Application of 2006 IPCC Guidelines to
Other Areas

Report of IPCC Expert Meeting
1-3 July 2014, Sofia, BULGARIATask Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

IPCC Expert Meeting: Application of 2006 IPCC
Guidelines to Other Areas

1-3 July 2014
Sofia, Bulgaria

Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

Supporting material prepared for consideration by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This
supporting material has not been subject to formal IPCC review processes. Neither the papers presented at theexpert meeting nor this report of its proceedings has been subjected to IPCC review.

The IPCC would like to thank the Government of Bulgaria and its Executive Environment Agency for hosting thismeeting and providing technical support.

Published by the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Hayama, Japan on behalf of the IPCC
© Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2015
Please cite as:
IPCC (2015). Application of 2006 IPCC Guidelines to Other Areas. Eds: Baasansuren, J., Tanabe, K. and Fukuda,
M. Report of the IPCC Expert Meeting, Pub. IGES, Japan.
IPCC Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (TFI)
Technical Support Unit
℅ Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
2108 -11, Kamiyamaguchi
Hayama, Kanagawa
JAPAN, 240-0115
Fax: +81-46-855-3808
http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp
Printed in Japan

ISBN 978-4-88788-191-4

Table of Contents

Foreword .................................................................................................................................................................2
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................3
Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................................41.

Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................52.

Meeting Discussions .......................................................................................................................................6
2.1 BOG 1: Estimation of GHG emissions/removals in sub-national/corporate/project level reporting andperformance standard-setting, on non-annual basis ........................................................................................... 7
2.2 BOG 2: Estimation of mitigation potential/carbon footprint/Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) ...................... 10
2.3 BOG 3: Estimation of GHG emissions/removals in mitigation projects and programmes ....................... 12

3. Summary ...........................................................................................................................................................14
Annex 1.

Abstracts...........................................................................................................................................16

Annex 2.

Agenda .............................................................................................................................................35

Annex 3.

Questions and Answers ....................................................................................................................37

Annex 4.

List of Participants ............................................................................................................................41

Annex 5.

References .......................................................................................................................................441

Foreword
The IPCC Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (TFI) has, as part of its mandate, the objective of
encouraging the widespread use of the IPCC Guidelines for estimation of national greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions and removals. This report is one of a series, developed through expert meetings, which aims to assist
users of the guidelines by addressing specific problem areas.
The IPCC Guidelines are used increasingly in areas other than national GHG inventories. Therefore, it isincreasingly important to ensure better consistency between national GHG inventories and estimates of GHG
emissions/removals made for other purposes.
This expert meeting has brought together users of the IPCC Guidelines including national inventory compilers toshare their experiences in application of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and sought to discuss common issues,challenges and good practices in the application of the guidelines, and provide additional guidance/advice to theusers of the IPCC Guidelines.
We would like to thank all those involved in this meeting. In particular we would like to express our sincere thanks
and appreciation to the Government of Bulgaria and its Executive Environment Agency for their support by
hosting this meeting.

Thelma Krug

Taka Hiraishi

Co-Chair Task Force Bureau

Co-Chair Task Force Bureau

2List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
AD

Activity Data

AFOLU

Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use

BAUBusiness as Usual

CDM

Clean Development Mechanism

EF

Emission Factor

EFDB

Emission Factor Database

FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions

GHG

Greenhouse Gas

HWP

Harvested Wood ProductICLEI

ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability

IPCC

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

LCA

Life Cycle Assessment

NAMA

Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action

REDD+

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation and the role of conservation,
sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing
countries

TFI

Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

UNFCCC

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

3Executive Summary
The expert meeting discussed the existing practices in the use of the IPCC Guidelines in areas other thannational GHG inventories (e.g. sub-national, corporate, project, LCA) and considered the issues and goodpractices in the application of the guidelines in these areas. It also discussed possible further work required toenhance the utility of the IPCC Guidelines.
There was a consensus that the 2006 IPCC Guidelines are used increasingly in areas other than national GHG
inventories such as subnational level inventories and mitigation projects. The meeting felt that the guidance could
be improved in some areas to assist these users, and help ensure consistency with national inventory estimates.
The meeting identified the issues for possible additional advice/guidance and considered that these issues could
be addressed by Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on TFI website, expert meetings and in future IPCC
Guidelines. A first set of the questions and answers (Q&A) has been developed to be added to FAQs at the TFI
website (http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/faq/faq.html).
The participants acknowledged that data and information collected for other inventories and mitigation projects
can help to improve national inventories, particularly with regard to emission factors (EFs).
The participants looked forward to future collaboration and acknowledged that inventory compilers and otherusers of the IPCC Guidelines would both benefit from continued discussions of the specific issues and sharing
good practices in application of the IPCC Guidelines.

