different tiers to prepare estimates for individual
subcategories (e.g., soil organic C stocks changes in mineral 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 andmethodology for estimating carbon emissions and removals from each subcategory and pool for the full timeseries, for example, in 1990 and during the commitment period.

6501
6502
6503

Methods for estimating GM carbon emissions and removals for the base year and the commitment period areprovided in Chapter 2 and Chapter 6, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. The following sections of thisreport highlight aspects of these methods specific to the Kyoto Protocol.

6504

2.10.4.1 B IOMASS AND DEAD ORGANIC MATTER

6505
6506
6507
6508
6509

Herbaceous grassland vegetation is assumed to cycle annually (biomass gains are assumed to equal biomass
losses in a single year) and is not estimated. It is good practice to estimate carbon stock changes in other pools(above-ground, below-ground biomass, and DOM) associated with perennial woody biomass (e.g., trees,
shelterbelts and shrubs) unless the Party chooses not to report on a certain pool and provides verifiable
information that carbon stocks are not decreasing.

6510
6511
6512
6513
6514
6515
6516

For carbon stock changes in biomass resulting from changes in GM, it is good practice for Parties to use thedecision tree in Figure 2.10.1 to identify the appropriate tier to estimate carbon stock changes in biomass andDOM under the Kyoto Protocol. Relevant methods for estimating carbon stock changes in above- and belowground biomass, and DOM can be found in Volume 4, Chapter 6, Section 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines, respectively. Default coefficients for above-ground woody biomass and harvest cycles inagroforestry or silvopastoral systems containing perennial species are provided in Table 6.1 of Volume 4,
Chapter 6 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

154

Paragraph 26 in the Annex to the Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry), contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p16.

Draft KP Supplement

2.155

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
6517

2.10.4.2 S OIL CARBON

6518
6519
6520

In most grasslands, the main soil carbon flux associated with changes in land-use and management for GM
activities is from changes in soil organic carbon in soils. The 2006 IPCC Guidelines identify two sources orsinks of CO2 from agricultural soils:

6521
6522



Net changes in organic carbon associated with changes in land use and management on mineral soil (Chapter
6);

6523
6524



Emissions of CO2 from drained organic soils (updated by Chapter 2 of the Wetlands Supplement; seefootnote 19, Section 2.1 of this report).

6525
6526
6527

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 6 and Equation 2.24 of Chapter 2,
Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

6528

MINERAL SOILS

6529
6530

Methods for estimating mineral soil carbon stock changes resulting from changes in GM fall into one of threemethodological tiers described in Volume 4, Chapter 1, Sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

6531
6532
6533
6534

Methods for estimating carbon stock changes in mineral soils

6535
6536
6537
6538
6539

Tier 1

6540
6541
6542
6543
6544

Volume 4, Chapter 6, Section 6.2.3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines outlines the steps for estimating average annual
rates of carbon stock change of mineral soils using the default reference carbon stocks (Table 2.3 in Chapter 2),
carbon stock change factors (Table 6.2 in Chapter 6) and Equation 2.25 of Chapter 2. The Tier 1 method can beused to estimate carbon flux resulting from changes in land-use, management or the level of carbon input acrossa range of temperature and moisture regimes and soil types.

The decision tree in Figure 2.10.1 should be used to decide which tier to use for estimating carbon stock changes
associated with changes in GM under the Kyoto Protocol. It is good practice to use Tier 2 or Tier 3 methods forreporting carbon stock changes from mineral soils if GM is a key category.
The Tier 1 method for estimating carbon stock changes in mineral soils is described in Volume 4, Chapters 2 and
6, Sections 2.3.3.1 and 6.2.3.2 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Default soil carbon factors, which assumecontinuous practice for a 20-year period are provided in Table 6.2. Default reference soil organic carbon stocks
for mineral soils are given in Table 2.3.

6545

2.156

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

6546
6547
6548

Figure 2.10.1

Decision tree for selecting the appropriate tier for estimating carbon stockchanges in mineral soils under GM for Kyoto Protocol reporting (see also
Figure 2.4 in Volume 4, Chapter 2 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines)

6549
Are data
available tocalculate regional orcountry-specific carbon
stock changes from
Grazing Land
Management?

Are
CO2 emissions
from GMa key category?

No

No

Yes
Yes
Obtain data from regional or
national measurement/ research
programmes or other reliable
sources

Are data
available tocalculate dynamic or
geographically explicit
carbon stock changes
by management
practices?

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.

6550

Note 3: Use more sophisticated modelling techniques, often linked to geographical databases.

6551
6552

Draft KP Supplement

2.157

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
6553
6554
6555

Since the Tier 1 default methods assume continuity of practice on the land subject to the GM, it is good practice
to follow continuously the land subject to GM from the base year through the commitment period. Methods forcontinuously tracking land are described in Section 2.10.2 of this report.

6556
6557
6558
6559

Box 2.9.3 in Section 2.9.4.2 of this report provides an illustration of estimating carbon stock changes for GM
practices that are not continuous over time, which is analogous to those for CM. Reporting discontinuous
practices under Reporting Method 1 implies that each change in net area of a practice assumes the change isfrom an equilibrium carbon state.

6560
6561
6562
6563
6564
6565

The carbon stock change estimated using Equation 2.25 from Volume 4, Chapter 2 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines
can be used to calculate a yearly emission/removal of carbon resulting from GM activities (a carbon stockchange factor) by multiplying the carbon stock change factor by the GM area to which the management change
has been applied. For net-net accounting, the calculation shown in Equation 2.25 has to be performed for thebase year and each year of the commitment period. For discussion of how to estimate the GM area, see Section
1.3 of this report.

6566
6567
6568
6569
6570
6571

Tier 2

6572
6573
6574
6575
6576
6577

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 of sufficientfrequency, time period and spatial density to reflect variability of the underlying biochemical processes, anddocumented in accessible publications.

6578
6579

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 GM on soil carbon emissions and removals.

6580
6581
6582
6583
6584
6585
6586

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 inVolume 4, Chapter 2, Section 2.3.3 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines, and to use experimental values if they are more
appropriate than the default values to the region and management practice. Factors based on models should only
be used after the model has been tested against experiments such as those described above and any model should
be widely evaluated, well-documented and archived. It is good practice to provide confidence limits and/or
uncertainty estimates associated with regional, country-specific or local stock change factors.

6587
6588
6589
6590
6591
6592
6593
6594
6595
6596
6597
6598
6599

Tier 36600

Choice of carbon stock change factors for mineral soils

6601
6602
6603
6604
6605
6606
6607
6608

Tier 1The Tier 2 method also uses the methodology described in Volume 4, Chapter 6 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.

Tier 3 methods generally encompass a range of methodologies more elaborate than Tier 2, are usually based on
sophisticated modeling techniques, and often linked to geographical databases. 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 multiple changes in management practices over time including rotational changes
in land use. Tier 3 (like Tier 2) methods can also take into account a longer time period sufficient to reachequilibrium (i.e. longer 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 Volume 4, Chapter 3, Annex
3A.3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. The sampling protocol should be of sufficient density to capture the soil
types, climatic regions and management practices.

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 Volume 4, Chapter 2, Equation 2.25 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
Default reference (under native vegetation) soil organic C stocks (SOCREF) for mineral soils, full details ofdefault relative stock change factors for land use (FLU), input (FI) and management (FMG) factors (over 20 years)
can be found in Table 2.3 (for SOCREF) and Table 6.2 (for FLU, FI and FMG) in Chapters 2 and 6, respectively, ofVolume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Management practice is assumed to influence stocks to a depth of 30
cm. For a summary of the steps, see Volume 4, Chapter 2, Section 2.3.3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

2.158

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

6609
6610
6611
6612
6613
6614
6615
6616
6617

Tier 2

6618
6619
6620
6621
6622
6623
6624

Tier 3

6625
6626
6627
6628
6629
6630
6631

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 Volume 4,
Chapter 6, Sections 6.2.3.5 and 6.3.3.5 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Default carbon stock change factors may
also be replaced by values generated as part of national/regional carbon accounting systems (see Section 2.7.3 ofthis report).

6632
6633
6634
6635

Choice of management data for mineral soils

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 for
examples). It is good practice to derive relative stock change factor values for a higher resolution classificationof management, climate and soil types if there are significant differences in the stock change factors among moredisaggregated categories based on an empirical analysis. Reference soil organic C stocks (SOCREF) can also bederived from country-specific data in a Tier 2 approach. Additional guidance is provided in Volume 4, Chapter 2,
Section 2.3.3.1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
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., species introduction or removal, carbon inputs, fertility
amendments, vegetation utilization by grazing livestock). Good practice requires that the models be calibratedusing measurements at benchmark sites, and that model and assumptions used are described transparently.

Area data on land uses and practices need to be available in accordance with Approach 2 or Approach 3 as
described in Chapter 3, Section 3.3.1 and guidance given in Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
The data on management required for each of three tiers are outlined briefly below.

6636
6637
6638
6639
6640
6641
6642
6643
6644
6645
6646
6647

Tier 1

6648
6649
6650
6651

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 Volume 1, Chapter 5, Section 5.3.1 ofthe 2006 IPCC Guidelines. It is good practice to use a long time period (e.g., 20 years) as close to 1990 as
possible.

6652
6653



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 and2010;

6654
6655



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.

6656
6657
6658
6659
6660
6661
6662
6663
6664
6665

Tier 2

Following Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, 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 baseyear, 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
the 2006 IPCC Guidelines: differing degradation states, improved vs. unimproved grassland, and differing input
levels for improved grassland. Within these specific land-use or land-management changes, activities are definedsemi-quantitatively, e.g., non-, moderately, and severely degraded. 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.

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 GM categories (e.g., nature of degradation,
improved grassland subdivided by vegetation community). It is good practice to further subdivide default classes
based on empirical data that demonstrates significant differences in soil 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. 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-evaluatedmodels of soil carbon change, e.g. RothC (Coleman and Jenkinson, 1996; Shirato et al. 2004, or others) can be

Draft KP Supplement

2.159

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
6666
6667
6668
6669
6670
6671

used to generate either default carbon stock change factors, or to generate the intensity relationships for eachactivity, for different soils in different climatic regions. These examples show how, at Tier 2, activities can bemade more country-specific, but other refinements are also possible. In any case, rigorous criteria must be
applied so that emissions in the base year and removals in the inventory year are not overestimated, emissions ininventory year and removals in the base year are not underestimated. This criterion may result in a conservative
estimate of net soil carbon stock change.

6672
6673
6674
6675
6676
6677

Tier 36678

CARBON STOCK CHANGES IN ORGANIC SOILS

6679
6680

It is good practice to use the decision tree in Figure 2.10.1 to decide which tier to use for reporting carbon stockchanges in organic soils under the Kyoto Protocol.

6681
6682
6683
6684
6685
6686
6687
6688
6689
6690
6691
6692

Methods for estimating CO 2 emissions/removals from organic soils

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), 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 and management areneeded.

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 GM can be (partially) rewetted whileremaining under GM. Guidance on (partially) rewetted organic soils can be found in Section 2.12 of this report.
For all tier levels it is good practice to follow the methods for on- and off-site CO2 emissions set out in Chapter
2 of the Wetlands Supplement (see Footnote 8, Section 2.3 of this report).

6693
6694
6695

Tier 1

6696
6697
6698
6699
6700
6701

Tier 2

6702
6703
6704
6705
6706

Tier 3

The tier 1 default methods for on- and off-site CO2 emissions are described in Chapter 2 of the Wetlands
Supplement.
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.
A Tier 3 approach may involve estimation of CO2 and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions in an integrated way.
However, double counting and omission in relation to reporting under Agriculture (see analogous section 2.9.4.4of this report) needs to be avoided. It is good practice to use models that are calibrated using measurements atbenchmark sites, and to describe models and assumptions used transparently.

6707
6708
6709

Choice of carbon emission/removal factors for organic soils

6710
6711
6712

Tier 1

6713
6714
6715
6716
6717
6718

Tier 2

6719

Tier 3For 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 Wetlands Supplement.
The tier 1 default emission factors for on- and off-site CO2 emissions are described in Chapter 2 of the Wetlands
Supplement.
For organic soils, it is good practice to replace the default values identified in Chapter 2 of the Wetlands
Supplement with country- or region-specific factors. It is good practice to use country- or region-specificemission/removal factors derived from measurements or experiments within the region that are well-designed
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.

2.160

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

6720
6721
6722
6723
6724

For 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.

6725
6726
6727

Choice of management data for organic soils

6728
6729
6730

Area data on land uses and management practices need to be available in accordance with Approach 2 orApproach 3 in Section 2.2.2 and guidance given in Section 2.2.4 of this report. The data on management required
for each of the three tiers are outlined briefly below.

6731
6732
6733
6734
6735
6736

Tier 1

6737
6738

If rewetting of organic soils for GM occurs additional guidance for those lands is found in Chapter 3 of the
Wetlands Supplement.

6739
6740
6741
6742
6743
6744
6745
6746
6747

Tier 2

6748
6749
6750
6751
6752

Tier 36753
6754

2.10.4.3 N ON -CO 2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM IN - SITUABOVE - GROUND WOODY BIOMASS BURNING

6755
6756
6757
6758
6759
6760

N2O and CH4 emissions related in-situ above-ground woody biomass burning is reported under GM. The
decision tree in Figure 2.10.1 provides general guidance on the choice of appropriate Tier to be applied.
Equation 2.27 in Volume 4, Chapter 2, of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines is applied to estimate N2O and CH4
emissions from -situ aboveground woody biomass burning. It is good practice that a Party improve inventory
and reporting approaches by applying the highest Tier possible. If burning in GM is significant, Parties need touse either Tier 2 or Tier 3 method.

6761
6762

2.10.4.4 R EPORTING N ON -CO 2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND
CO 2 EMISSIONS FROM LIMING AND UREA APPLICATION

6763
6764

The following N2O and CH4 emissions are reported under GM, whilst avoiding double-counting with
Agriculture:

The same considerations apply as for management data for GM activities on mineral soils, as described earlier in
Section 2.10.3.

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/rewetting classes.
Tier 2 methods may require area descriptions of higher resolution than those in Tier 1. It is good practice toapply 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.

6765



N2O emissions from N mineralised during soil organic matter losses in mineral soils

6766
6767



N2O and CH4 emissions from in-situ burning of woody biomass (but not field burning of agriculturalresidues which are reported under Agriculture)

6768
6769
6770



CH4 emission from drainage and rewetting of organic soils. The Wetlands Supplement provides updated
methodologies for drained and wet organic soils. Further guidance on non-CO2 emissions related toland management on organic soils is given in Section 2.12 on Wetland Drainage and Rewetting (WDR).

