INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE

IPCC/OECD/IEA Programme on National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories

Expert Group Meeting on
Biomass Burning and Land-use Change and Forestry
Rockhampton, Australia
15-18 September, 1997

Meeting Report

Supporting material prepared for consideration by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This
supporting material has not been subject to formal IPCC review and approval processes.

Acknowledgements
This report was prepared by Bo Lim, Peter Frost, Mike Apps, Sandra Brown, Youba Sokona and Yamil
Bonduki. We are grateful to the many scientists and inventory experts who contributed to this report,
including: Eric Anderson, Kansri Boonpragob, Bill Burrows, Stuart Calman, Peter Cheng, Graham
Farquhar, Wojciech Galinski, Roger Gifford, Bill Hohenstein, Art Jaques, Olga Krankina, Toru
Nagayama, Igor Nazarov, Henry Nix, Kim Pingoud, John Taylor, Mary-Anne Wilson and Tony Weir. We
also thank members of the secretariat: Pierre Boileau and Audrey Glynn-Garnier. Ann Johnston and Marc
Clark provided editing assistance. The meeting was kindly hosted by the Climate Change Branch of theAustralian Department of the Environment, Sport, Territories and Local Government.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................................................1
1. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................................................2
2. OBJECTIVES OF THE MEETING ...................................................................................................................................2
3. ISSUES ..........................................................................................................................................................................2
3.1 BIOMASS BURNING ............................................................................................................................... ...................3
3.2 UNCERTAINTIES AND DATA ACQUISITION ..................................................................................................................4
3.3 INTERPRETATION OF IPCC SOURCE/SINK CATEGORIES ............................................................................................5
4. RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................7
GLOSSARY .......................................................................................................................................................................8
ANNEX I DRAFTING TEAM REPORT ..........................................................................................................................10
Methodological Issues..................................................................................................................................................10
COMPREHENSIVE CARBON FLUXES ...............................................................................................................................10
CARBON STOCKS AND FLUXES ......................................................................................................................................11
TRACE GAS EMISSIONS FROM SAVANNAS .......................................................................................................................12
ANTHROPOGENIC AND NATURAL EMISSIONS AND REMOVALS .........................................................................................12
Data generation and uncertainties ................................................................................................. ............................13
DATA GENERATION ......................................................................................................................................................13
UNCERTAINTIES ..........................................................................................................................................................14
Definition of IPCC Source/Sink categories................................................................................................................15
ECOSYSTEM CLASSIFICATION .......................................................................................................................................15
UNACCOUNTED PROCESSES .........................................................................................................................................16
TIME PERIODS FOR REPORTING ....................................................................................................................................16
OMITTED CATEGORIES.................................................................................................................................................17
Other issues ..................................................................................................................................................................17
SHORT- VERSUS LONG-TERM CHANGES.........................................................................................................................17
EXCHANGING INFORMATION AND EXPERTISE ................................................................................................................17
ANNEX II LIST OF PARTICIPANT’S ............................................................................................................................18

Summary
In September 1997, the IPCC/OECD/IEA Inventories Programme held an expert meeting in Australia on
Biomass Burning and Land-Use Change and Forestry. The overall objective of the meeting was to
identify ways of improving the land-use change and forestry chapter of the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines
for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (Guidelines). The meeting addressed three main areas:•= biomass burning•= inventory data•= interpretation of IPCC Source/Sink Categories.
The main conclusions of the meeting are summarised below.
A key issue was the separation of anthropogenic from natural fires. Experts recognised that the separation
is technically very difficult, but scientific information might help make an approximate assignment. As astarting point, the meeting considered two methods for estimating CO2 emissions from and removals byland-use change and forestry. These were the Comprehensive Flux and Carbon Stock methods.
The Comprehensive Flux approach would employ similar principles to those in the IPCC Guidelines, but
extend them to include CO2 fluxes from all terrestrial carbon pools, including those due to changes in fire
regimes. The Carbon Stock approach would be based on measurements of carbon stock in biomass,
product pools, litter and soil.
These methods offer several benefits. First, both methods might provide greater consistency andtransparency in national inventories than the present Guidelines. Second, these methods may provide more
complete emissions data. Complete information is important; it may allow better separation ofanthropogenic from natural fires. However, experts recognised that this distinction would remaintechnically difficult for both methods, and to some extent arbitrary. Some accounting options were
proposed for this purpose, but none were tested for their feasibility. Experts agreed that further
examination of these options would be valuable.
Under the Guidelines, emissions and removals of greenhouse gases from managed forests are included innational GHG inventories. Many experts considered that almost all forests are disturbed from their naturalstate, and should be classified as managed. Possible exceptions are boreal forests in remote parts ofCanada and Russia.

s:\applic\inv\workshop\lucii\lucsum11.doc

11. BackgroundIn the Compilation and Synthesis of National Communications, the UNFCCC Secretariat identified
several problems in estimating and reporting greenhouse gas (GHG) fluxes from forestry and land-use
change. In September 1996, IPCC-XII asked the IPCC/OECD/IEA Programme on National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories to bring experts together to consider these issues. An Expert Meeting on Biomass Burningand Land-use Change and Forestry was held in Rockhampton (15-18 September 1997) at the invitation of
the Australian Government. This report summarises discussions and incorporates recommendations fromthat meeting. (For details, see Annex I.)

2. Objectives of the meeting
The overall objective was to identify ways to improve the land-use change and forestry chapter of the
Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National GHG Inventories (Guidelines). Meeting participants wereasked to:•= evaluate inventory methods for estimating emissions from biomass burning;•= identify sources of uncertainty in the land-use change and forestry categories of GHG inventories;•= provide guidance on how errors can be reduced, including through improvements in datacollection;•= consider different interpretations of IPCC definitions for carbon sources and sinks ; and•= recommend options for possible revisions of the Guidelines.

3. Issues
The UNFCCC Secretariat noted a lack of uniform reporting of GHG inventory data for land-use change
and forestry. This was largely attributed to:
Differences in methodology. Annex-I Parties used both the IPCC and their own national estimation
methodologies. The Guidelines encourage the use of country-specific methods and data. But a flexible
approach carries the risk of introducing inconsistencies between national GHG estimates, making themless comparable.
Variations in reporting carbon components. Parties do not include emissions and removals from thesame set of carbon pools. For instance, some countries include flux estimates for soil carbon andharvested wood products, while others do not. (Solutions are pending. The Guidelines now contain adefault method for soil carbon. A default methodology for emissions from harvested wood products isbeing developed.)
Inconsistent interpretation of the term anthropogenic. The UNFCCC makes it clear that only
anthropogenic GHG sources and sinks are to be included in National Communications, but the limits ofanthropogenic influence on natural systems are not well defined. Because of varying interpretations,countries attribute the land area of managed forests and fires differently.
Data quality. Some Parties reported a high degree of uncertainty in their estimates of GHG emissions andremovals resulting from land-use change and forestry. Others were more confident about their estimates.
Many Parties attributed the uncertainty of estimates to poor quality of data.

s:\applic\inv\workshop\lucii\lucsum11.doc

2

These problems should be put in context. Some participants noted that the uncertainties in estimation ofcarbon fluxes in land-use change and forestry are no higher for GHG estimates than for other biogenic
sources (e.g., waste).
The following sections summarise discussions on biomass burning, uncertainties and data acquisition andinterpretation of IPCC Source/Sink categories.