41. Introduction
The IPCC Guidelines for National GHG Inventories are internationally-agreed methodologies to estimate andreport annual anthropogenic emissions and removals of GHGs within a national territory, and are used by all
Parties to the UNFCCC.
The IPCC Guidelines are also used to estimate GHG emissions/removals at scales other than national and/or ona non-annual basis in various GHG reporting and mitigation endeavours. However, there are issues aroundboundaries, attribution and leakage among others that need to be considered for correct application of the IPCC
Guidelines to other areas. Thus, it is getting increasingly important to consider consistency between national
GHG inventories and estimates of GHG emissions/removals made for other purposes and to address potential
issues in such estimates due to double-counting, omissions and incorrect attribution, among others.
The IPCC Expert Meeting on Application of 2006 IPCC Guidelines to Other Areas was held in Sofia, 1-3 July
2014 and hosted by Executive Environment Agency of Bulgaria. A total of 41 participants including IPCC TFI CoChairs, invited experts, researchers, representatives of international organizations (e.g. FAO, ICLEI, WRI), andmembers of TFI Technical Support Unit (TSU) attended the meeting.
The meeting aimed (i) to review examples of application of IPCC Guidelines to areas other than national GHG
inventories, (ii) to identify issues to be considered and any need for additional guidance in application of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines to other areas (iii) to consider elements/practices in various existing GHG estimation/reporting
programmes that may serve as additional useful guidance to national inventory compilers. The meeting was heldin two parts: a series of presentations was followed by group discussions in three Breakout Groups (BOGs).
This report summarizes discussions and conclusions of the meeting, and aims to provide additional information to
the users of the IPCC Guidelines including inventory compilers based on the experiences gained in GHG
estimation and reporting in areas other than national GHG inventories.

52. Meeting Discussions
The expert meeting started with opening remarks by IPCC TFI Co-Chairs followed by welcome address from
Vanya Grigorova, Executive Director of the Executive Environment Agency of Bulgaria. These were followed bypresentations from TSU and invited speakers.
Kiyoto Tanabe (Head, TSU) explained the background, objectives, organization and expected outcomes of themeeting, and Baasansuren Jamsranjav (TSU) gave an introduction to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
The invited speakers shared their experiences in application of the IPCC Guidelines in estimation of GHG
emissions in various areas including city-level GHG emissions accounting and reporting, mitigation projects (e.g.
REDD+, CDM), carbon footprint/Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and calculation of mitigation potentials highlighting
how the IPCC Guidelines are used, issues or problems that have arisen and good practices.
Abstracts of the presentations are given in Annex 1 of this report and presentation files are available at IPCC TFI
website (http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/meeting/meeting.html).
After the presentations, three BOGs were convened in the afternoon of Day 2 to continue discussions.


BOG1: Estimation of GHG emissions/removals in sub-national/corporate/project level reporting andperformance standard-setting, on non-annual basis



BOG2: Estimation of mitigation potential/carbon footprint/Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

BOG3: Estimation of GHG emissions/removals in mitigation projects and programmes

The BOGs discussions were focused on:Issues to be considered and any need for additional guidance in application of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines toareas other than preparation of national GHG inventories

Elements/practices in various existing GHG estimation/reporting programmes that may serve as additional
useful guidance to national inventory compilers

The BOGs presented the outcome of their discussions to the plenary in the afternoon on the final day. The
following sections of the report summarize the BOG outcomes, then the final discussions of the meeting.