Draft KP Supplement

2.161

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
6771

In contrast, the following N2O and CH4 emissions are reported under Agriculture and not included under GM155:

6772



Direct N2O emissions from agricultural soils due to

6773

(i)

Use of synthetic fertilisers;

6774

(ii)

Use of animal excreta as fertiliser;

6775

(iii)

Cultivation of soils with high organic content;

6776

(iv)

Urine and dung N deposited by grazing animals on pasture, range and paddock.

6777



Indirect N2O emissions from nitrogen used in agriculture, including emissions from

6778
6779

(i)

Volatilisation and subsequent atmospheric deposition of NH3 and NOx (originating from theapplication of fertilisers and manures),

6780

(ii)

Nitrogen leaching and runoff

6781



6782

Also emissions from the following practices are reported under Agriculture, irrespective of land-use:

6783



CO2 emissions from liming

6784



CO2 emissions from urea application

6785

2.11

REVEGETATION

6786

2.11.1

Definitional issues and reporting requirements

6787
6788
6789

Revegetation (RV) is a direct human-induced activity to increase carbon stocks on sites through theestablishment of vegetation that covers a minimum area of 0.05 hectares and does not meet the definitions of A
and R156 (see also Footnote 1, Chapter 1 of this report).

6790
6791
6792

Land should be classified as RV if it meets the RV definition and takes place after 1 January 1990. RV typicallyaffects the aboveground carbon pool significantly and may also have a significant impact on belowground carbon
pools through increases in soil carbon stocks.

6793
6794
6795
6796
6797
6798
6799
6800
6801

RV 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 RV (see Box 2.11.1). Any tree planting could be elected as a RV activity, if besides meeting thearea requirement for this activity it does not meet the requirements for a forest157, or satisfies the criteria a Party
uses to specify the shape of forests and areas subject to A/R, D, or conversion of a natural forest to a planted
forest (see Section 2.2.6.1 of this report). RV does not necessarily entail a change in land-use, in contrast to A or
R, for example. RV activities must be clearly differentiated from natural, non-human driven RV processes.

6802
6803
6804

Set-aside lands such as cultivated lands subjected to RV should be included under CM, if they are only
temporarily set-aside (typically this is for 5 years or less, but any set-aside likely to return to cropland under thenational conditions for set-aside should be counted as cropland).

6805
6806

It is good practice for Parties electing RV to provide documentation (a) describing how the included areas meetthe definition of RV and (b) how they can be distinguished from other activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4.

6807
6808

The following general guidance is provided in order to ensure a reasonably transparent, consistent, complete andaccurate reporting of RV activities:

CH4 and N2O emissions from enteric fermentation of livestock and manure management.

155

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).

156

Paragraph 1(e) in the Annex to Decision 16/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry), contained in the document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3, p. 5.

157

Paragraph 1(a) in the Annex of Decision 16/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry), contained in the document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3, p.5.

2.162

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

6809
6810



It is good practice to stratify lands subject to RV by either land-use category or land-use change type, by
type of RV activity, and final land-use if different from the initial one.

6811
6812
6813
6814
6815



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 etc., whatever is most relevant for
stratifying land according to the activity effects on carbon stocks and carbon stock changes. This
characterisation would aid selecting suitable RV options and activity tracking; i.e. species, planting design,and soil preparation.

6816
6817



Lands subjected to RV and each of its subcategories (if any) must be clearly identified as to their individual
locations and areas (see Section 2.11.2 in this report).

6818

BOX 2.11.1

6819

4

A

6820
6821
6822

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.

6823

Japan: Plantation of trees in parks and green spaces in both public and private urban areas.

6824
6825
6826

Romania: Plantation of trees on degraded croplands: outside forest lands under administrative
stewardship; roadsides; shelterbelts; around cities; and erosion-prone lands. All revegetated lands
are classified as Croplands remaining Croplands.

6827
6828
6829

A

RV Activities

As
described
in
eachParty’s
NIR
for
2011.
See
http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_GHG_inventories/national_inventories_submissions/ite
ms/6598.php

6830

2.11.2

Base year

6831

See Section 2.9.2 of this report and apply it in analogous manner.

6832

2.11.3

6833
6834
6835
6836
6837

Land areas subject to RV can be represented with data obtained with either Approach 2—provided there isadditional spatial information—or Approach 3 (see Volume 4, Chapter 3, Section 3.3.1 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines). It is good practice that the particular Approach chosen be consistent with the one used for
identifying and tracking the lands of other Kyoto Protocol activities, be they mandatory (Article 3.3) or elected(Article 3.4).

6838
6839

Generally, all lands subject to RV since 1 January 1990 should be tracked in agreement with the national criteriathat establish a hierarchy among Article 3.4 activities (if applicable) as explained in Section 1 of this report.

6840
6841
6842
6843
6844
6845
6846
6847
6848

The geographical location of boundaries may include a spatially explicit specification of each land subject to RV,
but does not have to. Instead, the boundaries of larger areas encompassing smaller lands subject to RV may beprovided, along with estimates of the area subject to RV in each of the larger areas. In either case, the lands
subject to RV and the management thereon need to be tracked continuously through time. Continuity inmonitoring/reporting of management of revegetated land could be achieved either by continuously tracking eachland subject to RV from 1990 until the end of the commitment period (see Section 2.9.2 for CM and Section
2.10.2 for GM or Volume 4, Chapter 3, Section 3.3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for land-use categories ingeneral) or by developing statistical sampling techniques (see Volume 4, Chapter 3, Annex 3A.3 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines) that allow the transition of different types of management on RV land to be determined.

6849
6850
6851
6852
6853
6854
6855
6856
6857

Methods for monitoring RV lands depend on the kind of land-use at the start and end of a RV activity. A
common criterion, the minimum area of 0.05 hectares has to be detected and all carbon pools have to beconsidered unless they are demonstrated not to be a source. If RV were done with herbs or grasses, monitoringshould use methods appropriate for monitoring GM (see Section 2.10 of this report). If RV were done with tree
species, monitoring methods should be the same as those used for monitoring A/R activities (see Section 2.5 ofthis report) or FM activities (see Section 2.7 of this report). For designing RV activities on settlement lands, it isgood practice to use tree inventories (if available), land surveys on parks and green spaces, brownfields and anyother spatial information on areas amenable to RV. A clear definitional distinction with respect to A or R is
required.

Choice of methods for identifying lands

Draft KP Supplement

2.163

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

6859

Choice of methods for estimating carbon stockchanges and non-CO 2 greenhouse gas emissions

6860
6861
6862
6863
6864

Methods for estimating changes in above-ground biomass, below-ground biomass, and DOM carbon pools in a
RV activity described in Volume 4, Chapters 4 - 9 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. The biomass carbon pool islikely to be the carbon pool most affected by RV. Parties 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 RV is a key category.

6865
6866
6867
6868

For estimating carbon stocks in mineral soils and organic soils, and for estimating CO2 emissions from liming
RV lands, relevant methods and approaches can be found in Volume 4, Chapters 4 - 9 and 11 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines. For urban soils, methods are described in Volume 4, Chapter 8 on Settlements in the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines. Also see Pavao-Zuckerman (2008).

6869
6870
6871
6872
6873
6874
6875

In the case of a RV activity involving cropland or grassland, guidance on choice of methods (Tier 1) for stockchanges in mineral soils can be found in Sections 2.9.3.1 of this report. It is good practice to use Tier 2 or Tier 3
for estimating carbon stock changes from mineral soils if RV is a key category. A decision tree for selecting thetier for estimating carbon stock changes in mineral soils under RV is analogous to that for CM (see Figure 2.9.1of this report). At higher tiers, carbon stock change factors can be obtained from relevant literature (e.g., Akala
and Lal, 2000), long-term experiments and models. Further guidance on the use of higher tier models can befound in Volume 4, Chapter 2, Section 2.3.3, of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

6876
6877
6878
6879
6880

The decision tree for methods to estimate emissions from organic soils under RV is similar to the one drawn for
CM (see Figure 2.9.3 of this report) if the RV activity did involve either CM or GM. The methods describedunder Tiers 1, 2 and 3 for either FM, CM or GM also apply to RV activities involving either treed lands,
croplands or grasslands (see Sections 2.7, 2.9 and 2.10, respectively, of this report) and Chapters 7 - 9 in Volume
4 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

6881
6882
6883
6884

For the estimation of CO2 emissions from liming revegetated lands, the good practice methods developed for
either FM, CM or GM can be used based on the annual amount of lime application. For general good practiceguidance on the estimation of CO2 emissions from liming, see Volume 4, Chapter 11, Section 11.3 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines.

6885

2.11.4.1 C HOICE OF CARBON STOCK CHANGE FACTORS

6886

TIER 1

6887
6888
6889
6890
6891
6892
6893

Estimation of RV is more dependent on national definitions than is the case for other Article 3.4 activities. Whenusing Tier 1 methodologies, it is good practice to provide national information substantiating that theyadequately represent a Party’s national circumstances (Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of this report and Volume 4,
Chapters 4 - 9 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines contain methodologies that may be relevant). It is good practice fora Party electing RV to provide values for stock change in each carbon pool. In the case of pools not reported, it isgood practice to provide verifiable information to demonstrate that these pools are not a source of carbon
emissions. If RV is deemed a key category, then it is good practice to use Tier 2 or 3 methods.

6894

TIER 2

6895
6896
6897
6898

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 RV activity. For any carbon pool not reported, it is goodpractice to provide verifiable information to demonstrate that it is not a source of greenhouse gas anthropogenic
emissions.

6899

TIER 3

6900
6901
6902
6903

At Tier 3 ecosystem carbon cycle models, parameterised for the relevant plant functional types and soils
included in the selected RV area, could be used to estimate annual carbon emissions and removals. These models
need to be calibrated and validated against field observations that represent the national circumstances, be fully
documented and archived.

6904

2.11.4.2 C HOICE OF MANAGEMENT DATA

6905
6906
6907

Activities such as reclaiming or 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 RV can be considered. Area data on land uses and practices need to be available

6858

2.11.42.164

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

6908
6909

in accordance with Approach 2 or Approach 3 (Section 2.2 of this report), following guidance given in Section
2.2.3 of this report. The data on RV management required for each of three tiers are outlined briefly here.

6910

TIER 1

6911
6912
6913
6914
6915

Following guidance in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, impacts of land-use change or land managementchange under a RV activity are assumed, by default, to fully develop at the end of 20 years. The choice of default
emission factors influenced by management factors depends on the particular land uses involved in a particular
RV activity. As minimum the six broad land-use categories and changes between these categories need to be
specified and different types of RV activities separated.

6916

TIER 2

6917
6918
6919

For Tier 2 some management practices for RV may be either subdivided or new ones may be added to makethem country-specific, depending of the land-uses involved in a RV activity. It is good practice that thosesubdivisions reflect close relationships between management practices and changes in carbon pools.

6920

TIER 3

6921
6922
6923
6924

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 RV 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.

6925
6926

It is good practice to provide detailed documentation specifying the practices included under RV and the carbon
emission/removal factors associated with each practice for each pool elected.

6927

2.11.4.3 N ON -CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES

6928
6929
6930

The choice of methods for estimating N2O and CH4 emissions from a RV activity depend on the land-use
categories involved (e.g. Cropland, Grassland, etc.) and the particular management practices (e.g. biomassburning, nitrogen fertilisation, liming, etc.) on those lands.

6931
6932
6933
6934
6935
6936
6937

Methodologies for estimating N2O and CH4 emissions from RV activities involving the management of trees(outside forests but not in settlements), croplands or grasslands can be found in Sections 2.7.3 (FM), 2.9.4 (CM)or 2.10.4 (GM), respectively. For RV activities leading to the establishment of wetlands, appropriate
methodologies can be found in the Wetlands Supplement. N2O and CH4 emissions from the RV of settlement
lands can be estimated with methods described in Volume 4, Chapter 8 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. For
guidance on reporting non-CO2 emissions that may otherwise fall under Agriculture, follow analogous guidanceas for CM (Section 2.9.4 of this report).

6938

2.12 WETLAND DRAINAGE AND REWETTING

6939

2.12.1 Definitional issues and reporting requirements

6940
6941
6942
6943
6944

According to the Decision 2/CMP.7“Wetland Drainage and Rewetting” is a system of practices for draining andrewetting on land with organic soil that covers a minimum area of 1 hectare. The activity applies to all lands
that have been drained since 1990 and to all lands that have been rewetted since 1990 and that are notaccounted for under any other activity, where drainage is the direct human-induced lowering of the soil watertable and rewetting is the direct human-induced partial or total reversal of drainage158

6945
6946
6947
6948
6949
6950

Wetland Drainage and Rewetting (WDR) can only be implemented on organic soils, but under any Land-use
category. Organic soils are defined in Volume 4, Chapter 3, Annex 3A.5 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Thisdefinition of organic soils simplifies the FAO (1998/2006) definition of ‘Histosol’ and links (and even largely
equates) organic soils to peat soils or peaty soils (Chapter 1 of the Wetlands Supplement; see footnote 19, Section
2.1 of this report). All other soils are classified as mineral soils following the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Volume 4,
Chapter 3, Annex 3A.5).

6951
6952
6953

The definition of organic soils in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines excludes the thickness criterion of the FAO
definition and allows for country-specific definitions with respect to thickness of the organic layer (Chapter 1 of
the Wetlands Supplement). It is good practice that Parties, within their report on the choice of definitions, define
158

Paragraph 1(b) in the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry), contained in the document
FCCC/KP/AWG/2011/10/Add.1, p.13.

Draft KP Supplement

2.165

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
6954
6955

the minimum depth and the minimum organic content of the organic layer in their definition of organic soil anduse this definition consistently over time.

6956
6957
6958
6959
6960

Drainage and rewetting refer to all practices in and outside the area with organic soil that directly affects thehydrological system, leading to a change in the water table and its seasonal pattern in the area with organic soil.
Drainage includes both new drainage of formerly undrained land and a change in an existing drainage regime.
Whereas rewetting includes partial rewetting and complete rewetting to near-natural water table level or evenbeyond (see Chapters 2 and 3 of the Wetlands Supplement), as far as these practices have taken place since 1990.

6961
6962
6963
6964
6965

Human-induced drainage includes e.g. the installation of (additional) ditches, drainage pipes and groundwater
extraction. Direct human-induced rewetting includes blocking drainage ditches and pipes or disabling pumping
facilities. Also abandoning the maintenance of ditches resulting in water table rise is considered to be direct
human-induced rewetting, whereas naturally rising water tables, e.g. in areas with permafrost thawing is notconsidered to be direct human-induced rewetting.