3.1 Biomass burning
Participants considered:
What additional components of the IPCC Methodology are needed to estimate GHG emissions from forestand savanna fires more accurately?
To what extent can we distinguish between anthropogenic and natural fires in forested ecosystems andsavannas?
The current Guidelines do not include methods to estimate CO2 emissions from all types of biomassburning in a consistent way. Experts concluded that the IPCC Methodology does not adequately accountfor global CO2 emissions from forest fires, nor for the subsequent uptake of CO2 through regrowth. Theysuggested the Forest and Grassland Conversion section of the Guidelines be modified to include the effects
of forest fires. The effects of other forest disturbances, such as pests and wind damage [windthrow], could
also be incorporated in future revisions. There was no discussion of whether these disturbances should beclassified under human impact.
With regard to non-CO2 emissions from savanna burning, the participants agreed that the IPCC
Methodology was the best currently available. They noted, however, that scientific advances are likely inthis area, and suggested that the IPCC Methodology could and should be adjusted in future to reflect theseadvances. An example is more accurate estimation of biomass burned [fuel load]. The Guidelines provide
regional defaults. Participants agreed that it would be better to incorporate algorithms that would allow
Guidelines users to estimate fuel loads more accurately in order to reflect differences in climate,vegetation, soils, and animal grazing [herbivory].
Considerable discussion was devoted to the problem of distinguishing between natural and anthropogenic
fires. As noted above, Parties to the Convention are obliged to report only anthropogenic sources andsinks, yet they are not consistent in their interpretation of what is or is not anthropogenic in origin.
However, the separation of natural from anthropogenic fires is technically very difficult. Despite advancesin the use of satellite remote sensing to detect fires, these data do not indicate either the cause or the areaburned by individual fires. Techniques are available to interpret the data, but the cost of doing so iscurrently prohibitive for most tropical countries, where wildfires frequently occur. Distinguishing between
traditional uses of fire and other anthropogenic fires is also problematic. Science might help the policy
community to approximate the degrees of anthropogenic influence.
Regardless of how a fire is classified, both emissions from fires and removals through regrowth should beconsistently treated. For natural fires, emissions and removals should both be excluded from national
inventories. Conversely, for anthropogenic fires, emissions and removals should be included.
Currently, the Guidelines adopt a land-use change approach to estimating CO2. The method is based on
rates of land-use change and carbon density per unit area, including soil carbon. The net flux of carbon fora given year is based on the release and uptake of that year, plus the delayed fluxes from previous years.
As a first step, experts suggested that Guidelines move towards comprehensive accounting of carbon
fluxes from fires, both natural and anthropogenic. This approach would provide more complete emissions
s:\applic\inv\workshop\lucii\lucsum11.doc

3data, for all sources and sinks, not just fires, but it would not avoid the need to distinguish between
anthropogenic and natural fires. Participants discussed two possible approaches, based on ‘Comprehensive
CO2 Fluxes’ and ‘Carbon Stocks’.
=Comprehensive CO2 fluxes. This approach would employ similar principles to those in the Guidelines
and extend them to include CO2 fluxes from all terrestrial carbon pools, including those due to changes infire and other disturbance regimes. It would require additional data, some of which may already exist. It is
technically feasible to develop a methodology to estimate changes in CO2 fluxes, possibly using
spreadsheets/workbooks. The feasibility of separating natural and anthropogenic fluxes, and thepracticality of such an approach for developing countries were not discussed.

=

Carbon stocks. This approach is based on measurements of carbon stock in biomass, product pools, litterand soil. As a supplement to the current IPCC Methodology, participants suggested that guidelines could
be given to countries to enable them to develop carbon stock accounts. Some countries, such as the USA,already have such an accounting system. The difficulty of determining the causes of changes in stock wasrecognised.
Both approaches might allow for greater transparency and consistency than the present system. The
difficulty of separating anthropogenic from natural emissions and removals would remain. Participants
developed a preliminary list of possible solutions. They suggested that a single global methodology may
not be appropriate; rather, a set of global principles which recognises regional ecological factors could be
developed. Further discussion is needed to assess their viability.
Nevertheless, some participants felt strongly that the definition and attribution of emissions fromanthropogenic fires would require a policy decision under the Convention. Several cases illustrate thispoint. First, ‘traditional’ fires have been used to clear land for millennia. Some countries include theresulting emissions in their national inventories, whereas others argue they should be excluded. Second,prescribed burning pre-empts natural wildfires which would have resulted in greater ‘non-anthropogenic’emissions. Yet countries are allocated anthropogenic emissions that would be excluded from national
inventories. This current method of accounting provides a perverse policy incentive. Third, fires do notrespect national boundaries. If a fire crosses a border, should these emissions be attributed to the country
from which the fire originated? The question of what constitutes an anthropogenic fire, and how theresulting emissions and removals should be attributed to nations, remain unresolved. The same questions
apply to accounting for removals of CO 2 through post-fire regrowth.

3.2 Uncertainties and data acquisition
Participants considered:
How can the sources of uncertainties of GHG estimates be identified?
How can guidance be given to countries on the acquisition and use of data?
How can errors in GHG emissions from land-use change and forestry be more explicitly reported innational inventories?
In compiling their GHG inventories, many countries experience difficulties with inadequate data. A key
question was whether it would be better to use a default estimation methodology and data, or to omit
estimates from the inventory. Participants agreed that it would generally be better to include all land-use
change and forestry processes: the error arising from omitting estimates is probably greater than the errorof their inclusion. To estimate default data, experts felt that ranges of values, or algorithms for calculating
defaults, would be better than the universal values currently provided in the Guidelines.