6

2.1 BOG 1: Estimation of GHG emissions/removals in sub-national/corporate/project level reporting andperformance standard-setting, on non-annual basis
Co-facilitators: Ana Cristina Alves Marques (ICLEI) and Melissa Weitz (USA)The group noted that the IPCC Guidelines have been used in areas other than national GHG inventories, forexample, subnational (e.g. state, city, jurisdiction), corporate, facility level inventories (e.g. cap-and-trade), andREDD+, as well as mitigation projects (e.g. under the CDM). The participants also noted that although the IPCC
Guidelines can be used in other areas to estimate emissions and removals they may not be directly applicable insome cases and discussed challenges associated with the application of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines to areas
other than national GHG inventories, issues that need to be considered and possible ways to address the issues
and support the users of the IPCC Guidelines.
Major challenges associated with applying 2006 IPCC Guidelines to subnational inventories are:

Difference in boundary-setting such as production based vs consumption based (e.g. electricity, HWP)

Availability, detail and quality of data (e.g. corporations vs jurisdictions)

Questions of appropriateness of EFs and activity data (AD) (e.g. national averages vs activity-specific)

Insufficient level of detail for specific applications (e.g. sub-national inventories need to develop additional
details)

Non-prescriptive nature of guidance on some issues (e.g. emissions from international bunker fuels are
excluded from total emissions in national GHG inventories while they may need to be included in inventories
at other levels)

Degrees of freedom that can be exercised (e.g. substantially different approaches may be chosen for
estimation of emissions from some categories such as transport and HWP).

The group considered that possible improvements can be made through:Harmonization of principles of subnational, corporate, facility level inventories with IPCC Guidelines forbetter comparability and aggregation of emissions to higher level

Explanation of issues on double counting and leakage that may be brought about by application of 2006
IPCC Guidelines to subnational inventories

Provision of concrete advice, for example, on-

How national level EFs and AD can be made more adequate/applicable to subnational reporting (e.g.
for consistency between reporting levels and programs)-

Aggregation of subnational inventories towards higher or national scale.

7

The data collected for subnational inventories and mitigation projects (e.g. CDM) including facility level data canhelp to improve national inventories, particularly with regard to EFs. However, guidance or clarification is needed
particularly on:How to use very different data from different regions (e.g. how to weight and how to average to develop
nationally appropriate EFs, how to decide whether to use regional EFs as they are or to develop a national
EF from them)Which practices and activities will have regional variations (clear information on conditions for using factors,
for example: temperature, soil and climate types, management practice, control technologies) and which will
have less variation (more appropriate for national factors)

What the reference conditions are for the EF (e.g. at what temperature and pressure the EF was derived in
the case it is presented as a mass of GHG per volume of natural gas) and how it should be used in national
GHG inventory compilation

How to ensure availability and consistency of time series of data.

The participants agreed that FAQs on TFI website is a possible short term solution. They felt that FAQs on thefollowing issues could be useful:Difference between conservative approach taken in mitigation programs (e.g. CDM) and good practice
approach for national GHG inventories (clarifying that good practice guidance requires not over- or
underestimating)

Difference between production-based and consumption-based inventories



Other differences between national inventories and LCA or other GHG accounting systems (e.g., concerning
boundaries, sector coverage, timeframes, methodologies, and EFs)

How to compile detailed subnational data on transport and buildings which may have more detailed
disaggregation than required for national inventory



Information on existing guidance in the IPCC Guidelines that could be useful to subnational inventory
compilers, for example, how to address confidentiality issues (e.g. compile information or provide
information where the guidance can be found in the IPCC Guidelines)Consistent use of the concepts: definitions of direct and indirect emissions

Definitional issues with subnational inventories (e.g. what constitutes forest land, deforestation, technicalprocesses in oil and gas industry)

Information (compilation of examples) from subnational inventories on data drivers (variables) for regional orother disaggregation to improve national inventory level of detailWhat are the implications of different methods being used in subnational inventories when summing up to
obtain national emissions/removals? For example, biofuels, some states may develop specific methods.
8

It was highlighted that clear discussion of methods in national inventory reports would be useful to subnationalgroups to ensure transparency and coherence. The participants also noted that data confidentiality is an issue forcompilers of subnational inventories.
The participants considered that country experience could provide examples of good practice on how todisaggregate AD collected by national agencies to enable the data also to be used in subnational inventories.
Examples of good practice in handling confidential data would also be useful.
The participants also suggested integrating (as appropriate) into future IPCC guidance and guidelines theinformation from FAQs, and from expert meetings organized to discuss outstanding issues.
The following issues could be discussed and addressed by the expert meetings:


Identification of the guidance in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines where EFs and methods are appropriate forsubnational inventories

What guidance can be provided to avoid gaps and double counting (e.g. explore what are the problematic
sectors and identify double counting issues), leakages and gaps such as grid electricity (calculation of EFs)

Clarification on how to harmonize the emissions estimated using the stock change approach commonlyused in the projection with the historical emissions estimated using the gain-loss method (relevant for
projections for AFOLU).