6966
6967
6968

The WDR activity includes only lands that are not accounted for under any other activity. Therefore, emissions
and removals due to drainage and rewetting practices on organic soils will also be reported under other Kyoto
Protocol activities (see Box 2.12.1):

6969
6970



Emissions/removals from drainage and rewetting associated with a conversion from non-forested land toforest or from FM to any other Articles 3.3 or 3.4, the activity will be reported under A, R or D.

6971



Emissions/removals from drainage and rewetting of land remaining under FM will be reported under FM.

6972
6973



Lands drained and rewetted since 1990 that meet the criteria for classification under CM, GM or RV, will bereported under WDR only when the above-mentioned activities are not elected but WDR is elected.

6974
6975
6976

Flooded land (as defined in Volume 4, Chapter 7, Section 7.3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines) is not included
under this activity. CO2 emissions from rice cultivation are by priority reported under the CM activity, but may
be included under WDR when organic soils are rewetted for rice cultivation, and CM is not elected.

6977
6978
6979

The guidance for estimating and reporting of emissions from drainage and rewetting is given in the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines and the Wetlands Supplement. The Wetlands Supplement introduces updated emission/removal
factors and new sources of off-site CO2 emissions and CH4 emissions from ditches for drained organic soils.

6980
6981

The base year for WDR is the same as for CM, GM and RV. Practical guidance for identification of land areas
for WDR in the base year and during the commitment period is given in Section 2.12.3 of this report.

6982
6983
6984
6985

Drainage and rewetting result in immediate changes of greenhouse gas emissions and removals so that there may
be less need to establish a land-use history prior to 1990 for tier 1 methods. However, when higher tier methods
that consider dynamic transitions since the drainage or rewetting took place require the land-use history prior to
1990.

6986

2.166

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

6987
6988
6989

BOX 2.12.1
EXAMPLES FOR REPORTING OF EMISSIONS/REMOVALS FROM ORGANIC SOILS DRAINED/REWETTED SINCE 1990
UNDER THE VARIOUS KYOTO PROTOCOL LULUCF ACTIVITIES

6990
6991
6992
6993
6994
6995

Whereas the activity WDR – if elected - only applies to lands on organic soils that have been drained andrewetted since 1990 and that are not subject to any other mandatory or elected activity, the practices ofdrainage and rewetting of organic soils may occur under any other activity under Articles 3.3. or 3.4 andwould be reported under these mandatory or elected activities accordingly. The resulting emissions/removals
from drained and rewetted lands would be reported under:

6996

Deforestation when

6997



a forest with organic soil is drained and converted to e.g. cropland

6998
6999
7000



forest harvesting affects hydrologic conditions to the extent that regeneration to forest is not anymore
possible (e.g. when reduced evapotranspiration and consequent higher water tables after clear fellingprevent re-establishment of forest)

7001
7002
7003



rewetting practices change the hydrologic conditions to the extent that forest cannot persist or is notallowed to regenerate (e.g. when forest with organic soils is rewetted and felled to enhance specificbiodiversity)

7004

Afforestation/Reforestation when

7005
7006



other land than forest land is drained for forestry (e.g. when a naturally treeless or sparsely treed organic
soil is drained to stimulate forest growth)

7007
7008



other land than forest land is rewetted for forestry (e.g. when drained organic soil used for grassland isrewetted and planted with wetland trees, e.g. alder/Alnus)

7009

Forest Management when

7010
7011



forest land is drained and remains forest land (e.g. when unproductive forested organic soil is drained toincrease productivity)

7012
7013



forest land is rewetted and remains forest land (e.g. when an ash/Fraxinus forest on organic soil isrewetted for alder/Alnus forestry)

7014

Cropland Management (if elected1) when

7015
7016



other land than forest land is drained for agriculture (e.g. when a treeless peatland is converted tocropland)

7017
7018



cropland is rewetted but remains cropland (e.g. when a potato field on organic soil is rewetted for
paludiculture)

7019

Grazing Land Management (if elected 1) when

7020



other land on organic soil than forest land is drained to improve grazing

7021
7022



grassland on organic soil is rewetted but remains grassland (e.g. when a drained grassland for dairy cow
husbandry is converted to to a wet grassland for water buffalo husbandry)

7023

Revegetation (if elected 1) when

7024
7025



7026

Wetland Drainage and Rewetting (land-based net-net accounting) when

7027
7028



7029
7030

1

other land than forest land is revegetated and rewetted (e.g. when an abandoned bare peat extraction site
is actively converted to a vegetated wetland)

other land than forest land is rewetted and CM, GM and RV has not been elected by the Party (but WDRhas) in the cases presented above.

if a Party has elected an activity (CM, GM or RV) under Article 3.4, in the first commitment period thereporting under this activity will be mandatory during the second commitment period

7031

2.12.2 Choice of methods for identifying lands

7032

2.12.2.1 G ENERAL G UIDANCE FOR IDENTIFYING LANDS

7033
7034

The activity WDR can only be applied to organic soils that are drained or rewetted since 1990 and that are notincluded under any other accounted activity (see Chapter 1 and Figure 2.12.1 of this report for further guidance).

Draft KP Supplement

2.167

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
7035
7036

Figure 2.12.1

Decision tree for identifying land under the Article 3.4 activity WDR if thisactivity is elected.

7037
7038
7039
7040
7041
7042
7043
7044
7045
7046
7047
7048
7049
7050
7051
7052
7053
7054

2.168

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

7055
7056
7057
7058
7059
7060

As rewetting and drainage of organic soils may also occur under other accounted land-use activities, the WDR
activity will always concern only a subset of the total area of organic soil in the country. When drained organic
soil oxidizes, the organic material layer becomes shallower. Over time the organic soil layer may become soshallow that an area no longer complies with the criteria of an organic soil. It is good practice to apply theactivity to all land with an organic soil that has been drained or rewetted since 1990 even if the soil on theselands has converted to mineral soil before or in the commitment period. These issues are illustrated in Box 2.12.1.

7061
7062
7063
7064

BOX 2.12.2
WETLAND DRAINAGE AND REWETTING AREAS IN 1990 AND THE COMMITMENT PERIOD (NET-NET
ACCOUNTING)

7065
7066
7067
7068
7069
7070
7071
7072

Lands to be reported under WDR if WDR is elected. The area of organic soils in the base year (a)can be larger than the area in the commitment period (b) if part of the organic soils have changed
into mineral soils due to e.g. oxidation, peat extraction or deep-ploughing. The activity applies
only to lands that have been drained and rewetted since 1990 (c) and the lands may not be
accounted for under any other activity (d). The land that will be reported under WDR (if elected) isthus the hatched area with the conditions: a– (c∩d). Emissions and removals from the same land
are to be reported both for the base year and for the commitment period year.

7073
7074
7075
7076
7077
7078

Drainage and rewetting of organic soils can lead to large changes in greenhouse gas emissions per hectare.
Consequently, particular care must be taken to make accurate estimates of greenhouse gas emissions andremovals both in the 1990 base year and in the commitment period. Countries are encouraged to use
stratification by land-use category or similar or further subcategories in a way that the guidance in the Wetlands
Supplement on methodologies and emission factors best matches the national conditions. .

7079
7080
7081

It is good practice for countries to include, within their report on the choice of definitions, a description of thecriteria used to identify areas where WDR applies and to apply these criteria consistently (see Section 2.2 of thisreport).

7082
7083
7084
7085

With respect to the minimum area of 1 ha to which WDR applies criteria can be defined as to the minimum
width. Then the minimum length of the area follows from the combination of width and the prescribed minimum
area of 1 ha. For example, with a minimum width of 20 m, a rectangle of minimum width has to be at least 500
m long to meet the 1 ha size requirement.

Draft KP Supplement

2.169

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
7086

2.12.2.2 S PECIFIC G UIDANCE FOR IDENTIFYING LANDS

7087
7088
7089

The identification of lands to be included under the WDR should follow a similar approach as described in
Section 2.9.1 of this report (see also decision tree in Figure 2.2.2). It is good practice to identify the lands
drained since 1990 and the lands rewetted since 1990 separately.

7090

There are two ways of identifying lands subject to WDR: the ‘Difference-method’ and the ‘Change-method’.

7091

DIFFERENCE METHOD

7092
7093

The ‘Difference method’ compares all lands with organic soils in 1990 with all lands with organic soils in thecommitment period, using the following steps:

7094
7095
7096
7097
7098
7099

STEP 1: Identify the geographical boundaries and areas of organic soils. The area of organic soils and mineralsoils, respectively, need to be constant over time unless it is demonstrated that organic and mineral soils areconverted over time. The sum of the areas of organic and mineral soils also needs to be constant over time andequal the total national land area (unless the national land area is changing), taking account of any areas that do
not have soil. It is good practice to ensure complete coverage of organic soils accordingly, including by
providing information on reasons for any changes in the reported areas (see also Box 2.12.1).

7100
7101
7102
7103
7104

STEP 2: Define relevant water table classes (e.g. undrained, shallowly drained, deeply drained, fully rewetted)
and their proxies/indicators (e.g. water table, land-use category, drainage structure, management) to be identified,and apply these consistently over time, including in the base year. Data and information from the past can be oflower quality than recent data, whereas data sets may also be incomplete for past years. Volume 1, Section 5.4 of
the 2006 IPCC Guidelines provides guidance how to provide consistent time series in these cases.

7105
7106
7107
7108
7109
7110
7111

STEP 3: Quantify the areas of the defined classes for the base year and for the reporting year, while complying
with the minimum area and land tracking requirements for activities under the Kyoto Protocol (see Section 2.2)
and identify the lands where a direct human-induced change in class has taken place since 1990. Identify lands
where drainage and lands where rewetting has taken place separately. Approach 2 will result in a non-spatially
explicit land-use matrix, while Approach 3 is spatially explicit. Approach 3 can only be used if additional spatial
information is available. It is good practice to describe the additional spatial information transparently to ensurecomplete reporting (see also Section 12.2.2.3).

7112
7113
7114

STEP 4: Identify the relevant lands accounted under any other activity that takes precedence over WDR using
the decision tree (Figure 2.12.1) and report the changes on these lands under the respective activities (see Box
2.12.1). Exclude these lands from the areal information for WDR to avoid double-counting.

7115

CHANGE METHOD

7116
7117

The ‘Change method ’directly identifies the lands with organic soil where direct human-induced drainage orrewetting has taken place since 1990, using the following steps:

7118
7119
7120
7121
7122
7123

STEP 1: Define relevant water table classes (e.g. undrained, shallowly drained, deeply drained, fully rewetted)
and their proxies/indicators (e.g. water table, land-use category, drainage structure, management) to be identified,and apply these definitions in a consistent manner over time, including in the base year. Data and informationfrom the past can be of lower quality than recent data, whereas data sets may also be incomplete for past years.
Section 5.4 in Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines provides guidance how to provide consistent time series inthese cases.

7124
7125
7126
7127
7128

STEP 2: Identify the land areas where a direct human-induced drainage and rewetting has occurred since thebase year, while complying with the minimum area and land tracking requirements for activities under the Kyoto
Protocol (see Section 2.2 of this report). Identify lands where drainage and lands where rewetting has taken place
separately. Approach 2 will result in a non-spatially explicit land use matrix, while Approach 3 is spatially
explicit.

7129
7130
7131
7132

STEP 3: Identify the lands with organic soils within the lands where direct human-induced drainage or rewetting
has occurred since the base year. It is good practice to ensure complete coverage of organic soils over time byproviding information on reasons for any changes in the reported areas since the base (see STEP 1 under the“Difference method”).

7133
7134
7135
7136

STEP 4: Identify within the lands on organic soil where direct human-induced drainage or rewetting practices
have occurred since the base year the lands that are accounted under any other activity that takes precedence
over WDR using the decision tree (Figure 2.12.1) and report the changes on these lands under the respective
activities (see Box 2.12.1). Exclude these lands from the spatial information for WDR to avoid double-counting.

7137
7138

All the lands thus identified fall under WDR both in the base year (i.e. when the practice of rewetting or drainage
had not yet taken place) and in the reporting year of the commitment period. The land under WDR in the base

2.170

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

7139
7140
7141

year must fully match the land under WDR in each reporting year of the commitment period. As the area of land
under WDR may grow during the commitment period when newly drained or newly rewetted lands are added,
the area of land under WDR in the base year has to grow accordingly.

7142

2.12.2.3 G EOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES

7143
7144
7145

A country that elects WDR must identify the geographical boundaries of all drainage and rewetting events thatare one hectare or larger, are directly human-induced, and do not fall under any other activity that takes
precedence.

7146
7147
7148
7149
7150
7151
7152
7153
7154

Approach 2 with supplementary information, or Approach 3 described in Volume 4, Chapter 3, Section 3.3.1 ofthe 2006 IPCC Guidelines can be chosen for land area identification. For Approach 2, existing administrative
records, land-use databases and soil maps may have relevant information. Additional spatially explicit data
through sampling or otherwise geographically referenced methods are likely to be necessary to delineate therelevant combinations of land-use categories, land-use changes, management practices and drainage or rewetting
systems and their changes over time. This supplementary information allows creating a detailed non-spatially
explicit land-use matrix for the WDR activity that tracks changes in land-use and drainage status over time. The
area under the activity WDR is cumulative and includes all land that has been drained or rewetted since 1990,
independent of what the former or later drainage situation was.

7155
7156

Information sources about drainage and rewetting practices since 1990 with adequate disaggregation may
include:

7157
7158



National land-use registries and statistics, land-use maps and soil maps, maps of water and nature
conservation zones with restrictions for water management and maps of wetlands.

7159
7160
7161
7162
7163



National water management statistics: in most countries, the agricultural land base including croplands issurveyed regularly, providing data on distribution of different land uses, crops, tillage practice and otheraspects of management, often at sub-national regional level. These statistics may originate, in part, fromremote sensing methods, from which additional information about wetness or periods with flooding could be
extracted.

7164
7165
7166



Inventory data from a statistically based, plot-sampling system of water table wells, ditches and surface
waters on organic soils that allow interpretation of data in terms of human-induced drainage and rewetting
rather than interannual variability.

7167



Water management plans and documentation from water management installations.

7168



Drainage maps.

7169



Maps of rewetting projects including remote sensing.

7170
7171
7172

The geographical boundaries identified by the ‘Difference method’ include the whole area of organic soils
identified after step 3 described above in this Section. Approach 2 with supplementary information or Approach
3 can be used for the difference method.

7173
7174
7175
7176

The geographical boundaries identified by the ‘change method’ identify the areas on which drainage or rewetting
activities have occurred since 1990, equivalent to the area after STEP 4 described above in this Section. Only
spatially explicit data (Approach 3) that allow land tracking on one hectare minimum area, for example, fromdrainage and rewetting projects, is suitable for the change method.