s:\applic\inv\workshop\lucii\lucsum11.doc

4

The ecosystem classification in the Guidelines is based on Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO)
definitions. Appropriate classification of ecosystems is the first step in compiling land-use change andforestry inventories. Some participants felt that the IPCC classification did not correspond to commonly
recognised ecosystems, thus contributing to uncertainty. Under the ecosystem classification scheme in the
Guidelines, almost any wooded ecosystem is classed as a forest. This conflicts with most commonly
accepted definitions of the term forest and other wooded ecosystems.
Alternatively, new hierarchical classification schemes based on biome and bioclimatic or environmental
domains could explicitly link regional vegetation types with a global classification scheme. Someparticipants suggested that the IPCC could develop a global classification scheme in co-operation withother global scientific programmes (IGBP-GTCE, IGBP-DIS, IGAC, IGBP-LUCC, GEIA, FAO, GCOS,
GTOS). Over the long term, this would ensure that any future IPCC classification system was consistent
with the collection of field data. Ultimately, the harmonisation of forestry datasets would increase theprecision of GHG emissions estimates.
Some experts disagreed that an alternative global classification system was needed. Inventories arecompiled nationally and countries should be allowed to use their own system to classify lands. This IPCC
system was developed to parallel the FAO default data on deforestation and biomass. The IPCC system
focuses on tropical regions as this is where data are most needed.
Experts suggested that applying the concept of error to emissions estimates was more useful thanuncertainty, which is, by definition, unquantifiable. However, under the Convention, the terms ‘error’ and‘uncertainty’ are used interchangeably. Errors do not necessarily imply mistakes but encompass randomvariation (sampling error), and systematic bias (e.g., measurement error, transcription error). Redefinitionof a well-accepted term in the policy forum, such as uncertainty, may cause unnecessary confusion. Other
experts suggest that this discussion on uncertainties is mainly a question of semantics. Uncertainty
includes both quantifiable and unquantifiable errors.
In research, sensitivity tests are used to analyse the adequacy of algorithms for describing theenvironment. Using a range of values for parameters, emissions estimates are calculated for a particularalgorithm. The observed effect on the magnitude of the estimates is a sensitivity test. Sensitivity testing of
the IPCC Methodology could be further investigated by the research community to identify areas of themethodology for further improvement.
For some national inventories, a statistical approach to estimating the precision of estimates is currently
not possible. Often national datasets on land-use change and forestry are too small for statistical analysis.
As more national data become available, the estimation of error will become feasible.
There was concern that the treatment of below-ground carbon (roots and soil) is inadequate and harvested
wood products are lacking altogether in the Guidelines. Discussion was deferred to future IPCC Expert
Meetings.

3.3 Interpretation of IPCC Source/Sink categories
Participants considered:
Which categories require clarification?
What constitutes human influence and impact on a forest?
When is a forest under anthropogenic influence?
Should natural processes, such as CO2 fertilisation, which are under indirect human influence, be classed
as anthropogenic?
Are the averaging times for data input and inventory reporting appropriate?

s:\applic\inv\workshop\lucii\lucsum11.doc

5Issues of definition and interpretation are often complex. They frequently have significant policy
implications. Some possible solutions to problems were proposed by participants; others will be addressedin the continuing work of the IPCC. Topics discussed include:
Managed forests. There was a lively debate on what constitutes a managed forest. A precise definition of
the term is critical because countries need to know what to include or exclude from their forest
inventories. The Guidelines (Reference Manual, Chapter 5) recognise the difficulty of distinguishing
between natural and managed forests. The Common Reporting Framework refers to managed forests as‘all trees planted or managed by man for profit, pleasure, wind or water-erosion protection etc.’ The
Reference Manual (Chapter 5) specifies that all existing forests should be counted, but notes that natural,
unmanaged forests are not considered to be either an anthropogenic source or sink and are excluded fromthe calculations... Note: Forests classified as natural, or abandoned/regrowing, can be excluded from thewoody biomass stocks accounting only if there is not significant current human interaction with these
forests.
After a long discussion, the majority of experts agreed that almost all forests are disturbed from theirnatural state, and should be considered as managed. Possible exceptions were boreal forests in remote
Canada and Russia. Others disagreed with these statements. There was no consensus on how to deal withother forest lands (e.g., urban forests).
CO2 fertilisation. The Guidelines can accommodate the inclusion of any human-induced emissions andremovals (Volume 1; Overview) providing these processes are adequately documented. Enhanced carbon
sequestration due to carbon dioxide fertilisation is an example. IPCC Working Group 1 defines enhanced
carbon sequestration as a natural response to anthropogenic disturbance. Current estimates of Global
Warming Potentials (GWP) are based on this premise. If CO2 fertilisation is defined as an anthropogenic
sink, absolute GWPs may need to be re-estimated as this would affect the atmospheric lifetime of CO2.
Participants did not address the significance of these varying interpretations. Further discussion wasdeferred to future IPCC meetings.
Woody plant encroachment. Atmospheric CO2 is sequestered by woody plant encroachment throughincreases in biomass above ground and below ground, and possibly also in soils. Large areas in Australia,
South and North America, and South Africa are affected by the phenomenon. It is indirectly caused byanthropogenic activities including land-clearing practices, animal grazing, and changing fire regimes.
The periodic clearing of woody weeds is counted as an emission source under the IPCC category of forest
clearing. Experts recommended that national GHG inventories should therefore also include removals bysinks created by regrowth, e.g., ‘thickening’. When the periodicity of the cycle of clearing and regrowth isless than the averaging period for data used to construct an inventory, emissions and removals cancel out.
In this case, it is unnecessary to include both sources and sinks in national GHG inventories.
Averaging periods for data input. For the preparation of national inventories, the current Guidelines
recommend averaging inventory data over 3 to 20 years prior to the inventory year. The length of
averaging periods is chosen to reflect the timescale of immediate and delayed emissions by sources andremovals by sinks. Some participants said that these timescales would have to be re-examined after COP3, taking into consideration the availability of national and global forest inventories. The relationshipbetween the delayed effects of emissions and removal processes and national commitment periods(targets) under the Kyoto Protocol have both scientific and policy implications.
As a follow-up activity, participants agreed to contribute additional default data for possible inclusion in
the Guidelines.

s:\applic\inv\workshop\lucii\lucsum11.doc

6

4. Recommendations
Experts suggested that the Guidelines be amended as follows:
Managed forests. Emissions and removals should be reported in national GHG inventories for all
forests and wooded areas, unless a specific case can be made for their exclusion. When a specific casefor exclusion is made, both emissions and uptake through biomass regrowth should be excluded. The
majority of experts noted that almost all forests can be considered as managed, with the possible
exception of remote parts of Russia and Canada.
Forest fires. To improve transparency in reporting, countries are encouraged to identify the total andanthropogenic emissions estimates for all forest fires, as far as possible. This recommendation could
be extended to include all sources and sinks where it is difficult to decide whether the cause is naturalor anthropogenic. In all cases, both emissions and uptake through regrowth should be consistently
reported in national inventories.
Natural processes under indirect human influence. Any anthropogenic processes that cause
increased biomass densities should be accounted for within the Guidelines through complete
inventorying of biomass changes. These processes include CO2 fertilisation effects, if any, and woody
plant encroachment.
=

Methodological approach. A framework for full carbon accounting for land-use change and forestry is
recommended. This would be a fundamental change from the Guidelines; currently, some carbon
components are optional. Two approaches were considered: comprehensive CO2 flux and carbon stock.
These approaches should yield the same net emissions and removals of CO2, allowing for a degree ofverification.

=

Causes in changes of flux and stock. For both approaches, solutions to identify causes in changes ofemissions and removals would be necessary. There are conceptual and technical difficulties in separating
anthropogenic from natural influences on biomass burning on a national basis. It is not possible to arrive
at a general criterion to distinguish between these influences. It may be possible to make an approximate
assignment of the human component. Both policy and scientific considerations are equally important.
Savannas. Savannas should be reported under categories 5A1c, 5A1d, and 5A4 of the Guidelines.
Woody savannas are not clearly identified in the ecosystem categories in the Guidelines. This may leadto their omission when accounting for emissions by sources and removals by sinks.
Improvement of inventory data. Sensitivity analysis is needed to identify and focus effort on key datathat improve the precision and accuracy of GHG inventories.
Uncertainties. In national GHG inventories, estimates of uncertainty should be expressed on an ordinalscale rather than nominally as high, medium or low.
National feedback. Communication between the scientific community and Guidelines users should be apriority of the IPCC/OECD/IEA Inventory Programme on National GHG Inventories.