The participants also considered that additional guidance is needed on application of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines
for subnational inventories, particularly on:How to obtain AD at subnational levelHow to develop EF applicable for subnational inventories (e.g. bottom up EF vs top down)

How to obtain data where there are confidentiality issues.

9

2.2

BOG 2: Estimation of mitigation potential/carbon footprint/Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Co-facilitators: Sirintornthep Towprayoon (Thailand) and John David Watterson (UK)The BOG discussion aimed to identify outstanding issues and further work required to enhance utility of future
IPCC Guidelines with respect to the calculation of C footprint/LCA as well as to consider elements/practices in C
footprint/LCA that may assist national inventory compilers.
The discussion was focused on EFs and good practice principles (transparency, consistency, comparability,
completeness and accuracy (TCCCA)).
The discussion points can be summarized as follows:
Issues to be considered and any need for additional guidance in application of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines to areas
other than preparation of national GHG inventories
The BOG considered that it may be useful toconduct literature reviews and consult experts to identify where and how the IPCC good practice guidance isused in LCA and C footprint analysis

consider supplementary guidance, or, an enhancement of future guidelines to help systems analysis
inherent to LCA (e.g. mapping to/from IPCC categories)

encourage the use of key category analysis (KCA) in LCA and C footprint analysis (noting that the KCA
threshold for use in the national GHG inventory may need to be adjusted for C footprint analysis).

The participants acknowledged the need of EFs for specific purposes (e.g. for C footprint analysis) and guidanceon how to develop site-specific EFs (e.g. company-specific values) and felt that the TFI could consider
elaborating the existing guidance on how to generate good quality EFs and how these EFs are used and how tomake them available.
It was also considered that the following issues could be addressed by FAQs at TFI website providing
advice/guidance on:Applicability of IPCC default EFs (where including at which scale, how to use them)How IPCC default EFs can be converted for the use in LCA and C footprint analysis

Challenges of applying the IPCC default EFs in LCA and C foot printingGeneral guidance on grid EFs



Use of IPCC Emission Factor Database (EFDB) and IPCC Inventory Software (http://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/). For example, the IPCC Inventory Software might be useful in some cases for LCA and C
footprint analysis (e.g. for cross-checking)

How to promote consistency and comparability

How to apply the ideas of KCA and decision trees in C footprint analysis and LCA
10

Verification, particularly where IPCC could offer the guidance on quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)

How to present uncertainties

Use of IPCC good practice guidance (e.g. TCCCA) to LCA and C footprint analysis

Use of IPCC Guidelines by governments for carbon pricing mechanisms, including use of EFs intended fornational inventories, but being applied at a facility level, for emissions that will be priced (and so may requirea higher level of accuracy).

Elements/practices in various existing GHG estimation/reporting programmes that may serve as additional usefulguidance to national inventory compilers
The group considered that LCA and C footprint tools might have some information/experience that could be
useful for national GHG inventories. Countries have LCA databases that may provide useful information/data fornational GHG inventories, therefore, need to consider how to extract information from the LCA database for the
IPCC EFDB. In addition, existing good quality data covering large number of processes/industries (e.g. Chevron)can be collected and included in the EFDB. The BOG suggested for IPCC TFI to have a mechanism to review thesuitability of LCA data that could contribute to national GHG inventories for inclusion in the EFDB. It was alsosuggested to consider developing a decision tree for submission of data (e.g. LCA data) to the EFDB.
The participants also considered that the following issues need to be considered by IPCC TFI:Developing a glossary for definitions and terms used in LCA and national inventoryGathering information on reporting requirements for different mechanisms

Surveying and studying quantification methods being used by governments for mandatory reporting ofGHGs, and leverage the studies/references underpinning those methods to help inform updates of the IPCC
Guidelines.

In addition, participants noted for LCA within country boundaries there should be consistency between GHG
inventories and LCA. Also there should be opportunities for LCA experts to contribute to developing future IPCC
Guidelines. It was also suggested to review LCA/C footprint tools as they might have some information andexperience from which the IPCC could benefit.