7177

2.12.2.4 S TRATIFICATION

7178
7179
7180

Stratification needs to be consistently applied in the base year and the commitment period. The following factors
may be useful in establishing a national stratification for drained and rewetted land, which result in different
levels of greenhouse gas emissions or removals:

7181



Land-use and management practices, as relevant

7182
7183



Drainage regime (water level, seasonality), following the water table classes defined in the first steps of the
Difference- and the Change-method (Section 2.12.3), respectively, e.g.

7184

(iii)

undrained / near natural water regime (Chapter 3 of the Wetlands Supplement),

7185
7186

(iv)

drained comparable to the typical water table range of the Wetlands Supplement for drained organicsoils (Chapter 2 of the Wetlands Supplement),

Draft KP Supplement

2.171

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
7187
7188

(v)

drained deeper than water level range of Wetlands Supplement for part or all of the year if
applicable,

7189
7190

(vi)

drained more shallow than the water table range of Wetlands Supplement for partially drained or
rewetted for part or all of the year if applicable,

7191
7192
7193

(vii)

flooded (maybe further stratified by seasonally flooded or flooded throughout the year) land if
applicable, which does not fall under the definition of “flooded land” or “reservoir” (Volume 4,
Chapter 7, Section 7.1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines).

7194
7195
7196

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 theactivities AR and D. Similarly areas under FM or any elected activity need to be tracked and reported separately.

7197
7198

At higher tiers further subdivision of the area under WDR may be useful, e.g. by seasonality of drainage
management.

7199

2.12.37200

Choice of methods for estimating greenhouse gas
emissions and removals

7201
7202
7203
7204
7205
7206
7207
7208
7209

Guidance on methodologies for estimating carbon stock changes, CO2 emissions and removals and non-CO2 gasemissions on lands subject to WDR is given in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and the Wetlands Supplement. The
2006 IPCC Guidelines provide methodologies for the estimation of carbon stocks and carbon stock changes inabove- and below-ground biomass, dead wood and litter for inland organic soils, whereas Chapter 4 of the
Wetlands Supplement provides additional guidance for these pools for coastal organic soils. The Wetlands
Supplement provides methodologies and updated emission factors for estimating soil emissions from wetlands
and organic soils. Chapter 2 of the Wetlands Supplement provides guidance for drained inland organic soils,
Chapter 3 of the Wetlands Supplement for rewetted and wet inland organic soils and Chapter 4 of the Wetlands
Supplement for coastal organic soils.

7210
7211

It is good practice to estimate and report greenhouse gas emissions from drained lands (Chapter 2 of the
Wetlands Supplement) and from rewetted lands (Chapter 3 of the Wetlands Supplement) under WDR separately.

7212
7213
7214
7215
7216

Generic guidance about the choice of methods is given in Section 2.3.6 of this report. For key category analysis,
the absolute values of emissions and removals from all land under WDR are summed up. WDR is a key categoryif (1) this sum is greater than the emissions from the key category with the smallest emissions as identified in the
UNFCCC inventory (including LULUCF) (= level analysis) or (2) the trend (change over time) of WDR is larger
than that from the key category with the smallest changes (= trend analysis).

7217
7218
7219
7220
7221
7222
7223
7224
7225

If WDR is a key category, it is good practice to determine whether one of the two subcategories rewetting or
drainage is particularly important. Following decision trees in Figures 1.2 and 1.3 in Volume 4, Chapter 1 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines, a subcategory is considered significant if it accounts for 25-30 percent of the overall
emissions or removals of the category (which applies to at least one of the two subcategories drainage orrewetting). Alternatively, finer subcategories, e.g. by land-use category, drainage level or change in drainage
level or by carbon pool, are ranked according to their contribution to the aggregate key category WDR. Those
subcategories that contribute together more than 60 percent to the key category are considered significant. It isgood practice to report the significant subcategories with higher tier methods and to focus efforts towards
methodological improvements on these subcategories.

7226
7227

Detailed guidance for the five carbon pools (excluding HWP) and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions is found,inter alia:

7228
7229
7230
7231
7232



For above-ground and below-ground biomass, dead wood and litter, if relevant, in Volume 4 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines in Chapter 2 (generic), Chapter 5 (Cropland), Chapter 6 (Grassland), Chapter 7 (Wetlands)
and Chapter 8 (Settlements). It is good practice to use consistent methodologies and emission factors across
ARD, FM and elected Article 3.4 activities. Guidance includes non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions frombiomass burning by controlled burning and wildfires.

7233



For organic soils:

7234
7235

(i)

for drained and partially rewetted inland organic soils: Chapter 2 of the Wetlands Supplement, Tier
1 and higher tier methods,

7236
7237

(ii)

for fully rewetted and wet inland organic soils: Chapter 3 of the Wetlands Supplement, Tier 1 andhigher tier methods,

7238

(iii)

for coastal organic soils: Chapter 4 of the Wetlands Supplement, Tier 1 and higher tier methods.

2.172

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

7239
7240



For dissolved organic carbon (DOC) from inland organic soils: Chapter 2 (from drained land) and Chapter 3(from rewetted land) of the Wetlands Supplement, Tier 1 and higher tier methods.

7241



For greenhouse gas emissions from peat fires: Chapter 2 of the Wetlands Supplement.

7242
7243
7244
7245



For off-site CO2 emissions from peat extraction for horticulture and soil amendment: Chapter 7 of 2006
IPCC Guidelines for Tier 1. Countries using higher tier methods that deviate from the Tier 1 assumption thatthe peat is fully oxidized during the extraction year need to document that no double-counting takes place
and that CO2 emissions from peat in horticultural use are taken into account.

7246
7247



For N2O emissions from drained organic soils: Chapter 2 of the Wetlands Supplement for inland organicsoils; Chapter 4 of Wetlands Supplement for coastal organic soils, Tier 1 and higher tier methods.

7248
7249



For CH4 emissions from drainage ditches on organic soils: Chapter 2 of the Wetlands Supplement, Tier 1 andhigher tier methods.

7250
7251



For CH4 emissions from rewetted organic soils: Chapter 3 of the Wetlands Supplement, Tier 1 and higher tiermethods.

7252
7253
7254
7255
7256

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 source159. Guidance for documentationthat excluded carbon pools are not a source is given in Section 2.3.1 of this report. This choice only applies to
CO2 emissions and removals, not to N2O or CH4 emissions, which can be sources regardless of whether the
carbon pool is a sink or source.

7257
7258

It is good practice to use the same methodologies for estimating emissions and removals in the base year and in
all years of the commitment period.

7259
7260
7261
7262
7263

It is good practice to include all carbon pools and associated emissions and removals reported under the
UNFCCC sectors, and land-use categories and land conversion categories, in estimating greenhouse gas
emissions and removals of the lands included in WDR. Non-CO2 emissions on lands under WDR are often
reported under Agriculture and double-counting of the emissions should be avoided. Table 2.12.1 provides
general guidance how to avoid double-counting across activities and sectors.

7264
TABLE 2.12.1 CHECKS TO AVOID DOUBLE COUNTING AND TO ENSURE COMPLETENESS
Sector, land-use
category or Activity
Agriculture

Under Agriculture are reported: Direct and indirect N2O emissions on agricultural land (cropland, grassland). If theapplication of fertilizers to other land categories cannot be separately identified, thisapplication should be included under Agriculture.
CH4 emissions from rice cultivation.
 CO2 emissions from urea application and liming are reported under the sector
Agriculture irrespective of the land-use category.

Afforestation,
Reforestation,
Deforestation (ARD)

All emissions and removals from lands under ARD are reported under ARD, except thosealready reported under Agriculture (see above). ARD takes precedence over all other activities.

Forest Land, FM

All emissions and removals from lands included under FM are reported under FM, except thosealready reported under Agriculture.
All emissions and removals from Forest Land on organic soils drained or rewetted since 1990
are reported under WDR if that activity is elected, except those already reported under
Agriculture or any other relevant activity.

Cropland, CM

All emissions and removals from lands under CM are reported under CM in case CM is
mandatory or elected, except those already reported under Agriculture.
All emissions and removals from Cropland on organic soils drained or rewetted since 1990 are,in case CM is not mandatory or elected, but WDR is elected, reported under WDR, except thosealready reported under Agriculture or any other relevant activity.

Grassland, GM

All emissions and removals from Grassland under GM are reported under GM in case GM is159

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.

Draft KP Supplement

2.173

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
mandatory or elected, except those already reported under Agriculture.
All emissions and removals from Grassland on organic soils drained or rewetted since 1990 are,in case GM is not mandatory or elected, but WDR is elected, reported under WDR, except thosealready reported under Agriculture or any other relevant activity.
Wetlands160

All emissions and removals from Wetlands on organic soils drained or rewetted since 1990,
including emissions from peat extracted for horticultural peat use (but not peat extracted forenergy, as these emissions are reported under the Energy sector), are reported under WDR, if
that activity is elected, except those already included under Agriculture or any other relevant
activity.

Settlements

All emissions and removals from Settlements on organic soils drained or rewetted since 1990
are reported under WDR, if that activity is elected, except those already included under
Agriculture or any other relevant activity.

Other LandAll emissions and removals from Other Land on organic soils drained or rewetted since 1990
are reported under WDR, if that activity is elected, except those already included under
Agriculture or any other relevant activity.

RV

All emissions and removals resulting from drainage and rewetting practices on lands under RV
are reported under RV, if that activity is elected or mandatory, except those reported under
Agriculture (see above).

7265
7266

160

Mind that the Wetlands Supplement interprets the concept of the Wetlands land-use category wider than the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines and also includes wetlands where the water table has not been altered or that have not been created.

2.174

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

7267

References

7268

COMMON TO THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT

7269
7270

IPCC (1997). Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Inventories - Vol 3 Chp 5 Land Use Change
and Forestry. IPCC/OECD/IEA, 76 p.

7271
7272
7273

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.

7274
7275
7276

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.

7277
7278
7279

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

7280
7281
7282

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

7283
7284
7285

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=11

7286

SECTION 1.1 THROUGH SECTION 2.4

7287
7288
7289
7290
7291

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.

7292
7293

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.

7294
7295

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.

7296
7297
7298

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.

7299
7300

Bokalo, M., S. J. Titus, and D. P. Wiens 1996. Sampling with partial replacement extended to include growth
projections. Forest Science, 42, 7.

7301
7302

Canadian Council of Forest Minister (2012a). Forest pest monitoring in Canada [electronic resource]: current
situation, compatibilities, gaps and proposed enhanced monitoring program.

7303
7304

Canadian Council of Forest Minister (2012b). Forest pest knowledge collection and exchange [electronic
resource]: Pest Strategy Information System.

7305
7306

Canadian Council of Forest Minister (2012c). National forest insect and disease diagnostic and taxonomic
resources and tools [electronic resource]: current situation and future considerations.

7307
7308

Chambers, J. Q., J. I. Fisher, H. C. Zeng, E. L. Chapman, D. B. Baker and G. C. Hurtt (2007). "Hurricane
Katrina's carbon footprint on U. S. Gulf Coast forests." Science 318(5853): 1107-1107.

7309
7310

Congalton, R. G. A. K. G. 2009. Assessing the Accuracy of Remotely Sensed Data: Principles and Practices,
Boca Raton, CRC Press.

7311
7312
7313

Coppin, P., Jonckheere, I., Nackaerts, K., Muys, B., & Lambin, E. (2004). "Review ArticleDigital change
detection methods in ecosystem monitoring: a review." International Journal of Remote Sensing 25(9): 15651596.

7314
7315
7316

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.

Draft KP Supplement

2.175

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
7317
7318
7319

Dymond, J. R., Shepherd, J. D., Newsome, P. F., Gapare, N., Burgess, D. W., & Watt, P. (2012). "Remotesensing of land-use change for Kyoto Protocol reporting: the New Zealand case." Environmental Science &Policy 16: 1-8.

7320
7321

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.

7322
7323

Fujimori, T., M. Matsuda and Y. Kiyono (1987). "Stand Structure and Snow Damage in Relation to Stand Age Sugi Plantations in Fukui Prefecture in the 1981 Heavy-Snowfall." J. Jpn. For. Soc. 69(3): 94 - 104.

7324
7325
7326

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.

7327

Gill, A. M. (1975). Fire and the Australian flora: a review. Australian Forestry, v. 38, no. 1, p. 4-25.

7328
7329

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.

7330
7331
7332

Gonzalez, P., Asner, G. P., Battles, J. J., Lefsky, M. A., Waring, K. M., & Palace, M (2010). "Forest carbon
densities and uncertainties from Lidar, QuickBird, and field measurements in California." Remote Sensing ofEnvironment, 114(7): 1561-1575.

7333
7334
7335

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.

7336
7337
7338

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.

7339
7340
7341

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.

7342
7343
7344
7345

IPCC 2003a. 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.

7346
7347

IPCC 2003b. IPCC Meeting on Current Scientific Understanding of the Processes Affecting Terrestrial Carbon
Stocks and Human Influences upon Them. Eds: Schimal, D. and Manning, M, IPCC/NOAA.

7348
7349

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.

7350
7351
7352

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.

7353
7354

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)

7355
7356
7357

King, K. J., de Ligt R. M., Cary, G. J. (2011). Fire and carbon dynamics under climate change in south-eastern
Australia: Insights from FullCAM and FIRESCAPE modelling. International Journal of Wildland Fire, vol.
20, no. 4, pp. 563-577.

7358
7359
7360

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.

7361
7362
7363
7364

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.

7365
7366
7367

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.

2.176

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

7368
7369
7370
7371

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.

7372
7373
7374
7375

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

7376
7377

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.

7378
7379

Lillesand, T. M., R. W. Kiefer and J. W. Chipman 2008. Remote Sensing and Image Interpretation, New York,John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

7380
7381
7382
7383

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.

7384
7385

Magnussen, S., W. Kurz, et al. (2005). "Adaptive cluster sampling for estimation of deforestation rates."
European Journal of Forest Research 124(3): 207-220.

7386
7387

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.

7388
7389

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.

7390
7391
7392

Olofsson, P., Foody, G. M., Stehman, S. V., & Woodcock, C. E. (2013). "Making better use of accuracy data inland change studies: Estimating accuracy and area and quantifying uncertainty using stratified estimation."
Remote Sensing of Environment 129: 122-131.

7393
7394
7395

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.

7396
7397
7398
7399
7400
7401
7402
7403
7404

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.

7405
7406
7407

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.

7408
7409
7410
7411
7412

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

7413
7414

Richards, G. P. and Brack, C. (2004). "A continental biomass stock and stock change estimation approach forAustralia." Australian Forestry 67(4): 284-288.