=

Note: Only the key short-term recommendations are listed here. For further information, see Annex.

s:\applic\inv\workshop\lucii\lucsum11.doc

7

Glossary
Absolute error
The absolute deviation of x (a variate) from its ‘true’ value.

Accuracy
The exactness of an estimate. (Accuracy is to be contrasted with precision)

Confidence
Refers to confidence interval.

Confidence Interval
Define two statistics t1 and t2 (functions of sample values only) such that, θ being a parameter under
estimate,

Pr(t1 ≤ θ ≤ t 2 ) = α
where α is some fixed probability, the interval between t 1 and t2 is called a confidence interval.

Consistency
Concerned with the internal agreement of data or procedures. (Consistency is to be contrasted withvalidity)

Emission factor
A coefficient which relates the activity data to the amount of chemical compound emitted.

Error of estimation
In regression analysis where the regression equation is used to estimate the ‘dependent’ from given valuesof the ‘independent’ variates, the difference between the estimated and the observed value of thedependent variate.

IEA
International Energy Agency

IPCC
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. A special intergovernmental body established by UNEP
and the WMO to provide assessments of the results of climate change research to policy makers.

OECD
Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development

Precision
Repeatability of an estimate. In general the precision of an estimator varies with the square root of thenumber of observations upon which it is based. (Precision is to be contrasted with accuracy)

Uncertainty
The range of error of an estimate. (Also loosely defined as the range between the upper and lower
quartiles)

UNFCCC
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

s:\applic\inv\workshop\lucii\lucsum11.doc

8

Validation
A procedure which provides, by reference to independent sources, evidence that an inquiry is free frombias or otherwise conforms to its declared purpose. (Validity is to be contrasted with consistency)

Verification
A procedure to test the internal agreement of data or procedures. (Verification is to be distinguished fromvalidation)s:\applic\inv\workshop\lucii\lucsum11.doc

9

ANNEX I Drafting Team Report(Rockhampton, 19 September 1997)
Methodological issues
Comprehensive carbon fluxes
Currently, the Guidelines do not include methods to estimate carbon emissions from all types of biomassburning in a consistent way. The effect of fire on the net carbon flux must take into account the fireemission (immediate and delayed) and the processes of growth and redistribution of carbon and nutrients
between biospheric pools.
Disturbances (fire, insects, diseases, etc.) form an integral part of the carbon cycle in forest ecosystems,
and the methodology used to estimate the impact of these disturbances will need to be consistent with themethodology used to estimate biomass growth. Current methods account for all biomass regrowth;
however, the impact of disturbances is effectively ignored. Including forest fires and other standreplacement disturbances in the reporting requirements can significantly improve the accuracy of national
inventories of greenhouse gas emissions.
The IPCC Methodology for prescribed burning of savannas, being an annual accounting process, makes
the simplifying assumption that there is no net change in carbon stocks as a result of fire. This is ajustifiable assumption where there has been no change in fire regime, but is demonstrably untrue where
the fire regime has changed over a longer time frame in both savannas and other recovering vegetation
types such as forests. The inclusion of carbon fluxes in a robust way that is also consistent with otherforms of disturbance (including forestry) requires a comprehensive system approach with changes incarbon in plant, detritus, soil, product and waste pools, tracked over time. It is technically feasible todevelop a generic approach to estimate these changes. This will require two years to develop, and should
be a target for the next IPCC methodology revision.
Recommendations
As an interim step towards taking a consistent account of the impacts of fire and other disturbances and of
the biomass regrowth following such disturbances, the Expert Group encourages the approach outlined
below, which does not require significant changes to the Guidelines over the long term.
•= Carbon emissions from forest fires can be calculated by using the modified Forest and Grassland
Conversion methodology. The name should be changed to reflect the inclusion of fires anddisturbances caused by other agents that are not connected with land-use change (e.g., Forest andGrassland Disturbance and Conversion).
=•= The IPCC Methodology could encourage reporting of stand replacement disturbances on all territorythat is included in biomass growth calculations. For some countries, this may mean the entire territoryof the country. For others, certain territorial or administrative units may be excluded if there is no
direct human impact there. Lands excluded on this basis should then also be excluded from biomass
growth calculations. For disturbance agents other than fires, only stand replacement disturbances – i.e.
disturbances that kill the greater part of main canopy trees - have to be included.

s:\applic\inv\workshop\lucii\lucsum11.doc

10•= Specific types of stand replacement disturbance may vary by ecological unit and by country. The mostcommon types will include fire, windthrow, and pest and pathogen outbreaks; an ‘Other’ category will
be offered to specify any other disturbance agents.
=•= Calculation of carbon emissions from fires follows Workbook sections 5.3 and 5.4. For other kinds of
disturbance, only post-disturbance emissions need be calculated.
=•= Accounting for non-stand replacing fires can assume no net change in aboveground biomass unlessavailable national data show otherwise. Guidelines for savanna burning to calculate non-CO2 emissions
can be followed.
•= In the absence of country-specific information to the contrary, net emissions from soils may be
assumed to be zero. This assumption needs to be researched.

Carbon stocks and fluxes
A stock-based approach requires calculation of the total amount of carbon storage in their natural systems
over two time periods. The flux of carbon for a given year is derived from the difference between two
stock estimates. By contrast, the “flux” method attempts to directly quantify emissions or sequestration fora given year by estimating the areas affected by the rate of carbon change for those areas.
The main benefits of a stock approach are summarised as follows:•= Understanding stocks can help to balance fluxes.
•= Stock data may be easier to derive from data already being collected by countries for other purposes.
•= Stock data are likely to be less variable over long periods of time.
•= Methods could be more cost-effective and verifiable.
•= Data will be needed for estimating total carbon budget.
•= Stocks are also much better units for projecting carbon fluxes from land use.
Basic data requirements of a stock approach are: mass of carbon per unit of land area; area of land
category; and volume of growing stock or another proxy for carbon.
A stock approach needs to be better defined in the methodologies. Reporting tables and methods forgenerating annual sequestration from carbon stock data are needed. Better data are also needed on soil
carbon and its dynamics under various forms of disturbance and recovery from disturbance.
Recommendations•= We commend the ‘stock-change’ approach as being a valuable and practical overall integration ofnational annual CO2 fluxes geographically disaggregated. However, to meet the objectives of the
UNFCCC, the approach requires supportive information which permits disaggregation of the causes ofchanges in stocks. Such information about causes will focus attention on net emission control measures
which are acceptable as criteria for meeting emission targets. It is necessary to develop guidelines onwhat supportive information is required.
=•= The IPCC Methodology could encourage estimation of forest carbon stocks. Even if data do not exist,
default methodologies could be used to estimate carbon stocks in much the same way they are
currently being used to estimate carbon sequestration.
=•= The stock approach can also be applied to other components of land-use change and biomass burning.
Carbon emissions from long-term changes in carbon stocks due to unsustainable savanna burning
could be estimated using a variant of this methodology.
s:\applic\inv\workshop\lucii\lucsum11.doc

11=•= Recognising that some countries are already using this approach and others may move towards thisapproach, we recommend that the next revision of the Guidelines should provide more specificguidance on how to estimate emissions and/or removals by a stock change approach, and how tofacilitate the transparent reporting of estimates generated using the approach.
=•= Nevertheless, while recognising that complete analysis of fluxes leads to an equivalent budget, and thatsome fluxes (especially of trace gases) are more readily measured and estimated directly, we
recommend that the next revision of the Guidelines should also continue to offer guidance on how toestimate emissions and/or removals through a flux approach, emphasising that the fluxes reported also
account for a closed carbon budget.
=•= Use of a stock-based approach does not mean the complete abandonment of the flux-based approach.
Measurements of fluxes, obtained independently, can be used to cross-check estimates of change instocks.