11

2.3

BOG3: Estimation of GHG emissions/removals in mitigation projects and programmes

Co-facilitators: Stanford Mwakasonda (South Africa) and Jim Penman (UK)
Mitigation is any action that reduces emissions relative to what they would otherwise have been (implies need fora baseline or projection). The BOG discussed and considered methodological issues related to mitigation policies,
projects and programmes or actions and ways the issues might be addressed.
Basics and principles
Mitigation can be called different things in different contexts (e.g. NAMAs, policies, measures, programmes,
projects). The participants highlighted that IPCC guidance is methodological and needs to be objective,
consistent and relevant but not prescriptive across the range of issues that countries encounter, as well as
applicable and operational for all relevant country circumstances. The participants felt that the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines are relevant, but don’t tell countries all they need to know about how to estimate the effect of
mitigation actions on GHG emissions and removals. Nevertheless, for mitigation actions to be reflected innational total emissions, their effect must be reflected in a country’s GHG inventory.
Selecting mitigation action
GHG inventories can help in prioritization of mitigation actions, by indicating how different sources contribute to
the national total and trend in emissions. Key category ranking could be useful in identifying mitigation
opportunities. The participants noted that feasibility and relative cost of mitigation is also an issue and felt that it
could be considered in association with inventory methodologies although it is beyond current scope of TFI.
Projections and effects of mitigation
Projections can identify the emissions that the mitigation action will reduce. They may require aggregation ordisaggregation of inventory source categories to link the inventory with the mitigation action. Coverage of gases
needs to be consistent. The aggregated or disaggregated inventory AD need to be related to drivers of the
projections. The effect of the mitigation action could arise by modifying the projected AD or by changing the
projected EF or both. Projections methodology could be economic or technical, of various types. Projections andeffects of mitigation need to be reported transparently. The relationship between projections and GHG inventories
could be considered by the TFI, especially how to establish consistency between projections and inventories withregard to AD and EFs.
Activity data and emission factors
Data collection for the future inventories will need to be sensitive to the effect of the mitigation action on future AD
and EFs. Stratification within source categories may be needed to capture the effect of mitigation actions. It isnecessary to consider data issues as part of design and implementation of mitigation policies.

12

EF range may change for example due to better or more complete data, less uncertainty as well as to reflect
research results and/or effect of mitigation technologies. Therefore, it is necessary to continue assessing
uncertainty ranges.
In national reporting, consistency in the estimations made in GHG inventories, projections, estimation of
mitigation actions is important and methodological development may be needed to accommodate this. For
example the following need to be considered:Can default values be relevant in the context of assessing mitigation actions?



Could there be a risk of inadvertent bias due to focusing consideration on mitigation actions?

Subnational engagement
Representation of sub-national actions within national total (e.g. project, programme, corporate or other entity
estimates) may require appropriate stratification, together with associated methods. National GHG inventory
methods should be capable of capturing any associated leakage from the sub-national action, and avoid double
counting.
In some cases data may need to be aggregated in different ways to take account of different perspectives ofdifferent stakeholders who will take mitigation action (e.g. electricity end users vs producers). Past IPCC TFIexpert meetings have addressed sub-national issues to some extent however more work could be useful.
As the next step the participants suggested that TFI develop FAQ list covering key concepts related to mitigation
actions (the FAQ list could then feed into subsequent guidelines development) and to consider need for a forum(perhaps electronic) to exchange ideas and experiences.

13

3. Summary
The participants discussed the existing practices in the use of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines in areas other thannational GHG inventories such as sub-national, corporate, project level estimation and reporting of GHG
emissions/removals, estimation of mitigation potential and C footprint/LCA and considered the issues and goodpractices in the application of the guidelines in these areas. It also discussed possible further work required toenhance the utility of the IPCC Guidelines.
There was a general consensus that the 2006 IPCC Guidelines have been increasingly used in areas other thannational GHG inventory (such as subnational level inventories and mitigation projects) however, the guidance
could be improved in some areas to assist the users of the IPCC Guidelines. The participants noted theimportance of ensuring consistency in estimates of GHG emissions/removals developed at different scales.
The participants identified the issues for possible additional advice/guidance and considered that these issues
could be addressed by FAQs on TFI website, expert meetings and in future IPCC Guidelines.
A first set of the Q&A was developed (see Annex 3) to be added to FAQs on TFI website (http://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/faq/faq.html). The participants felt that the FAQs could then feed into subsequent guidelines
development and suggested integrating information from FAQs into the future IPCC guidelines/guidance, as
appropriate.
The following issues could be discussed and addressed by future expert meetings:


Identification of the guidance in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines where EFs and methods are appropriate forreporting programmes other than national GHG inventories (e.g. subnational inventories)

What guidance can be provided to avoid double counting (e.g. explore what are the problematic sectors andidentify double counting issues), leakages and gaps (e.g. grid electricity)

Clarification on how to harmonize the emissions estimated using the stock change approach commonlyused in the projections with the historical emissions estimated using the gain-loss method (relevant for
projections for AFOLU).

Data collected for subnational inventories, mitigation projects (e.g. CDM) and facility level data can help toimprove national inventories, particularly with regard to EFs. However, guidance or clarification is needed
particularly on:How to use very different data from different regions (e.g. how to weight and how to average to develop
nationally appropriate EFs, how to decide whether to use regional EFs as they are or to develop a national
EF from them)Which practices and activities will have regional variations (clear information on conditions for using factors,
for example: temperature, soil and climate types, management practice, control technologies) and which will
have less variation and therefore be more appropriate14What the reference conditions are for the EF (e.g. at what temperature and pressure the EF was derived in
the case it is presented as a mass of GHG per volume of natural gas) and how it should be used in national
GHG inventory compilation

How to ensure availability and consistency of time series of data.

It was also considered that LCA and C footprint tools might have some information/experience that could be
useful for national GHG inventories, and that LCA databases may contain useful information, especially for the
IPCC EFDB. Therefore, it is necessary to consider how to extract information from the LCA databases for the
IPCC EFDB.
The participants identified the need for additional or supplementary guidance on application of the 2006 IPCC
guidelines for areas other than national GHG inventories particularly on how to obtain AD and develop EFs,
among others:

How to obtain AD at sub-national levelHow to develop EF applicable for sub-national inventories (e.g. bottom up EF vs top down)

How to obtain data where there are confidentiality issues

How to develop activity-specific (e.g. LCA, C footprint analysis) and site-specific EFs (e.g. at company level)

It was noted that national GHG inventory methods should implicitly capture any associated leakage from the subnational action, and avoiding double counting.
The participants suggested that TFI develop a glossary for definitions and terms used in other areas (e.g. key
concepts related to mitigation actions) and gather information on reporting requirements and quantification
methods being used for different mechanisms to help inform updates of the IPCC Guidelines. The meeting alsosuggested that TFI consider a forum (e.g. electronic) to exchange ideas/experiences. In addition, the meeting
considered that it may be useful to conduct literature review and consultation of experts to identify where and how
the IPCC good practice guidance is used in other areas.
The participants agreed that inventory compilers and other users of the IPCC Guidelines would both benefit fromcontinued discussions of the specific issues and sharing good practices in application of the IPCC Guidelines.

15Annex 1.

Abstracts
Application of IPCC Guidelines to REDD+: Advice from GFOI
Jim Penman
University College London, UK

REDD+ consists of a set of activities agreed by the UNFCCC Conference of Parties (COP), to reducegreenhouse gas emissions and conserve and enhance carbon stocks in forests. REDD+ is to be implemented at
the national level with sub-national implementation as a possible interim step. Decisions of the COP require useof IPCC guidance and guidelines for estimating emissions and removals associated with REDD+. Nevertheless
IPCC emissions inventory methodologies do not identify all REDD+ activities by name. Without providing rigid
definitions (which could be controversial) the Global Forest Observations Initiative has provided advice which
describes how IPCC guidance and guidelines can be used to estimate emissions and removals associated with
REDD+, consistent with the definition of good practice, and linked this advice to remotely sensed data madefreely available internationally by the space agencies. The presentation will describe GFOI’s approach, including
the relationship between GFOI’s advice and IPCC guidance, taking account of decisions of the COP, andconsider possible future developments.