7415
7416
7417

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.

7418
7419

Saby, N. P. A., P. H. Bellamy, et al. (2008). "Will European soil-monitoring networks be able to detect changes
in topsoil organic carbon content?" Global Change Biology 14(10): 2432-2442.

7420
7421

Smith, P. (2010). Fingerprinting as a technique for attributing direct and indirect human induced effects(including changes in C stocks in crop & grasslands caused by climate change), Invited background paper,

Draft KP Supplement

2.177

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
7422
7423
7424

pages 39-40. 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

7425
7426

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.

7427
7428

Stinson, G., W. A. Kurz, et al. (2011). "An inventory-based analysis of Canada's managed forest carbon
dynamics, 1990 to 2008." Global Change Biology 17(6): 2227-2244.

7429
7430

Swetnam T.W. and R. S. Anderson (2008). Fire Climatology in the western United States: introduction to special
issue. International Journal of Wildland Fire 2008, 17, 1–7.

7431
7432
7433

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.

7434
7435

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.

7436
7437
7438

Viña, A., X. D. Chen, W. J. McConnell, W. Liu, W. H. Xu, Z. Y. Ouyang, H. M. Zhang and J. G. Liu (2011).
"Effects of Natural Disasters on Conservation Policies: The Case of the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake, China."
Ambio 40(3): 274-284.

7439
7440

Waterworth, R. M. and G. P. Richards (2008). "Implementing Australian forest management practices into a fullcarbon accounting model." Forest Ecology and Management 255(7): 2434-2443.

7441
7442

Williams R. J. and R. A. Bradstock (2008). Large fires and their ecological consequences: introduction to thespecial issue. International Journal of Wildland Fire 2008, 17, 685–687.

7443
7444

Xiao, J. F. and Q. L. Zhuang (2007). "Drought effects on large fire activity in Canadian and Alaskan forests."
Environmental Research Letters 2(4).

7445
7446

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.

7447
7448
7449

Yasuda Y., T. S., D. Hoshino, K. Ono, Y. Ohtani, Y. Mizoguchi and T. Morisawa. (2012). "Carbon balance in acool-temperate deciduous forest in northern Japan: seasonal and interannual variations, and environmental
controls of its annual balance." Journal of Forest Research 17(3): 15.

7450

SECTION 2.5 THROUGH SECTION 2.7

7451
7452

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

7453
7454

Don A., Schumacher J., Freibauer A., 2011. Impact of tropical land-use change on soil organic carbon stocks – ameta-analysis. Global Change Biology (2011) 17, 1658–1670, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02336.x

7455
7456

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.

7457
7458
7459
7460

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.

7461
7462

Laganier J. Angers D. A., Pare D., 2010. Carbon accumulation in agricultural soils after afforestation: a metaanalysis. Global Change Biology (2010) 16, 439–453, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01930.x

7463
7464
7465

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

7466
7467
7468
7469

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

7470
7471

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

2.178

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

7472
7473

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

7474
7475
7476

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.

7477
7478

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

7479

SECTION 2.8

7480
7481
7482

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.

7483
7484

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.

7485
7486
7487
7488

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. http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pdf-directory/ILCD-Handbook-Specific-guide-for-LCI-online12March2010.pdf

7489
7490

FAO (2010). Forest Products 2006-2010. FAO Yearbook, Forestry Series No. 45, Statistics Series No. 201, 344
p. http://www.fao.org/forestry/80570/en

7491
7492

FAO (2012). FAOSTAT-Forestry Database [online]. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations(FAO). http://www.fao.org/forestry/statistics/en/

7493
7494

Fengel, D. and Wegener, G. (1984). Wood - Chemistry, Ultrastructure, Reactions. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter &Co., 613 p.

7495
7496
7497

Forest Products Laboratory (2010). Wood Handbook: Wood as an Engineering Material. United States
Department of Agriculture, General Technical Report, FPL–GTR–190, 509 p. http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/
documnts/fplgtr/fpl_gtr190.pdf6574

7498
7499

Gjesdal, S.F.T., Flugsrud, K., Mykkelbost, T.C., and Rypdal, K. (1996). A balance of use of wood products in
Norway. Norwegian Pollution Control Authority SFT, Report 96:04, 54 p.

7500
7501
7502

Gronfors, J. (2010). Use of fillers in paper and paperboard grades. Tampere University of Applied Sciences,
International Pulp and Paper Technology. http://publications.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/16226/
Gronfors_Jarkko.pdf?sequence=1

7503
7504

ISO (2006). Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Requirements and guidelines. ISO
14044:2006-10.

7505
7506

ISO (2006). Environmental management -- Life cycle assessment -- Principles and framework. ISO 14040:200610.

7507
7508

ISO (2008). Buildings and constructed assets - Service life planning - Part 8: Reference service life and service
life estimation. ISO 15686-8:2008(E).

7509
7510

ISO (2011). Buildings and constructed assets - Service life planning - Part 1: General Principles. ISO 156861:2011(E).

7511
7512
7513

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. http://unfccc.int/files/home/application/pdf/awgkp_denmark_2011.pdf

7514
7515
7516

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. http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/timber/docs/efsos/03-sept/dp-30.pdf

7517
7518

Karjalainen, T., Kellomäki, S. and Pussinen, A. (1994). Role of wood-based products in absorbing atmosphericcarbon. Silva Fennica 28(2): 67–80.

7519
7520

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.

7521
7522

Paulopuro, H. (Ed.) (2000) Papermaking Science and Technology, Book 18: Paper and Board Grades. TAPPI
Press. Atlanta.

Draft KP Supplement

2.179

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
7523
7524

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.

7525
7526
7527

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.

7528
7529
7530

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.
http://literatur.vti.bund.de/digbib_extern/dn048901.pdf

7531
7532

Rüter, S. and Diederichs, S. (2012). Ökobilanz-Basisdaten für Bauprodukte aus Holz. Thünen-Institute of Wood
Research, Report No: 2012/01, 316 p. http://literatur.vti.bund.de/digbib_extern/dn050490.pdf

7533
7534
7535

Skog, K. and Nicholson, G.A. (1998). Carbon cycling though wood products: the role of wood and paper
products
incarbonsequestration.
ForestProducts
Journal48(7/8):75-83.
http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf1998/skog98a.pdf

7536
7537

Statistics Finland (2011). Greenhouse gas emissions in Finland 1990-2008: National Inventory Report under the
UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. 470 p. http://www.stat.fi/tup/khkinv/fin_nir_20100525.pdf

7538
7539
7540

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.

7541
7542
7543

Wilson, J.B. (2010). Life-Cycle Inventory of Particleboard in Terms of Resources, Emissions, Energy andCarbon. Wood and Fiber Science 42(1): 90-106. http://www.corrim.org/pubs/reports/2010/
swst_vol42/90.pdf

7544
7545
7546

Wilson, J.B. and Sakimoto, E.T. (2005). Life-Cycle Inventory of Formaldehyde-Based Resins Used in Wood
Composites in Terms of Resources, Emissions, Energy and Carbon. Wood and Fiber Science 37(Corrim
Special Issue): 58 – 73. http://www.corrim.org/pubs/reports/2010/swst_vol42/125.pdf

7547
7548
7549

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. http://www.winrock.org/ecosystems/
files/Winjum_et_al._1998.pdf

7550

A. (1994). Role of wood-based products in absorbing atmospheric carbon. Silva Fennica 28(2): 67–80.

7551
7552

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.

7553
7554

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.

7555
7556
7557

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.

7558
7559

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.

7560
7561

Rüter, S. and Diederichs, S. (2012). Ökobilanz-Basisdaten für Bauprodukte aus Holz. Thünen-Institute of Wood
Research, Report No: 2012/01, 316 p.

7562
7563

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.

7564
7565

Statistics Finland (2011). Greenhouse gas emissions in Finland 1990-2008: National Inventory Report under the
UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. 470 p.

7566
7567
7568

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.

7569
7570

Wilson, J.B. (2010). Life-Cycle Inventory of Particleboard in Terms of Resources, Emissions, Energy andCarbon. Wood and Fiber Science 42(1): 90-106.

7571
7572

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.

7573

SECTION 2.9 THROUGH SECTION 2.12

2.180

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

7574
7575
7576

Ahmad, S., Li, C., Dai, G., Zhan, M., Wang, J.P., Pan, S.G., and Cao, C.G. (2009). Greenhouse gas emission
from direct seeding paddy field under different rice tillage systems in central China. Soil and Tillage
Research 106: 54-61.

7577
7578

Akala, V.A. and Lal, R. (2000). Potential of mine land reclamation for soil organic carbon sequestration in Ohio.
Land Degradation and Development 11: 289-297.

7579
7580
7581

Ball, B.C., Crichton, I., and Horgan, G.W. (2008). Dynamics of upward and downward N2O and CO2 fluxes inploughed or no-tilled soils in relation to water-filled pore space, compaction and crop presence. Soil and
Tillage Research 101: 20-30.

7582
7583
7584

Bhatia, A., Sasmal, S., Jain, N., Pathak, H., Kumar, R., and Singh, S. (2010). Mitigating nitrous oxide emission
from soil under conventional and no-tillage in wheat using nitrification inhibitors. Agriculture, Ecosystems
and Environment 136 (3-4): 247-253.

7585
7586
7587

Chantigny, M. H., Angers, D.A., Rochette, P., Belanger, G., Masse, D., and Cote, D. (2007). Gaseous nitrogen
emissions and forage nitrogen uptake on soils fertilized with raw and treated swine manure. Journal ofEnvironmental Quality 36 (6): 1864-1872.

7588
7589
7590

Chirinda, N., Carter, M.S., Albert, K.R, Ambus, P., Olesen, J.E., Porter, J.R., and Petersen, S.O. (2010).
Emissions of nitrous oxide from arable organic and conventional cropping systems on two soil types.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 136 (3–4): 199-208.

7591
7592
7593

Coleman, K. and Jenkinson, D.S. (1996). RothC - 26.3. A model for the turnover of carbon in soil. In: D.S.
Powlson, P. Smith & J.U. Smith (Eds.), Evaluation of Soil Organic Matter Models Using Existing, LongTerm Datasets, NATO ASI series I , Vol 38, Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 237-246.

7594
7595

Conant, R.T., Easter, M., Paustian, K., Swan, A., and Williams, S. (2007). Impacts of periodic tillage on soil C
stocks: A synthesis. Soil and Tillage 95: 1-10.

7596
7597
7598

Drury, C.F., Reynolds, W.D., Tan, C.S., Welacky, T.W., Calder, W., and McLaughlin, N.B. (2006). Emissionsof nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide: influence of tillage type and nitrogen placement depth. Soil Science
Society of America Journal 70(2): 570-581.

7599
7600

Elder, J.W. and Lal, R. (2008). Tillage effects on gaseous emissions from an intensively farmed organic soil in
North Central Ohio. Soil and Tillage Research 98: 45-55.

7601
7602
7603

Gregorich, E.G., Rochette, P., St Georges, P., McKim, U.F., and Chan, C. (2008). Tillage effects on N2Oemissions from soils under corn and soybeans in eastern Canada. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 88: 153161.

7604
7605
7606

Helgason, B., Janzen, H., Chantigny, M., Druru, C.F., Ellert, B.H., Gregorich, E.G., Lemke, R.L., Pattey, E.,
Rochette, P., and Wagner-Riddle, C. (2005). Toward improved coefficients for predicting direct N2Oemissions from soil in Canadian agroecosystems. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 72: 87-99.

7607
7608
7609
7610
7611

Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2003). Definitions and Methodological Options toInventory 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.

7612
7613
7614

Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2000b). Watson R., Noble I.R., Bolin B., Ravindranath
N.H., Verardo D.J. and Dokken D.J. (Eds.) Lnad-use, Land-use Change, and Forestry: A Special Report.
Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK.

7615
7616

Koch, H.J. and Stockfisch, N. (2006). Loss of soil organic matter upon ploughing under a loess soil after several
years of conservation tillage. Soil and Tillage Research 86: 73-83.

7617
7618
7619

Lee, J., Hopmans, J. W., vanKessel, C., King, A.P., Evatt, K.J., Louie, D., Rolston, DE, and Six, J. (2009).
Tillage and seasonal emissions of CO2, N2O and NO across a seed bed and at the field scale in a
Mediterranean climate. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 129 (4): 378-390.

7620
7621

Liu, X., Mosier, A., Halvorson, A., and Zhang, F.S. (2006). The impact of nitrogen placement and tillage on NO,
N2O, CH4 and CO2 fluxes from a clay loam soil. Plant and Soil 280: 177-188.

7622
7623

Millar, N., Ndufa, J.K., Cadisch, G., and Baggs, E.M. (2004). Nitrous oxide emissions following incorporationof improved-fallow residues in the humid tropics. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 18 (1): GB1032.

7624
7625

Parton, W.J., Schimel, D.S., Cole, C.V. and Ojima, D.S. (1987). Analysis of factors controlling soil organic
matter levels in Great Plains grasslands. Soil Science Society of America Journal 51: 1173-1179.

Draft KP Supplement

2.181

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

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
7626
7627

Pavao-Zuckerman, M.A. (2008). The nature of urban soils and their role in ecological restoration in cities.
Restoration Ecology 16(4): 642-649.

7628
7629
7630

Petersen, S.O., Schjønning, P., Thomsen, I.K., and Christensen, B.T. (2008). Nitrous oxide evolution fromstructurally intact soil as influenced by tillage and soil water content. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 40: 967977.

7631
7632

Quincke, J.A., Wortmann, C. S., Mamo, M., Franti, T., Drijber, R.A. (2007). Occasional tillage of no-till systems:
carbon dioxide flux and changes in total and labile soil organic carbon. Agronomy Journal 99: 1158-1168.

7633
7634

Rochette, P. and Janzen, H. (2005). Towards a revised coefficient for estimating N2O emissions from legumes.
Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 73(2-3): 171-179.

7635
7636

Rochette, P., Angers, D.A., Chantigny, M.H., and Bertrand, N. (2008). Nitrous oxide emissions responddifferently to no-till in a loam and a heavy clay soil. Soil Science Society America Journal 72: 1363-1369.

7637
7638
7639

Ruser, R., Flessa, H., Russow, R., Schmidt, G., Buegger, F., and Munch, J.C. (2006). Emission of N2O, N2 andCO2 from soil fertilized with nitrate: effect of compaction, soil moisture and rewetting. Soil Biology andBiochemistry 38 (2): 263-274.

7640
7641
7642

Shirato, Y., Hakamata, T., and Taniyama, I. (2004). Modified Rothamsted carbon model for andosols and its
validation: Changing humus decomposition rate constant with pyrophosphate-extractable Al. Soil Scienceand Plant Nutrition 50: 149-158.