Trace gas emissions from savannas
The IPCC Methodology for calculating the total non-CO2 trace gas emissions from savanna fires is
considered to be the best available method. As with other inventory guidelines, the method is subject tocontinued review as scientific knowledge improves. In the medium term, however, its accuracy andimplementation can be improved by providing better data, particularly with respect to fuel loads. Fuelload is sensitive to climate, vegetation structure, soil type, herbivory and period between fires. Given thiscomplexity, and the high spatial variability in savannas, the use of a shared model of fuel loads andemissions, rather than unrepresentative point data or default values, may be the most effective way to
improve accuracy at the national and global levels. The development of such a model is recommended andcould be completed from existing components within two years.
The general approach used for estimating trace gas emissions from savanna burning could and should be
used in all vegetation types that burn. In so doing, it is important to ensure consistency of the approachacross all sectors affected by biomass burning (forestry, savanna, agriculture etc.). Additional data, suchas fuel and fire-type specific emission factors, many of which already exist, will be required for the newvegetation types.

Anthropogenic and natural emissions and removals
The Guidelines should clarify the national reporting of total emission and uptake from fires. In addition tothis, there is an expressed policy need to ascribe these net emissions to ‘anthropogenic’ or ‘natural’ fires.
It is neither practical, nor sensible, to assign either the trace gas or CO2 emissions and uptake resulting
from fires to anthropogenic versus natural by classifying the cause of ignition of individual fires. Humans
influence fire emissions and uptake by altering the fire regime in many direct and indirect ways other thanby ignition. The indirect human effects on fire regimes may also have transboundary causes andimplications; climatic change is one example.
There are conceptual difficulties in distinguishing anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic fluxes of tracegases and carbon pool changes associated with fire on a country-by-country basis. Accordingly, it is nottechnically possible to arrive at a general criterion for separating anthropogenic from natural causes in thenational inventories.
Nevertheless, it is possible to make an approximate assignment of human effect by estimating the naturalfire regime of a region and counting deviations from this as anthropogenic. There are several technicallypossible ways of doing this, some of which are outlined below. The appropriateness of the methods will
depend on biome and fire regime. The use of one global method may not be appropriate but a set ofglobally principles which recognise regional ecological factors can be developed.
s:\applic\inv\workshop\lucii\lucsum11.doc

12

Recommendations
We emphasise that the following list is not exclusive but rather comprises examples of the methods thatmight be examined in association with the development process of the comprehensive and carbon stock
approaches mentioned above. In both cases, the proportion of biomass growth attributed to natural
disturbances should be excluded from the carbon uptake calculation.
•= Define the natural emissions of trace gases and stocks of carbon to be those which would haveresulted from what is believed to have been associated with the pre-industrial fire regime. The
difference between the total emissions and the inferred natural emissions could then be assumed to beof anthropogenic cause. Regrowth associated with natural fires is excluded from the carbon uptake
calculation.
•= Define a particular observation period - for instance, the twenty-year period prior to 1990 - as thenatural fire disturbance level, and then treat changes in fluxes of trace gases or carbon pool sizes
resulting from any subsequent deviation from that as being anthropogenic. As above, regrowth due tonatural disturbances is excluded from the carbon uptake calculation.
•= Calculate a regionally specific natural disturbance regime on the basis of climate and other ecological
data or by comparison with analogous regions. Justification and supporting documentation would beneeded for such calculations.

Data generation and uncertainties
Data generation
Many countries have experienced difficulty in acquiring adequate data. Sometimes there are complete
gaps in data for which default values might be used. An issue is whether it is better to use default data or
to leave out estimates where data does not exist. Some defaults, such as for the rate of decay ofaboveground slash may not be adequate. There is much scope for progressive improvement in default
information including the development of algorithms rather than single standard numbers to calculate
them.
Although the current soil defaults are considered adequate for the current Guidelines, there is scope for theuse of more comprehensive soil taxonomies such as those of the FAO or the USDA, as a basis fordevising region specific defaults. Such a system would include, for example, podsolic soils that are notrepresented in the current Guidelines. These soils occur in the boreal regions where there may be adequate
national data making default data unnecessary. Overall, it was suggested that it will generally be better toinclude all processes using defaults than omitting them when local data are absent.
Most data currently being used have been acquired on a piecemeal basis. There is a strong need for along-term approach in which time sequences of ecological data are generated to understand and predictthe dynamics of change in GHG emissions.
It is important for inventory purposes to find means of distinguishing the effects of land use change,
biomass burning, and forestry from the influences of atmospheric and climatic change and variability.
Remote sensing co-ordinated with such long-term ground-based studies will provide a valuable route forinterpolation and extrapolation of ground truth. For this purpose it will be useful to strive harder to coordinate existing national and international activities of various institutions and agencies that are alreadygathering aspects of the necessary datasets and in some cases have long periods of environmental
monitoring data on hand. Internationally, IGBP-GCTE, IGBP-DIS, IGAC, GCOS and GTOS, IGBPLUCC, FAO, and GEIA are some relevant agencies. However, the group did not feel that the role of the
IPCC was to specify measurement and data collection and development techniques.
s:\applic\inv\workshop\lucii\lucsum11.doc

13

Recommendations:•= When country data do not exist, it is better to use default values, even if they seem inadequate, than toomit entire entries in the inventory.
=•= Some new default values in the areas of savanna and forest burning should be developed as options
for the Guidelines, and should be provided to all countries as a supplementary document.
=•= Countries are encouraged to report directly to both the UNFCCC and IPCC, the problems andconcerns encountered in preparing their national inventories, especially with regard to the use ofactivity data and default values.
=•= The long-term revision of the Guidelines should include optional ranges and in some cases algorithms
for calculating defaults to replace single universal values.
=•= Soil defaults should be based on standard soil taxonomy, such as those of the FAO or USDA, to create
region-specific values.
=•= Long-term data acquisition and development programmes should be established. These programmes
should co-ordinate measurement of all relevant ecological information at chosen sites and be linked
with remote sensing.