16

U.S. EPA Experience in Applying the IPCC Guidelines to Other Areas
Melissa Weitz
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

This presentation will provide an overview of U.S. EPA experience using the 2006 IPCC Guidelines in a variety of
applications, including the development of GHG quantification methods for government agency-level GHG
reporting, the development and implementation of a regulation requiring facility-level GHG reporting, andquantification protocols for GHG mitigation projects. U.S. federal government agencies use methods developed
based on IPCC guidance to calculate government agency-wide emissions and track progress against reduction
targets. Large facilities in the U.S. calculate and report GHG emissions using methods developed based on
IPCC guidance to comply with a U.S. EPA regulation. U.S. EPA’s former Climate Leader Program provided
protocols based on IPCC methods for the quantification of emissions reductions.

17Experience Using 2006 GL AFOLU Methods for Estimating Mitigation Potential for Agriculture
and Carbon Footprint of Primary Agricultural Products
Brian McConkey, Steve Smith; Darrel Cerkowniak; and Ray Desjardins
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

To ensure consistency between mitigation opportunities and the national inventory, Canada chose to apply 2006
GL for the mitigation. To do this an “equivalent agriculture inventory” was calculated using a subset of AFOLU
that included the agriculture sector and C stock changes for cropland and grazing land. The activity data for
mitigation was derived from mitigation scenarios input into an economic models of Canadian agriculture.at acoarser resolution than that actual data used in national inventory. The scenarios included various policy
measures that were expected to reduce GHG emissions. By using the economic model, off-target shifts in the
agricultural system in response to policy measures were included. An example of an off-target shift would be achange in livestock numbers from a policy measure aimed at fertilizer use on cropland. An important exception to
IPCC GL AFOLU was that emissions associated with fertilizer manufacture and on-farm use of fossil fuels were
included so no major emission effects of mitigation policy that occurred outside of AFOLU were ignored.
Because of its dependency on history of land use and practice change, it was not feasible to apply 2006 GL
directly for estimating soil carbon change for mitigation scenarios. Instead a future inventory was calculated
based on the existing history and an “equivalent” soil carbon change factor was developed for the mitigation
scenarios. The major advantage of applying 2006 GL for C footprint was that the GHG estimation methods werereadily acceptable by many users. The emissions had to be linked to production data and the method was mostappropriate at commodity rather than entity scale. Attributing soil carbon changes to specific agricultural products
was not feasible generally so all products from general agricultural system had the average C stock change
applied; again, most appropriate for commodity scale.

18

Lessons Learned from the Application of Emission Factors Defined in 2006 IPCC Guidelines to
the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)
Kazuhisa Koakutsu
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Japan

It is important to understand how and where IPCC Guidelines has been applied to the project-based mechanism
such the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) for the calculation of emission reductions. This presentation will
review the major approved CDM methodologies from the point of emission factors (EFs) applied and willsummarize how the development of methodology has incorporated the EFs defined in the IPCC Guidelines.

19Implementing IPCC Methodology in Model CASMOFOR to Estimate the Forest Carbon Sink
Zoltan Somogyi
Forest Research Institute of the National Agricultural Research and Innovation Centre
Budapest, Hungary

Afforestations and other forestry means have high potentials to mitigate climate change at low cost. In order toestimate these potentials, appropriate models are to be used. Such a model is CASMOFOR(http://www.scientia.hu/casmofor), which ranked highest among similar models in a recent study. CASMOFOR
applies the gain-loss method of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, which are applied in order for the model to becompatible with national greenhouse gas inventories. The model can calculate “best estimates” if all available
relevant country-specific information is incorporated. Experience as to how the model has so far been used
includes (a) developing projections for afforestation planning, for reports such as National Communications under
the UNFCCC, and for a number of policy analyses, (2) verifying elements of the Hungarian national greenhousegas inventory and her forest management reference level under the second commitment period of the Kyoto
Protocol, and (3) various research projects. In addition to developing estimates at various scales (stand, projector country levels), the model is also rather flexible with regard to processes and pools modelled, as well as
system boundaries. While the model can produce rather accurate estimates with regard to the biomass carbon
pool, estimating and attributing carbon stock changes of other carbon pools currently involve higher uncertainties
due to the limitations of our knowledge and available data related to these pools. The experience with theapplication of the model suggests ways how IPCC could contribute to the process of developing forest carbon
sink estimation methodology, including appropriate use of data, and reducing uncertainties, and to make forest
carbon accounting models better tools for forest-related mitigation.