7643
7644
7645

Singurindy, O., Molodovskaya, M., Richards, B.K., and Steenhuis, T.S. (2009). Nitrous oxide emission at low
temperatures from manure-amended soils under corn (Zea mays L.). Agriculture, Ecosystems andEnvironment 132 (1-2): 74-81.

7646
7647
7648

Six, J., Stephen, M.O., Breidt, F.J., Conant, R.T., Mosier, A.R., and Paustian, K. (2004). The potential tomitigate global warming with no-tillage management is only realized when practised in the long term. Global
Change Biology 10: 155-160.

7649
7650
7651

Smith P., Powlson D.S., Smith J.U., Falloon P.D. and Coleman K. (2000). Meeting Europe’s Climate Change
Commitments: quantitative estimates of the potential for carbon mitigation by agriculture. Global Change
Biology 6: 525-539.

7652
7653
7654

Smith, P., Powlson, D.S., Glendining, M.J. and Smith, J.U. (1997). Potential for carbon sequestration in
European soils: preliminary estimates for five scenarios using results from long-term experiments. Global
Change Biology 3: 67-79.

7655
7656
7657
7658

Suddick, E.C., Steenwerth, K., Garland, G.M., Smart, D.R. and Six, J. (2011). Chapter 12 Discerning
Agricultural Management Effects on Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Conventional and Alternative Cropping
Systems: A California Case Study. In: Understanding Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agricultural
Management; Guo, L., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC.

7659
7660
7661

Thomsen, I. K., Pedersen, A.R., Nyord, T., and Petersen, S.O. (2010). Effects of slurry pre-treatment andapplication technique on short-term N2O emissions as determined by a new non-linear approach. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment 136 (3-4): 227-235.

7662
7663

VandenBygaart, A.J. and Kay, B.D. (2004). Persistence of soil organic carbon after plowing a long-term no-tillfield in southern Ontario, Canada. Soil Science Society of America Journal 68 : 1394-1402.

7664
7665

Venterea, R. T., Burger, M. And Spokas, K.A. (2005). Nitrogen oxide and methane emissions under varying
tillage and fertilizer management. Journal of Environmental Quality 34 (5): 1467-1477.

2.182

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Annex 2A.1 Reporting tables
Second Order Draft

7666

7667
7668
7669

ANNEX 2A.1

REPORTING TABLES FOR KP LULUCF
ACTIVITIES UNDER THE KYOTO
PROTOCOL

Draft KP Supplement

2A.1

Annex 2A.1 Reporting tables

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
TABLE 2A.1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ST

Table 1A

Summary table of emissions and removals
from activities under Article 3.3, Forest
Management and elected activities under
Article 3.4

Table 1B

Selected parameters for defining "Forest"
under the Kyoto Protocol (additional
information)
LTM

Table 2A

Table 2B

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.

Land Transition Matrix with areas andchanges in areas between the previous
and the current inventory year

Total area reported in this table should match the total
area of the country and be constant over time.

Area of natural forests converted to forest
plantations (additional information)

This table should be used to report land areas ofnatural forests converted to forest plantations since thestart of the commitment period, if any. Associatedemissions and removals are implicitly reported under
Forest Management.

KC
Table 3

Summary of key categories for Land Use,
Land-Use Change and Forestry activities
under the Kyoto Protocol
AR

Table 4A

Table 4B

All lands reported under Afforestation
and Reforestation would otherwise be
subject to Forest Management

Background level of emissions associatedwith natural disturbances in AR lands andits margin, where a margin is needed(additional information)

All lands reported under Afforestation and
Reforestation would otherwise be subject to Forest
Management.
The value reported for net change in SOC of organicsoils could be an emission and not a carbon stockchange.
Report information in this table only if the Partyelected to exclude emissions in forest associated withnatural disturbances that are beyond the control of, andnot materially influenced by, a Party.
Report information in this table only if the Partyelected to exclude emissions in forest associated withnatural disturbances that are beyond the control of, andnot materially influenced by, a Party.

Table 4C

Emissions associated with natural
disturbances (additional information)

Information reported in this table is additional to thatreported in table 4A and 10, and therefore does not
replace the need to report in those tables all carbon
stock changes and all non-CO2 emissions associatedwith natural disturbances.
Report in this table information on changes in carbon
stocks and non-CO2 emissions for the inventory year
for all geographical locations that encompass lands
subject to Afforestation and Reforestation under
Article 3.3 where natural disturbances have occurred,
only if the total emissions associated with natural
disturbances have exceeded the background level plus
the margin, where the margin is needed.

Table 4D

2A.2

Removals subsequent to natural
disturbances (additional information)

Report information in this table only if the Partyelected to exclude emissions in forest associated withnatural disturbances that are beyond the control of, andnot materially influenced by, a Party.

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Annex 2A.1 Reporting tables
Second Order Draft
Information reported in this table is additional to thatreported in table 4A, and therefore does not replace theneed to report in that table all carbon stock changes in
AR lands.
Report here all incremental removals in the inventory
year, for all geographical locations that encompass
lands subject to Afforestation and Reforestation where
natural disturbances have occurred in any previous
year of the commitment period and for whichassociated emissions have exceeded the backgroundlevel plus the margin, where the margin is needed.
D

Table 5A

Lands that have been deforested and subsequently
reforested need to be reported as a subcategory of
deforested land in order to transparently reportemissions and removals on these lands which, despite
are reported under D, match the forest definition.

Article 3.3 activities: Carbon stockchanges under Deforestation

The value reported for net change in SOC of organicsoils could be an emission and not a carbon stockchange.
Report information in this table only if the Partyelected to exclude emissions in forest associated withnatural disturbances that are beyond the control of, andnot materially influenced by, a Party.

Table 5B

Information reported in this table is additional to thatreported in tables 4A and 10, and therefore does not
replace the need to report in those tables all carbon
stock changes and non-CO2 emissions associated withnatural disturbances.

Deforested land previously subject tonatural disturbances (additional
information)

Report in this table information on forested land thathave been converted to non-forested land use after
having been subject to natural disturbances in a year of
the commitment period where emissions associatedwith natural disturbances have exceeded thebackground level plus the margin, where a margin isneeded.
FM
Table 6A

Article 3.4 activities: Carbon stockchanges under Forest Management

Table 6B

Forest Management reference level(additional information)

The value reported for net change in SOC of organicsoils could be an emission and not a carbon stockchange.

Information reported in this table is additional to thatreported in table 6A, and therefore does not replace theneed to report in that table all carbon stock changes
associated with clearing and foresting of lands reported
as Carbon Equivalent Forests under Forest
Management. This table is aimed at checking whether
the equivalent forest that has been planted is achieving
the expected carbon stock.
Table 6C

Carbon Equivalent Forests (additional
information)

Draft KP Supplement

Report in this table information on carbon stock thatwas in the cleared forest plantation, at time of
harvesting, and of current carbon stock in theequivalent forested area, for all lands subject to the"Carbon Equivalent Forest" provisions, within Forest
Management under Article 3.4 (see paragraphs 37-39
of the annex to decision 2/CMP.7) for which the"carbon equivalence" has not been achieved yet. Thismeans that lands should be reported here until the year,
and including the year, in which the carbon
equivalence is achieved.

2A.3

Annex 2A.1 Reporting tables

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

Table 6D

Background level of emissions associatedwith natural disturbances in FM lands andits margin, where a margin is needed(additional information)

Report information in this table only if the Partyelected to exclude emissions in forest associated withnatural disturbances that are beyond the control of, andnot materially influenced by, a Party.
Report information in this table only if the Partyelected to exclude emissions in forest associated withnatural disturbances that are beyond the control of, andnot materially influenced by, a Party.

Table 6E

Information reported in this table is additional to thatreported in tables 4A and 10, and therefore does not
replace the need to report in those tables all carbon
stock changes and non-CO2 emissions associated withnatural disturbances.

Emissions associated with natural
disturbances (additional information)

Report in this table information on changes in carbon
stocks and non-CO2 emissions for the inventory year
for all geographical locations that encompass lands
subject to Forest Management under Article 3.4 where
natural disturbances have occurred, only if the total
emissions associated with natural disturbances haveexceeded the background level plus the margin, where
the margin is needed.
Report information in this table only if the Partyelected to exclude emissions in forest associated withnatural disturbances that are beyond the control of, andnot materially influenced by, a Party.

Table 6F

Information reported in this table is additional to thatreported in table 6A, and therefore does not replace theneed to report in that table all carbon stock changes in
FM lands.

Removals subsequent to natural
disturbances (additional information)

Report in this table all incremental removals in theinventory year, for all geographical locations thatencompass lands subject to Forest Management where
natural disturbances have occurred in any previous
year of the commitment period and for whichassociated emissions have exceeded the backgroundlevel plus the margin, where the margin is needed.
3.4
For each elected activity, this table and all relevant
tables should also be reported for the base year.
Table 7

Carbon stock changes under elected
Article 3.4 activities

The value reported for net change in SOC of organicsoils could be an emission and not a carbon stockchange.
N2O

Table 8A

Direct N2O emissions from N fertilizationof Forest landN2O emissions from fertilization for CroplandManagement, Grazing Land Management,
Revegetation and Wetland Drainage and Rewetting
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 and thistable should not be filled.
The indirect N2O emissions from lands subject to any
Article 3.3. or 3.4 activity are estimated as part of thetotal indirect emissions in the Agriculture sector basedon the total amount of fertilizer used in the country.

Table 8B

2A.4

N2O emissions from disturbanceassociated with land-use conversion tocroplandN2O emissions from disturbance of soils are only
relevant for land conversions of mineral soils to
Cropland. N2O emissions from conversion, including
drainage, of organic soils to agricultural uses arereported in the Agriculture sector under Cultivation of

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Annex 2A.1 Reporting tables
Second Order Draft
histosols.
DR-RW

Table 9A

Table 9B

CH4 and N2O emissions from Drainage oforganic soils

N2O emissions from drainage of organic soils which
occur on all lands subject to Cropland Management orGrazing Land management and on those lands subject
to Revegetation, Wetland Drainage and Rewetting,Deforestation or Forest Management, within the CEFC
provision, which are subject to agricultural practices,
including grazing, should be reported in the
Agriculture sector under Cultivation of Histosols.

CH4 and N2O emissions from Rewettingof organic soils

N2O emissions from rewetting of organic soils which
occur on all lands subject to Cropland Management orGrazing Land management and on those lands subject
to Revegetation, Wetland Drainage and Rewetting,Deforestation or Forest Management, within the CEFC
provision, which are subject to agricultural practices,
including grazing, should be reported in the
Agriculture sector under Cultivation of Histosols.

Fires
Table 10

GHG emissions from burning of organic
matter

Non-CO2 emissions associated with burning of living
biomass and DOM of Savanna and of agriculturalresidues should be reported in the Agriculture sector.

HWP
Table 11A

Carbon stock changes in the Harvested
Wood Products pool

Table 11B

Harvested Wood Products activity data

Table 11C

Harvested Wood Products in the FMRL

GENERAL NOTES:
1. Geographical location refers to the boundaries of the areas that encompass lands subject to the activity (or subject tothe particular provision)
2. 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. One row should be completed for eachsubdivision.

Draft KP Supplement

2A.5

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

TABLE 1A
SUMMARY TABLE
Emissions and removals from activities under Article 3.3, forest management and elected activities under Article 3.4
Inventory year:

Changes in carbon pool and sources of greenhouse gases reported

Activity

Abovegroundbiomass

Belowgroundbiomass

Litter

Dead
wood

HWP
SOC

(Gg C)

Article3.3
activities

Soil organic matter
Organic soils

Mineral soils
N2O emissions
associated withland-use conversion
to cropland

SOC(Gg N2O)(Gg C)(Gg C)

Drainage

Rewettingnon-CO2 emissions

associated with(Gg CH4)(Gg N2O)SOC(Gg C)

non-CO2 emissions

associated with(Gg CH4)(Gg N2O)

AR
D
FM

Article3.4
activities

CM (if elected)
GM (if elected)
RV (if elected)
WDR (if elected)

Changes in carbon pool and sources of greenhouse gases reported
Activity

Fertilization inforest land
(Gg N2O)

Article3.3
activities

Burning of organic mattert(Gg C)(Gg CH4)

Total emissions/removals reported

Net CO2(Gg N2O)CH4N2ONet CO2equivalent

(Gg)

AR
D
FM

Article3.4
activities

CM (if elected)
GM (if elected)
RV (if elected)
WDR (if elected)

2.6

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables
Second Order Draft

Table 1B
Additional information: Selected parameters for defining "Forest" under the Kyoto Protocol
Inventory Year
Parameter

Selected value

Minimum land area
Minimum crown cover
Minimum height
Minimum width

7670
7671

Draft KP Supplement

2A.7

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

TABLE 2A.
LAND TRANSITION MATRIXAreas and changes in areas of activities between the previous and the current inventory year
Inventory YearTo 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(i.e. All
remainingarea in the
country)

Total area atthe beginningof the current
inventory
year

(1)

Deforestation
Forest Management

Article 3.4 activities

From previous inventory year

Article 3.3
activities(kha)
Afforestation and
Reforestation(1)

Cropland Management(if elected)(1)

Grazing Land
Management (if elected)(1)

Revegetation(if elected)(1)

Wetland Drainage andRewetting (if elected)
Other(i.e. All remaining area in the
country)
Total area at the end of the current
inventory year
(1) Only in case of Carbon Equivalent Forests

7672

2.8

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables
Second Order Draft

TABLE 2B
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: AREA OF NATURAL FORESTS CONVERTED TO FOREST PLANTATIONSInventory year
GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION

Area of natural forests converted to forest plantations
Area subject to conversion

Identification code

Subdivision

Area of organic soils

Year of conversion
(kha)

Total

7673
7674
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF KEY CATEGORIES FOR LAND USE, LAND-USE CHANGE AND FORESTRY ACTIVITIES UNDER THE KYOTO PROTOCOL
Inventory year
KEY CATEGORIESCRITERIA USED FOR KEY CATEGORY IDENTIFICATIONGASSpecify key categories according to thenational level of disagregation used(1)

Associated category in
UNFCCC inventory is key(indicate which category)Is the category contribution greaterthan the smallest category considered
key in the UNFCCC inventory(including LULUCF)? (Y/N)

Other (1)

COMMENTS (2)Describe the criteria identifying the category as key.

(2) Describe if category has been identified for trend/level assessment with Tier1/Tier2 approach.