Uncertainties
We do need to determine sensitivity of the final net emissions figures to variation of values andparameters, and to determine standard errors of all terms of inventories. Such information gives guidance
as to where most effort is needed. It is recognised, however, that there is always some irreducible level oferror in all emissions estimates. For biological processes, that irreducible error will always be greater thanfor emissions from fossil fuels, where existing financial accounts facilitate estimation of emissions.
Statistical distributions of input information can provide estimates of error terms. Currently for most input
information, the data availability is too slim to calculate errors. However, such information is essential in
the long term to replace the current expert judgement of uncertainty as being low, medium or high.
Recommendations•= Except where they have a more rigorous basis to provide error analysis, countries could continue to
use expert judgement to specify their uncertainties qualitatively.
=•= Pending a formal IPCC sensitivity analysis procedure, countries could attempt their own sensitivity
analyses to guide priorities for data improvement.
=•= IPCC should develop, in the long term, a procedure for each country to conduct analyses of thesensitivity of the inventory to variation of variables and multipliers, such as emission factors andexpansion factors.
=•= Future data acquisition should be structured in such a manner as to facilitate quantification of error
terms in the inventories.

s:\applic\inv\workshop\lucii\lucsum11.doc

14

Definition of IPCC Source/Sink categories
Ecosystem classification
The relevant IPCC source/sink categories are:•= 4E: Prescribed Burning of Savannas•= 5A: Changes in Forest and Other Woody Biomass Stocks•= 5B: Forest and Grassland Conversion•= 5C: Abandonment of Managed Lands•= 5D: CO2 Emissions and Removals from Soil
There is a concern that the overwhelming focus on forestry, reflected in the predominance of forest classes
in the Land Cover/Ecosystem Types categories (Common Reporting Framework 5AC), does not clearlyencompass a large suite of tropical and subtropical ecosystems that are not recognised by researchers andothers as forests. These include wooded savannas. Woody savannas, which are formations with acontinuous grass layer and a varying tree and shrub cover, are predominantly found in the tropics andsubtropics. They occupy about 20% of the world’s land surface. They are widely recognised under thisterminology across continents with their most widespread distribution in the southern hemisphere (Africa,
South America, Australia). They are not clearly identified in the ecosystem categories in the Land-use
Change and Forestry Sector of the Guidelines. This may lead to their omission when accounting foremissions by sources and removals by sinks.
In the case of woody biomass and associated carbon stocks, the new definition of forests (woody biomass> 2m) is a problem in some countries that do not recognise their native vegetation formations in theseterms. Better description is needed of the distinction between categories 5A (emissions and removals of
CO2 from decrease or increase in biomass stock due to forest management, logging, fuel wood harvesting,etc.) and 5B (conversion of existing forest and natural grasslands to other land uses and associatedemissions of CO2 and trace gases).
The current approach to ecosystem classification is an arbitrary categorisation approach that does notcorrespond in a consistent way with commonly recognised ecosystems. This would not be such an issue if
a clearer hierarchical structure was apparent. Revision of the ecosystem classification system, in the longterm, would improve both the reporting of, and uncertainties in, emissions estimates. Some guidelines
need to be kept in mind. First, whatever classification system is proposed, it must enable consistent
aggregation and disaggregation of data. Second, it must be compatible with other global land-coverclassification initiatives. Third, it must be usable by all countries, whatever the state of national vegetation
cover mapping. Fourth, it must be compatible at some scale of aggregation, with the present system.
Finally, there should not be too many classes, which will complicate the process of drawing up andreporting national inventories, but it should be sufficiently comprehensive to encompass all land-coverclasses in sufficient detail that people carrying out national inventories can recognise the ecosystem types
in their region in a consistent way.
A second area of concern is the definition and distinction of plantations. In the present Guidelines,
plantations are not clearly defined. Many forests in northern Europe, for example, are planted andmanaged, but are not considered by foresters there to be plantations.
The issue of comparability among national inventories submitted during one reporting period, or between
inventories submitted by the same country in different years, may arise if different interpretations arise as
to how particular local vegetation formations are classified in terms of the global scheme.
Recommendations

s:\applic\inv\workshop\lucii\lucsum11.doc

15•= The Expert Group recommended that Category 4E be modified to Prescribed Burning of Savannas
and Woodlands. Woodlands is currently not a category within the ecosystems categories (see 5A:
Changes in Forest and Other Woody Biomass Stocks). The definition of savannas given as a footnote
to Section 4E of the Common Reporting Framework is inadequate since it implies only scattered trees
in grassland. An alternative to changing the title of Section 4E would be to modify the definition ofsavannas to make it more compatible with current usage of the term, which encompasses a range intree and shrub densities extending from almost closed canopy woodlands to open grasslands with few
or no trees. The revised definition reads: Savannas are tropical and subtropical formations found in
Africa, Asia, Australia, Latin America and southern North America, and which are characterised byhaving a more-or-less continuous grass cover and variable tree and shrub cover. Similar systems, inwhich both trees and grasses coexist, are found in some temperate regions.
•= A clarification is needed of the intended use of the term ‘plantations’.
•= It is recommended that alternative approaches to the current land-cover/ecosystem classification
system be explored in the long term. Two possible approaches are (i) a biome-based approach, such as
is being used within the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme; and (ii) an approach based on
the use of bioclimatic or environmental domains. One or more workshops could be held inconjunction with other organisations seeking to develop a global ecosystem classification scheme.
These include FAO (from which the current classification scheme was derived) and IGBP (who havevarious such schemes under development).

Unaccounted processes
Savannas are widely utilised for pastoralism. This contributes to a pronounced disturbance regime due tothe pressures of grazing and changed fire incidence or intensity. Many of the trees and shrubs found inthese regions are protected by thorns or are in other ways unpalatable to domestic stock. These adaptations
enable such plant populations to thicken up or encroach on more open grassland areas. Conversely,
pastoralists will often attempt to reverse these processes by clearing trees or shrubs. Land clearing isencompassed under Section 5B but bush encroachment (‘thickening’) is a more subtle process and not
obviously catered for in the Guidelines. Given the areas of land involved, its impact on carbon
sequestration could be overlooked, the more so because it occurs outside forests on lands where regularinventorying of biomass is uncommon. It is felt that attention should be drawn to the phenomenon so thatits impacts are fully accounted for.

Recommendations•= It is recommended that savannas be recognised under the Guidelines by incorporating their carbon
stocks and fluxes under categories 5A1C and D and 5A4. By including all savanna systems in one ormore of these categories, biomass changes such as vegetation thickening will be fully included in the
carbon budget. Similar recommendations could apply to ecosystems with analogous structures in otherclimatic zones.

Time periods for reporting
The extension of biomass burning to cover forest fires will require a re-assessment of the time periods ofassessment. Current time periods for certain processes may be unrealistic in some cases (for example,
changes in soil carbon).
Most of the Guidelines implicitly assume linear changes in some stock over time, whereas exponentialchange may be more appropriate. Whereas, exponential change is more realistic, it is recognised that not
all countries would have the data to enable them to adopt this model conceptually.
Recommendations
s:\applic\inv\workshop\lucii\lucsum11.doc

16•= For changes in forest and other woody biomass stocks, it is suggested that a 10-year average be usedrather than the current 3-year average. A 10-year average corresponds more closely with the time
period of most national inventories, as well as inventories carried out by international agencies such as
FAO. It may also more closely approximate the time scale of natural variability. Nevertheless, there isa potential sacrifice in sensitivity involved in moving to longer timeframes.
•= In the short term, countries should continue to use whatever approach (linear versus exponential rates
of change) is most appropriate to their circumstances, though the approach adopted should beindicated. In the longer term, a move towards the use of electronic spreadsheets will allow the more
realistic non-linear nature of change to be taken into account.

Omitted categories
Herbivory by domestic livestock, wild large mammal herbivores, and insects is widespread in savannas,
rangelands and, in the case of insects, boreal forests and other forest and woodlands systems. An estimateof the direct impact of domestic livestock is included under category 4, Agricultural Practices, but noallowance seems to have been made for the direct and indirect impacts of other herbivores. These impacts
are not necessarily independent of human activities. For example, conservation policies and pressuresfrom surrounding land users affect large herbivore dynamics and impact in conservation areas. Likewise,
livestock management practices, particularly in relation to stocking rates, affect fuel loads and hence fire
frequencies and intensities. Somehow, for a fuller understanding of these interactions and impacts,
provisions need to be made for reporting livestock and wildlife number and their impacts.

Other issues
Short- versus long-term changes
The Expert Group agreed that a distinction should be made between possible short-term modifications to
the detail in the Guidelines, but not to the procedures themselves, and longer-term revisions to the
Guidelines. There is little to be gained in changing the 1996 Revised Guidelines before they have evenbeen used, but there may be a need to revise them further, or even to replace them with a different
methodology, in the longer term.

Exchanging information and expertise
In reporting national inventories, countries should include contact details of technical experts involved in
the preparation of the relevant inventory sectors / categories. Such information could be compiled andreported separately and a list distributed back to the technical experts. Contact details should include
mailing address, fax, email where possible.
Facilitating the development of a network of technical experts and the sharing of national experience inpreparing inventories could assist experts in improving their inventory estimates.

s:\applic\inv\workshop\lucii\lucsum11.doc

17

ANNEX II List Of Participants

Climate Change Branch
Department of the Environment, Sport, Territories & Local
Government
GPO Box 787
Canberra ACT 2601
Tel: (61 62) 741433
Fax: (61 6) 274 1439
Email: pcheng@dest.gov.au

AUSTRALIA
Mr. Eric ANDERSONManager Beef (Central)
Department of Primary Industries
Tropical Beef Centre
P O Box 5545
Rockhampton Mail Centre QLD 4702
Tel: (61 79) 360 111
Fax: (61 79) 361 034
Email: anderse@dpi.qld.gov.au

AUSTRALIA
Mr. Graham FARQUHARGroup Leader
Environmental Biology Group
Australian National University
Research School of Biological Sciences
GPO Box 475
Canberra ACT 2601
Tel: (61 6) 249 5052
Fax: (61 6) 249 4919
Email: farquhar@rsbs.anv.edu.au

AUSTRALIA
Ms. Michele BARSON
Principal Research Scientist
Agricultural Production and Natural Resources Branch
Bureau of Resource Sciences
PO Box E11
Kingston, ACT 2604
Tel: (61 2) 62724347
Fax: (61 2) 6272 4734
Email: mmb@mailpc.brs.gov.au

AUSTRALIA
Mr. Ian GALBALLY
Division of Atmospheric Research
CSIRO
Private Mail Bag 1
Mordialloc
Victoria 3195
Tel: (03) 9239 4400
Fax: (03) 9239 4444
Email: ian.galbally@dar.csiro.au

AUSTRALIA
Mr. Michael BIRD
Australian National University
Research School of Earth sciences
Canberra ACT 0200
Tel: (06) 249 5171
Fax: (06) 249 0738
Email: michael.bird@anu.edu.au
AUSTRALIA
Mr. Bill BURROWS
Senior Principal Scientist
Queensland Department Primary Industries
Tropical Beef Centre
P O Box 5545
Rockhampton Mail Centre QLD 4702
Tel: (61 79) 360 111
Fax: (61 79) 361 034
Email: burrowb@dpi.qld.gov.au

AUSTRALIA
Mr. Roger GIFFORD
Senior Principal Research Scientist
Division of Plant Industry
CSIRO
P O Box 1600
Canberra ACT 2601
Tel: (61 6) 246 5441
Fax: (61 6) 246 5270
Email: r.gifford@pi.csiro.au

AUSTRALIA
Mr. John CARTER
Principal Scientist
Climate Impacts and Grazing Systems
Indooroopilly Sciences Centre
Department of Natural Resources
80 Meiers Road
Indooroopilly
Queensland 4068
Tel: (61 7) 3896 9588
Fax: (61 7) 3896 9606
Email: john.carter@dnr.qld.gov.au

AUSTRALIA
Mr. R. Dean GRAETZ
Principal Research Scientist
Earth Observation Centre
CSIRO
GPO Box 3023
Canberra, ACT 2201
Tel: (61 6) 216 7199
Fax: (61 6) 216 7222
Email: dean.graetz@cossa.csiro.au
AUSTRALIA
Mr. Miko KIRSCHBAUM
Senior Research Scientist
Division of Forestry and Forest Products

AUSTRALIA
Mr. Peter CHENG
Director, Climate Change Assessment

18

CSIROP O Box E4008
Kingston, ACT 2604
Tel: (06) 281 8211
Fax: (06) 281 8312
Email: miko.kirschbaum@ffp.csiro.au

CSIRO
Private Bag No 2
Glen OsmondAdelaide SA 5064
Tel: (61 8) 8303 8427
Fax: (61 8) 8303 8550
Email: jan.skjemstad@adl.clw.csiro.au

AUSTRALIA
Mr. Richard LUCAS
Senior Research Scientist
Bureau of Resource Sciences
P O Box E11
Kingston, ACT 2604
Tel: (06) 272 5582
Fax: (06) 272 3882
Email: rlucas@henric.nnc.gov.au

AUSTRALIA
Mr. Roger SWIFT
Chief Adviser
Division of Land and Water
CSIRO
Private Mail Bag No 2,Glen Osmond,
Adelaide, SA 5064
Tel: (618) 8303 8406
Fax: (61 8) 8303 8555
Email: roger.swift@adl.clw.csiro.au

AUSTRALIA
Mr. C. P. MEYER
Division of Atmospheric Research
CSIRO
Private Mail Bag 1
Mordialloc, Victoria 3195
Tel: (03) 9239 4686
Fax: (03) 9239 4444
Email: cpm@dar.csiro.au

AUSTRALIA
Mr. Tony WEIR
Director
National Greenhouse Response Section
Dept. of Primary Industries and Energy
Greenhouse Response Branch, Energy Division
GPO Box 858
Canberra ACT 2601
Tel: (61 6) 272 5961
Fax: (61 6) 271 6599
Email: Tony.weir@dpie.gov.au

AUSTRALIA
Mr. Henry A. NIX
Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies
Australian National University
Canberra ACT 0200
Tel: (02) 6249 2635
Fax: (02) 62490757
Email: nix@cres.anu.edu.au

BOLIVIAMr. Sergio ROMEROMinisterio de Desarrollo Sostenible y Medio Ambiente
Mendez Arcos No 710 (Exq. Plaza Espana)
La PazTel: (591) 2 413383/414369
Fax: (591) 2 410936
Email: pncambio@clima.rds.org.bo