Draft KP Supplement

2A.9

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

TABLE 4A
ARTICLE 3.3 ACTIVITIES: CARBON STOCK CHANGES UNDER AFFORESTATION AND REFORESTATION
Inventory YearGEOGRAPHICALLOCATION
Identification code

ACTIVITY DATA
Subdivision

Year ofconversion

CHANGE IN CARBON STOCK

Area subject tothe activity

Area oforganic soils
DrainedRewetted

Carbon stock change in above-groundbiomass
Gains

LossesCarbon stock change in below-groundbiomass

Net change

(kha)

Gains

LossesNet change(Gg C)TOTAL FOR ACTIVITY AR

Lands subject to natural disturbances which associated emissions have been excluded from accounting

TOTAL
GEOGRAPHICALLOCATION
Identification code

CHANGE IN CARBON STOCK
Net carbon stockchange in litter

Net carbon stockchange in dead wood

Net carbon stockchange in HWP (1)Net CO2
Net carbon stock change in soils

Mineral soils

Organic soils
Drained(Gg C)

Rewetted(Gg CO2)TOTAL FOR ACTIVITY AR

Lands subject to natural disturbances which associated emissions have been excluded from accounting

TOTAL(1) Data to be reported in this table come from the "Net Change" column of table 11A. A single value for the total net change in the HWP at national level could be reported here. Further, if HWP reporting is based on
instantaneous oxidation, then report IO.

7675

2.10

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables
Second Order Draft

TABLE 4B
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: BACKGROUND LEVEL OF EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH NATURAL DISTURBANCES IN AR LANDS AND ITS MARGIN, WHERE A MARGIN IS NEEDEDInventory year
Background level

Methodology applied(default/country-specific)

Margin (where needed)(Gg CO2-equivalent)

7676
7677
7678
TABLE 4C
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH NATURAL DISTURBANCES
Inventory year
GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION

Identification code

ACTIVITY DATA

Subdivision

Type of natural
disturbances (1)Year of occurrence of
natural disturbances

EMISSIONS
Area
(kha)

CO2 (2)

CH4

N2O

total CO2equivalent(Gg)

Total AR land subject to natural disturbances(1)

More than a single natural disturbance may have occurred in the same year in the same unit of land

(2) Whether a stock-difference method is used for estimating carbon stock losses in the area subject to natural disturbances, it should be demonstrated that CO2-C emissions associated with harvesting (including
salvage logging), in the inventory year, have not been reported here

7679
7680

Draft KP Supplement

2A.11

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

TABLE 4D
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: REMOVALS SUBSEQUENT TO NATURAL DISTURBANCES
Inventory year
GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATIONACTIVITY DATAINCREMENTAL REMOVALS

Identification code

Subdivision

Year of occurrence ofAreanatural disturbances(kha)(Gg CO2)

Total AR land subject to natural disturbances

7681
7682

2.12

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables
Second Order Draft

Table 5A
Article 3.3 activities: Carbon stock changes under Deforestation
Inventory YearGEOGRAPHICALLOCATION
Identification code

ACTIVITY DATA
Subdivision

Year ofconversion

Article 3.4
activity towhich theland would
otherwise be
subject (1)CHANGE IN CARBON STOCK

Area subject tothe activity

Area oforganic soils
DrainedRewetted

Carbon stock change in above-groundbiomass
Gains

LossesCarbon stock change in below-groundbiomassNetchange

(kha)

Gains

LossesNetchange(Gg C)

Total for activity D

Total for areas
subsequently reforested

GEOGRAPHICALLOCATION
Identification code

CHANGE IN CARBON STOCK
Net carbon stock change

Net carbon stock change

in litterin dead wood

Net CO2
Net carbon stock change in soils

Mineral soils

Organic soils
Drained(Gg C)

Rrewetted(Gg CO2)

Total for activity D

Total for areas
subsequently reforested(1) Whether the land would be otherwise subject to FM or to any elected activity, the identification acronym of FM or of the elected activity -i.e. CM, GM, RV, WDR- should be reported here (see paragraph 2 (b) (ii) of
the annex II to decision 2/CMP.8)

7683

Draft KP Supplement

2A.13

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

TABLE 5B
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: DEFORESTED LAND PREVIOUSLY SUBJECT TO NATURAL DISTURBANCES
Inventory year
GEOGRAPHICALLOCATION

Identification code

ACTIVITY DATA

Subdivision

Year of occurrenceof natural
disturbancesType of natural
disturbances (1)EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH NATURAL DISTURBANCES
Area
(kha)

CO2

CH4

N2O

total CO2equivalent(Gg)

Total land where
deforestation followed
natural disturbances(1) More than a single natural disturbance may have occurred in the same year in the same land

7684
7685

2.14

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables
Second Order Draft

Table 6A
Article 3.4 activities: Carbon stock changes under Forest Management
Inventory YearGEOGRAPHICALLOCATION
Identification code

ACTIVITY DATA
Subdivision

Year (1)

CHANGE IN CARBON STOCK

Area subject tothe activity

Area oforganic soils
DrainedRewetted

Carbon stock change in above-groundbiomass

Carbon stock change in below-groundbiomass

Gains

Gains

(kha)

LossesNet change

LossesNet change(Gg C)TOTAL FOR ACTIVITY FM

forested land for Carbon Equivalent Forest
TOTAL
cleared land within Carbon Equivalent Forest
TOTAL
lands subject to natural disturbances which associated emissions have been excluded from accounting
TOTAL

7686

Draft KP Supplement

2A.15

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

Table 6A (continued)
Article 3.4 activities: Carbon stock changes under Forest Management
Inventory YearGEOGRAPHICALLOCATION
Identification code

CHANGE IN CARBON STOCK
Net carbon stockchange in litter

Net carbon stock change
in dead wood

Net carbon stock change
in HWP (2)Net CO2
Net carbon stock change in soils

Mineral soils

Organic soils
Drained(Gg C)

Rewetted(Gg CO2)TOTAL FOR ACTIVITY FM

forested land for Carbon Equivalent Forest
TOTAL
cleared land within Carbon Equivalent Forest
TOTAL
lands subject to natural disturbances which associated emissions have been excluded from accounting
TOTAL
(1)

For lands reported as Carbon Equivalent Forest, report here the year in which the land has been either forested or cleared. While for lands subject to natural disturbances for which associated emissions have been
excluded from accounting, report here the year in which the natural disturbances occurred.

(2)

Data to be reported in this table come from the "Net Change" column of table 11A. A single value for the total net change in the HWP at national level could be reported here. Further, if HWP reporting is based on
instantaneous oxidation, report here IO

7687

2.16

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables
Second Order Draft

7688
TABLE 6B
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: FOREST MANAGEMENT REFERENCE LEVEL
Inventory Year
Technical correction as calculated in the reporting year: (2)Approach applied (1)Value inscribed in decision 2/CMP.7

2015

(1)

Business-as-usual, Base year(2)

Add a column for each reporting year in which a technical correction has been calculated

---

7689
7690
TABLE 6C
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: CARBON EQUIVALENT FORESTS
Inventory Year
CLEARED AREAGEOGRAPHICALLOCATION

Area

Identification code

(kha)

Total

Carbon stock(Gg C)

EQUIVALENT FORESTED AREA
NormalHarvesting cycle

GEOGRAPHICALLOCATION

Years

Identification code

CURRENT DATA

Subdivision

Area

Age ofplantation

Carbon stock

(kha)

Years

(Gg C)

Total

7691
7692

Draft KP Supplement

2A.17

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

TABLE 6D
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: BACKGROUND LEVEL OF EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH NATURAL DISTURBANCES IN FM LANDS AND ITS MARGIN, WHERE A MARGIN IS NEEDEDInventory Year
Background level

Methodology applied

Margin (where needed)(default/country-specific)(Gg CO2-equivalent)

7693
7694
TABLE 6E
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH NATURAL DISTURBANCES
Inventory YearGEOGRAPHICALLOCATION

Identification code

ACTIVITY DATA

Subdivision

Type of natural
disturbances (1)Year of occurrenceof natural
disturbance

EMISSIONS
Area
(kha)

CO2

CH4

N2O

total CO2equivalent(Gg)

Total for activity FM(1) More than a single natural disturbance may have occurred in the same year in the same land.

7695
7696

2.18

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables
Second Order Draft

TABLE 6F
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: REMOVALS SUBSEQUENT TO NATURAL DISTURBANCES
Inventory YearGEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION
Identification code

ACTIVITY DATA
Subdivision

Year of occurrence of natural
disturbances

Area
(kha)

INCREMENTALREMOVALS(Gg CO2)

Total FM land subject to natural disturbances

7697
7698

Draft KP Supplement

2A.19

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

Table 7
Carbon stock changes under elected Article 3.4 activities
Inventory YearGEOGRAPHICALLOCATION

ACTIVITY DATA
Activity (1)Identification code

Subdivision

CHANGE IN CARBON STOCK

Area subject tothe activity

Area oforganic soils
DrainedRewetted

Carbon stock change in above-groundbiomass

Carbon stock change in below-groundbiomass

Gains

Gains

LossesNet change(kha)Total for elected activity

Net change(Gg C)(2)

GEOGRAPHICALLOCATION

CHANGE IN CARBON STOCK

Identification code

Net carbon stock change inlitterNet carbon stock change indead wood

Net CO2
Net carbon stock change in soils

Mineral soils

Organic soils
Drained(Gg C)
Total for elected activity

LossesRewetted(Gg CO2)(2)(1)

Report the identification acronym of the elected activity i.e. CM, GM, RV, WDR(2)

For each elected activity, complete a set of rows with lands subject to the elected activity and add one row with the total for the elected activity

7699

2.20

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables
Second Order Draft

7700
TABLE 8A
DIRECT N2O EMISSIONS FROM N FERTILIZATION OF FOREST LAND
Inventory YearGEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION
Identification code

ACTIVITY DATAEMISSIONS
Total amount of fertilizer applied

N2O(kt N/year)(Gg)

Subdivision
Total

Total activity AR

Total activity FM (1)Total activity D (2)(1)

Excluding areas reported under the CEFC provision which have lost the forest cover and are subject to land uses other than forest(2)

Only for areas that have been subsequently reforested

7701
7702

Draft KP Supplement

2A.21

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

TABLE 8B
N2O EMISSIONS FROM DISTURBANCE ASSOCIATED WITH LAND-USE CONVERSION TO CROPLAND
Inventory YearGEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION
Identification code

ACTIVITY DATA
Activity (1)EMISSIONSLand area converted

N2O

(kha)

(Gg)

Subdivision

Total
Total activity D

Total elected activity (2)(1)

Report the identification acronym of the elected activity, Cropland Management, Grazing Land Management, Revegetation, and FM under the CEFC provision - i.e. CM, GM, RV, FM(2) For each elected activity, complete a set of rows with lands subject to the elected activity and add one row with the total for the elected activity

7703
7704

2.22

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables
Second Order Draft

TABLE 9A
CH4 AND N2O EMISSIONS FROM DRAINAGE OF ORGANIC SOILS
Inventory YearGEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION
Identification code

ACTIVITY DATA
Activity (1)EMISSINOS
Area

N2O

CH4

Subdivision
(kha)

(Gg)

Total
Total activity AR

Total activity D

Total activity FM

Total elected activity (2)(1)

Report the identification acronym of the elected activity i.e. CM, GM, RV, WDR.

(2)

For each elected activity, complete a set of rows with lands subject to the activity and add one row with the total for the elected activity

7705
7706

Draft KP Supplement

2A.23

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

TABLE 9B
CH4 AND N2O EMISSIONS FROM REWETTING OF ORGANIC SOILS
Inventory YearGEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION
Identification code

ACTIVITY DATA
Activity (1)EMISSIONS
Area

N2O

(2)

CH4

Subdivision
(kha)

(Gg)

Total
Total activity AR

Total activity D

Total activity FM

Total elected activity (3)(1)

Report the identification acronym of the elected activity i.e. CM, GM, RV, WDR.

(2)

Under Tier 1 this is assumed to be negligible(3)

For each elected activity, complete a set of rows with lands subject to the activity and add one row with the total for the elected activity

7707

2.24

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables
Second Order Draft

TABLE 10GHG EMISSIONS FROM BURNING OF ORGANIC MATTER
Inventory YearGEOGRAPHICALLOCATION

ACTIVITY DATAEMISSIONSCARBON POOLS

Identification code

Activity (1)Subdivision

Living biomass (LB)

Dead Organic Matter (DOM)

Soil Organic Matter(SOM) (3)

(2)

(2)

(2)

Description

Area burned (kha)
LB burned (kt dm)

Description
ValuesArea burned (kha)
DOM burned (kt dm)

Description
ValuesArea burned (kha)SOM burned (kt dm)

CO2 (4)CH4

N2O

Values(Gg)

Total
Total activity AR
Total for controlled burning

Total for wildfires

Total activity D
Total for controlled burning

Total for wildfires

7708
7709

Draft KP Supplement

2A.25

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

TABLE 10 (CONTINUED)
GHG EMISSIONS FROM BURNING OF ORGANIC MATTER
Inventory YearGEOGRAPHICALLOCATION

ACTIVITY DATAEMISSIONSCARBON POOLS

Identification code

Activity (1)Subdivision

Living biomass (LB)

Dead Organic Matter (DOM)

Soil Organic Matter(SOM) (3)

(2)

(2)

(2)

Description

Area burned (kha)
LB burned (kt dm)

Description
ValuesArea burned (kha)
DOM burned (kt dm)

Description
ValuesArea burned (kha)SOM burned (kt dm)

CO2 (4)CH4

N2O

Values(Gg)

Total activity FM
Total for controlled burning

Total for wildfires
Total elected activity (5)Total for controlled burning

Total for wildfires

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

Report the identification acronym of the elected activity i.e. CM, GM, RV, WDR.
For each activity, activity data should be selected between area burned (kha) or organic matter burned (kt dm).
Report this pool only in case of peatland burning.
If CO2 emissions from biomass burning are not already included in the carbon-stock change table of the relevant activity, they should be reported here. This also includes the carbon component of CH4.
For each elected activity, complete a set of rows with lands subject to the activity and add rows with the totals (total wildfire, total prescribed burning, total for the activity) of the elected activity

7710
7711

2.26

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables
Second Order Draft

7712
TABLE 11A
CARBON STOCK CHANGES IN THE HARVESTED WOOD PRODUCTS POOL
Inventory Year
ORIGIN OF WOOD
HarvestPRODUCT TYPE
HWP categories(1)PARAMETERS
Half-life(2)Subcategories(Kt C)(yrs)

Initialstock(3)CHANGE IN CARBON STOCK
Gains(4)Losses(4)(Kt C)Net CO2-C

Net change
(Kt)

Total
Total

Total for HWPAR
Total for category
Domestically consumed
Exported
Domestically consumed
Exported

Article 3.3 activity

Total for category
Domestically consumed
From
Afforestation
andReforestation

Exported
Domestically consumed
Exported
Total for category
Domestically consumed
Exported
Domestically consumed
Exported

From
Deforestation

7713
7714

Draft KP Supplement

2A.27

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

TABLE 11A (CONTINUED)CARBON STOCK CHANGES IN THE HARVESTED WOOD PRODUCTS POOL
Inventory Year
ORIGIN OF WOODPRODUCT TYPE

HarvestHWP categories(1)PARAMETERS
Half-life(2)Subcategories(Kt C)(yrs)

Initialstock(3)CHANGE IN CARBON STOCK
Gains(4)Losses(4)(Kt C)Net CO2-C

Net change(Kt)

Total for HWPFM
Total for category
Domestically consumed
Exported
Domestically consumed
Article 3.4 activity

Exported
Total for category
Domestically consumed

From Forest
Management

Exported
Domestically consumed
Exported
Total for category
Domestically consumed
Exported
Domestically consumed
Exported

From all remaining lands(1)

Includes sawnwood, wood-based panels, paper and paperboard.