AUSTRALIA
Mr. Ian NOBLE
Senior Principal Research Scientist
Ecosystem Dynamics RSBS
Australian National University
Research School of Biological Sciences
Institute for Advanced Studies
Canberra, ACT 0200
Tel: (61 6) 249 5092
Fax: (61 6) 249 5095
Email: noble@rsbs.anu.edu.au

CANADA
Mr. Mike APPSCFS Climate Change Network
Canadian Forest Service
5320-122 St.
Edmonton, Alberta T6H 3S5
Tel: 1-403-435-7210
Fax: 1-403-435-7359
Email: mapps@nofc.forestry.ca

AUSTRALIA
Mr. Michael RAUPACH
Program Leader
Land and Water
CSIRO
Clunies Ross Street
GPO Box 821
Canberra, ACT 2601
Tel: (06) 246 5573
Fax: (06) 246 5560
Email: michael.raupach@cbr.clw.csiro.au

CANADA
Mr. Art JAQUES
Head, Greenhouse Gas Division
Pollution Data Branch
Environment Canada
351, St. Joseph Blvd., 10th Floor
Hull, Quebec K1A 0H3
Tel: (1 819) 994 3098
Fax: (1 819) 953 9542
Email: art.jaques@ec.gc.ca

AUSTRALIA
Mr. Jan SKJEMSTAD
Principal Research Scientist
Division of Land and Water

CHINA
Mr. Xu DEYINGThe Chinese Academy of Forestry

19

Wan Shou Shan
Beijing 100091
Fax: (86 1) 62881937
Email: deyingxu@fee.forestry.ac.cn

Global Environment Department
1-2-2 Kasumigaseki
Chiyoda-ku
Tokyo, 200
Tel: (81) 3 3580 1384
Fax: (81) 3 3581 3348
Email: touru_nagayama@eanet.go.jp

ESTONIAMr. Peeter KARING
Director General
Estonian Meteorological and Hydrological InstituteToom-Kooli 9
EE 0100 Tallinn
Tel: (372 2) 691 314
Fax: (372 2) 441 610
Email: evelin@nimbus.emhi.ee

NEW ZEALAND
Mr. Stuart CALMAN
Climate Change Programme
Ministry for the Environment
84 Boulcott Street
PO Box 10-362
Wellington
Tel: (64 4) 498 7411
Fax: (64 4) 471 0195
Email: sc@mfe.govt.nz

FINLAND
Mr. Kim PINGOUD
Energy Systems
VTT Energy(Tekniikantie 4 C, ESPOO)
P.O.Box 1606
FIN-02044 VTT
Tel: 358 9 456 5074
Fax: 358 9 456 6538
Email: kim.pingoud@utt.fi

NEW ZEALAND
Mr. Kevin TATE
Senior Research Scientist
Landcare Research NZ Ltd
Private Bag 11052
Palmerston North
Tel: (64 6) 356 7154
Fax: (64 6) 355 9230
Email: tatek@landcare.cri.nz

FRANCE
Mr. John TAYLOR
Centre de Fables Radioactivite
CNRS-CEA
Laboratoire Mixte
Avenue de la Terrace
91198 Gif sur Yvette
CEDEX
Tel: (33 1) 6908 7723
Fax: (33 1) 6908 7716

PERU
Mr. Carlos LLERENA
Facultad de Ciencias Forestales
Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina
P O Box 456
Lima
Tel: (511) 349-5647/5669 ext 233
Fax: (511) 349-2041/ 349-5648
Email: callerena@lamolina.edu.pe

INDONESIA
Mr. Budi Satyawan WARDHANA
Staff of the Deputy AssistantMinister for Policy Development on Environmental Management
Ministry of State for Environmental
D. L. Panjaitan Kav. 42
Jakarta 13410
Tel: 62 21 8517163
Fax: 62 21 8580111
Email: chmcbdri@rad.net.id

POLAND
Mr. Wojciech GALINSKI
Department of Ecology
Forest Research Institute
3, Bitwy Warszawskiej str.
00-973 Warsaw
Tel: 48 22 720 0488
Fax: 48 22 846 2018/2016
Email: ecol-fri@ikp.atm.com.pl

ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN
Mr. Hadi HOSSEINI AGRAGHI
Advisor for Planning and Management Support
Ministry of Agriculture
Office for International and Regional Organisations
17th Floor, Room 1728
Kashavarz Blv
Tehran 14154
Tel: (982 1) 612 3607
Fax: (982 1) 650 272

RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Mr. Igor NAZAROV
IGCE
20b Glebovskaya str.
107 258 Moscow
Tel: ( 7095) 169 2198
Fax: (7095) 160 0831
Email: nazarov@fe.igce.msk.ru
SENEGAL
Mr. Youba SOKONASOKONA
Head of Energy Programme
ENDA -TW
54, rue Carnot

JAPAN
Mr. Toru NAGAYAMA
Section Chief
Control & Cooperation Division
Environment Agency

20

BP 3370 Dakar
Tel: (22 1) 225 983/225 496
Fax: (22 1) 235 157 / 217 595
Email: ysokona@enda.sn / energy2@enda.sn

Fax: (33 1) 45 24 76 78
Email: bo.lim@oecd.org
Mr Yamil BONDUKI
OECD, Environment Directorate
2 rue Andre Pascal
75775 Paris Cedex 16
FranceTel: (33 1) 45 24 19 14
Fax: (33 1) 45 24 76 78
Email: yamil.bonduki@oecd.org

SOUTH AFRICA
Mr. Bob SCHOLES
Forestek, CSIRP.O Box 395
Pretoria 0001
Tel: (27 12) 841 2045
Fax: (27 12) 841 2689
Email: bscholes@csir.co.za
THAILAND
Mr. Kansri BOONPRAGOB
Researcher
Thailand Environment Institute
210 Sukumit 64
Bangkok 10260
Tel: (66 2) 331 0048/318 0934
Fax: (66 2) 332 4873/318 0934
Email: kansri@ram1.ru.ac.th
UNITED STATES
Mr. Bill HOHENSTEIN
US Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington DC 20460
Tel: (1 541) 737 1780
Fax: ( 1 202) 260 6405
Email: hohenstein.william@epamail.epa.gov
UNITED STATES
Ms. Olga KRANKINA
Research Associate
Department of Forest Science
Oregon State University
College of Forestry
Corvallis, OR 97331-7501
Tel: (1 541) 737 1780
Fax: (1 541) 737 1393
Email: krankinao@fsl.orst.ei
ZIMBABWE
Mr. Peter FROSTAssociate Professor (Research Fellow)
Institute of Environmental Studies
University of Zimbabwe
P.O. Box MP 167
Mount Pleasant Harare
Tel: 263-4-303211 x 1937
Fax: 263-4-333407/263-4-335249
Email: pfrost@zimbix.uz.zw
OECD Secretariat
Ms Bo LIM
OECD, Environment Directorate
2 rue Andre Pascal
75775 Paris Cedex 16
FranceTel: (33 1) 45 24 78 94

21