(2)

Half-lives are needed when applying flux data method (i.e. Tier 2 method)(3)

Initial stock is the HWP stock of the specific product type at 1 January of the inventory year.

(4)

Gains refers to annual carbon inflow to HWP pool, losses refers to annual carbon outflow from HWP pool.

7715

2.28

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Annex 2A.1 Reporting Tables
Second Order Draft

TABLE 11B
HARVESTED WOOD PRODUCTS ACTIVITY DATA
Inventory YearHWP category(1)Reported unit(2)Production

ImportExportProduction

ImportExportProduction

ImportExportC conversion factor(3)(1)

Includes sawnwood, wood-based panels, paper and paperboard.

(2)

Reported e.g. in m³ or t

(3)

Applied to convert from HWP category units to carbon

7716
TABLE 11CHARVESTED WOOD PRODUCTS IN THE FMRL
Inventory Year
Approach applied(1)Inclusion of the historic pool(2)HWP value contained in Decision
2/CMP.7(3)(Yes/No)(Kt CO2-equivalent)Technical correction as calculated in the reporting year: (4)
2015

---

(1)

Business-as-usual, Base year, Instantaneous oxidation(2)

This is reflected in cell "Initial stock" in Table 11A(3)

Value derived from value in Appendix of the Annex of Decision 2/CMP.7 in column "Applying first-order decay function for HWP" less the value in column "Reference level" (the latter includes HWP on thebasis of instantaneous oxidation) (in Mt CO2 eq/yr)(4)

Add a column for each reporting year in which a technical correction has been calculated

7717

Draft KP Supplement

2A.29

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Glossary
Second Order Draft

7718

GLOSSARY

7719

Draft KP Supplement

G.1

Glossary

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
7720
7721

Accounting

7722
7723
7724
7725

Approach

The rules for comparing emissions and removals as reported with commitments.

The way in which areas are represented and reported for land-use categories, and conversions between land-use
categories, so that they are applied as appropriately and consistently as possible in inventory calculations. The
IPCC identifies Approaches 1, 2 and 3 of increasing geographic specificity.

7726
7727
7728
7729
7730
7731
7732
7733

Background Level

7734
7735
7736
7737
7738

Carbon Equivalent Forest Conversion (CEFC)

7739
7740

CEF-ar land: Land on which a Carbon Equivalent Forest is established as part of a Carbon Equivalent Forest
Conversion under the terms of Decision 2/CMP.7.

7741
7742

CEF-d land: Land on which a forest plantation is converted to non-forest as part of a Carbon Equivalent Forest
Conversion under the terms of Decision 2/CMP.7.

7743
7744
7745

Cropland

7746
7747
7748

Cropland Management 3

7749
7750
7751
7752

Elective activities

7753
7754

Estimation

7755
7756
7757

Statistical definition: Estimation is the assessment of the value of a quantity or its uncertainty through theassignment of numerical observation values in an estimation formula, or estimator. The results of estimation canbe expressed as follows:

7758
7759



a point estimation which provide a number which can be used as an approximation to a parameter (such as
the sample standard deviation which estimates the population standard deviation), or

7760



an interval estimate specifying a confidence level.

7761
7762

Example: A statement like ‘The total emission is estimated to be 100 kt and its coefficient of variation is 5%’ isbased upon point estimates of the sample mean and standard deviation, whereas a statement such as ‘The total

Under default assumptions, this is in forests the mean annual level of emissions from natural disturbances,
excluding statistical outliers, during a period before the second commitment period, called the calibration period.
The intention of using such a Background Level is to exclude, under specific conditions set by Decision
2/CMP.7 1 , extreme emissions from natural disturbances in forests from accounting during the commitment
period. Providing the expectation of net credits or debits is avoided, countries may develop other types of
Background Levels using their country-specific methods for excluding natural disturbance emissions fromaccounting.

The conversion of forest plantation to non-forest while simultaneously establishing a “Carbon Equivalent Forest”
on non-forest land elsewhere, under the terms of Decision 2/CMP.72. The “Carbon Equivalent Forest” must beof at least equal area and at least equal stock at the end of the normal rotation of the plantation forest cleared, ora debit will be incurred.

Arable and tillage land, and agro-forestry systems where vegetation falls below the threshold used for the forest
land category, consistent with the selection and application of national definitions.

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.

Article 3.4 activities that are not mandatory, but can be elected by a country for a commitment period. For thesecond commitment period these are Cropland Management, Grazing Land Management, Revegetation, andWetland Drainage and Rewetting.

Inventory definition: The process of calculating emissions.

1

Paragraphs 33-36 of the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p. 17-18.

2

Paragraphs 37-39 of the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use Change and forestry) contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p. 19.

3

In the context of the Kyoto Protocol, as stipulated by Decision 16/CMP.1, cf. paragraph 1 of the Annex to Decision
16/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3, p.5.

G.2

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Glossary
Second Order Draft

7763
7764

emission lies between 90 and 110 kt with probability 95%’ expresses the results of estimation as a confidence
interval.

7765
7766
7767

Forest cover

7768
7769

Forested land

7770
7771
7772
7773

Forest Management Reference Level

7774
7775
7776
7777
7778

Georeferencing

7779
7780
7781
7782

Good practice

7783
7784
7785

Good Practice covers choice of estimation methods appropriate to national circumstances, quality assurance andquality control at the national level, quantification of uncertainties and data archiving and reporting to promotetransparency.

7786
7787
7788
7789
7790
7791

Grassland

7792
7793
7794

Grazing Land Management 6

7795
7796

Half-life

7797
7798
7799
7800
7801

Indirect effects

7802

Interannual Variability

Tree cover which exceeds the country-specific thresholds for defining forest, consistent with Decision
16/CMP.14.
Land containing forest according to the country-specific definition of forest, consistent with Decision 16/CMP.15.

Value of annual net emissions and removals from Forest Management against which the net emissions andremovals reported for Forest Management will be compared for accounting purposes during the second
commitment period.

Georeferencing is the process of identifying the physical location of a particular area of land (e.g., that subject to
Article 3.3 or 3.4 activities) in terms of map projections or coordinate systems. It is the establishment ofrelationship between raster or vector images and coordinates, and the determination of the spatial location ofgeographical features in terms of size and configuration.

Good Practice is a set of procedures intended to ensure that greenhouse gas inventories are accurate in the sensethat they are systematically neither over- nor underestimates so far as can be judged, and that uncertainties are
reduced so far as practicable.

This category includes rangelands and pasture land that is not considered as cropland. It also includes systems
with vegetation that fall below the threshold used in the forest land category and is not expected to exceed,
without human intervention, the thresholds used in the forest land category. This category also includes all
grassland from wild lands to recreational areas as well as agricultural and silvo-pastural systems, subdivided into
managed and unmanaged, consistent with national definitions.

The system of practices on land used for livestock production aimed at manipulating the amount and type ofvegetation and livestock produced.

The number of years it takes to lose one-half of the material currently in the carbon pool.

The effects on emissions by sources and removals by sinks caused by climate change, raised CO2 concentrations,age legacy and atmospheric nitrogen deposition. According to Decision 16/CMP.1 removal resulting fromindirect effects are to be excluded from accounting of LULUCF activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4 of the
Kyoto Protocol7.

4

Paragraph 1 (a) of the Annex to Decision 16/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3, p.5.

5Paragraph 1 (a) of the Annex to Decision 16/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3, p.5.

6

In the context of the Kyoto Protocol, as stipulated by Decision 16/CMP.1, cf. paragraph 1 of the Annex to Decision
16/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3, p.5.

7

Paragraph 1(h) of Decision 16/CMP.1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3, p.3.

Draft KP Supplement

G.3

Glossary

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
7803
7804
7805
7806

Variation of GHG emissions by sources and removals by sinks, or a shift from being a net sink to a net sourcefrom year to year, caused by significant fluctuations or abrupt changes in environmental conditions due tonatural disturbances and climatic abnormality, such as wild fire, pest and pathogen attacks, drought, flooding,extreme temperatures.

7807
7808
7809
7810

Land 8

7811
7812
7813

Management practice

7814
7815
7816
7817

Mandatory activities

7818
7819
7820
7821
7822

Margin (for Background Level under Decision 2/CMP.7)

7823
7824
7825
7826
7827

Natural disturbances 9

7828
7829
7830

Other Land

7831
7832

Pasture

7833
7834
7835

Planted forest

7836
7837
7838
7839

Remote sensing

7840
7841

Reporting

7842
7843
7844
7845

Reporting hierarchy

Areas subject to the activities defined under Article 3.4, namely Forest Management, Cropland Management,
Grazing Land Management, Revegetation, and Wetland Drainage and Rewetting. Thus KP Supplement treats inthe same way land as units of land (see below).

An action or set of actions that affect the land, the stocks of pools associated with it or otherwise affect theexchange of greenhouse gases with the atmosphere.

Activities defined under Article 3.3, namely Afforestation, Reforestation and Deforestation, as wells as (for thesecond commitment period) Forest Management, and those Article 3.4 activities that were elected by a country
in the previous commitment period.

This is a specific value that is to be used in combination with the Background Level as a combined threshold to
identify years during the commitment period in which emissions from natural disturbances in forests are larger
than the Background Level plus the margin, and in which the country may exclude emissions from natural
disturbances in forests from accounting, under specific conditions set by the Decision 2/CMP.7.

Non-anthropogenic events or non-anthropogenic circumstances that cause significant emissions in forests andare beyond the control of, and not materially influenced by, a Party. These may include wildfires, insect anddisease infestations, extreme weather events and/or geological disturbances, beyond the control of, and notmaterially influenced by, a Party.

This category includes bare soil, rock, ice, and all unmanaged land areas that do not fall into any of the other fivecategories. It allows the total of identified land areas to match the national area, where data are available.

Grassland planted and/or managed for grazing.

Forest meeting the country definition of planted forest, which include forest plantations as defined in the 2006
IPCC Guidelines.

Practice of acquiring and using data from satellites and aerial photography to infer or measure land cover or infer
land use. May be used in combination with ground surveys for estimation, or to check the accuracy ofinterpretation.

The process of providing estimates to the UNFCCC.

A assignment of all activities under Article 3.3 and 3.4 and land subject to those activities, in which the activities
or lands for accounting and reporting of GHG emission and removal are represented as being "above," "below,"or "at the same level as" one another. According to Decision 2/CMP.610 and Decision 2/CMP.7 for reporting
8

In the context of the Kyoto Protocol, as stipulated by Decision 15/CMP.1, cf. paragraph 6 of the Annex to Decision
15/CMP.1 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.2, p.57.

9

In the context of the Kyoto Protocol, as stipulated by Decision 2/CMP.7, cf. paragraph 1 of the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7(Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p 13.

10

FCCC/KP/CMP/2010/12/Add.1

G.4

Draft KP Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Glossary
Second Order Draft

7846
7847

consistency and transparency, mandatory activities take precedence over elective activities, Afforestation,
Reforestation and/or Deforestation activities over forest management activity.

7848
7849
7850
7851
7852
7853

Reporting Method 1

7854
7855
7856
7857

Reporting Method 2

7858
7859
7860
7861
7862
7863
7864

Salvage logging

7865
7866
7867
7868

Technical Correction

7869
7870
7871

Units of lands 12

7872
7873

Wall-to-wall mapping

7874
7875
7876
7877

Wetlands

7878
7879
7880
7881
7882
7883

Wetland Drainage and Rewetting

Method of reporting information on geographical boundaries of areas encompassing lands subject to Article 3.3
and 3.4 activities that 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.

Method of reporting information on geographical boundaries of areas encompassing lands subject to Article 3.3
and 3.4 activities that 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.

Is the practice of harvesting and removing trees or parts of trees (living or dead) from disturbed areas. This
management activity is also known as salvage cutting, salvage harvesting, sanitation cutting, and otherdesignations. If it is conducted on areas not subject to the application of the natural disturbance provisions, it canbe part of the regular forest management emissions and removals estimation and accounting framework,
i.e. salvage logging would then be treated as harvest. In case the Party chooses to exclude emissions due tonatural disturbances, it “shall account for emissions associated with salvage logging”11

Value of net emissions and removals, which is added at the time of accounting to the original Forest
Management Reference Level to ensure that accounted emissions and removals will not reflect the impact of
methodological inconsistencies.

Areas subject to the activities defined under Article 3.3, namely Afforestation, Reforestation and Deforestation.
Thus KP Supplement treats in the same way land as land (see above).

Complete spatial coverage of a land area, e.g., by satellite data.

This category includes areas of peat extraction and land that is covered or saturated by water for all or part of theyear (e.g., peatlands) and that does not fall into the Forest Land, Cropland, Grassland or Settlements categories.
It includes reservoirs as a managed sub-division and natural rivers and lakes as unmanaged sub-divisions.
13

System of practices for draining and rewetting on land with organic soil that covers a minimum area of 1 hectare.
The activity applies to all lands that have been drained since 1990 and to all lands that have been rewetted since1990 and that are not accounted for under any other activity as defined in the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7, where
drainage is the direct human-induced lowering of the soil water table and rewetting is the direct human-induced
partial or total reversal of drainage.

11

Paragraph 33 (c) of the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p.17.

12

In the context of the Kyoto Protocol, as stipulated by Decision 15/CMP.1, cf. paragraph 6 of the Annex to Decision
15/CMP.1 contained in document FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.2, p.57.

13

In the context of the Kyoto Protocol, as stipulated by Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land Use, Land-use Change and Forestry), cf.
paragraph 1 of the Annex to Decision 2/CMP.7 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) contained in document
FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, p 13.

Draft KP Supplement

G.5