20

Implementation of IPCC and Other Carbon Certification Guidelines in Climate Change Mitigation
Projects: Experiences from 20 subnational initiatives in six countries
Shijo Joseph1*, Louis Verchot1, Martin Herold2 and William D. Sunderlin1
1 Center for International Forestry Research, Indonesia
2 Center for Geoinformation, Department of Environmental Science, Wageningen University, The Netherlands

Experiences in the UNFCCC mechanism for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, andenhancing the carbon stocks (REDD+), are advancing and valuable lessons are being learned throughdemonstration activities on the ground. Currently, about 340 REDD+ and other forest carbon projects have been
initiated across 52 developing countries. These projects rely on IPCC guidelines and other carbon certification
standards to estimate the activity data and emission factors required for the computation of emission reductions
and carbon credits issued through voluntary carbon markets. Our presentation focuses on the implementation ofthese guidelines and other standards in 20 projects and subnational initiatives in six developing countries,
including seven in Latin America (five in Brazil and two in Peru), seven in Africa (five in Tanzania and two in
Cameroon) and six in Southeast Asia (five in Indonesia and one in Vietnam). The study was carried out through aquestionnaire survey, regional workshops and field visits. Of the 20 projects, 11 were found to have high MRV
capacity. The capacity to generate activity data was higher in Latin America compared to the other regions. With
respect to the five carbon pools and non-CO2 greenhouse gases, few projects inventoried all five carbon pools
and none inventoried N2O or CH4. The projects in Latin America focused mostly on above-ground biomass;
projects in dry forests of Tanzania combined above ground biomass, below ground biomass, deadwood and litter;and activities in Indonesia focused primarily on above-ground biomass, below-ground biomass and soil carbon inpeatlands. Although IPCC 2006 guidelines is the fundamental reference guide for project developers, theconcerns over the absence of clear-cut methods for generating activity data at the higher Tiers was evident inprojects. Whereas VCS methods are perceived as difficult to attain without considerable investment due tocomplex methods that do not take into account local project site conditions and financial viability. The lack ofmethodological clarity for error management and uncertainty reduction at higher scales could be addressed byrevising the existing guidelines, and incorporating new and innovative approaches such as area dependent
resolution selection, accuracy vs. cost curves, site specific key drivers analyses within the key category, and soon. REDD projects and programs differ from national GHG inventories as they need to assess a reference
emission level, which has all of the problems associated with trying to quantify a counterfactual case (BAU
deforestation or forest degradation). With the implementation of forest conservation activities, REDD+ programs
also need to assess net avoided emissions and enhanced sinks against a net reference level that includes sinks
and sources. REDD activities also need to address issues of permanence and leakage. Additionally, for REDD+
at least, reporting of emission reduction assessments need to be consistent with national GHG inventories. As
the global community targets to have consensus on climate agreement by 2015 and the corresponding
implementation by 2020, the lessons from REDD+ phase 1 and 2 activities show that additional guidance on21

applying the IPCC 2006 guidelines to areas other than national scale inventories would greatly facilitate
implementation of emission abatement programs aimed at slowing, halting and reversing land use related
emissions.

22Calculation of Mitigation Potential / Carbon Footprint / Life Cycle Assessment (LCA),
including Application of 2006 IPCC Guidelines
John David Watterson (with contributions from Christine St John Cox and Judith Bates)
Ricardo-AEA, UK

This presentation considers the procedures and methodologies which are used to assess the GHG impacts ofpeople, corporations, sectors, or industries, and the approaches that are used to assess mitigation potentials
from their activities. It then sets these aspects in the context of the methodologies and data that are available inthe 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
There is a wide range of guidance and methodologies that is used to estimate the GHG impacts from theactivities of people, corporations, sectors or industries. This guidance has been developed to serve the specificneeds of these users, and these needs are different to those of the users of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, whotypically, are compliers of national GHG inventories.
Life-cycle assessment (or LCA) is a technique to assess environmental impacts associated with all the stages ofa product's life from-cradle-to-grave. A carbon footprint is historically defined as the total set (or sets) ofgreenhouse gas emissions caused by an organisation, event, product or person. Climate change mitigations areactions to limit the magnitude and/or rate of long-term climate change; the mitigation potential is often defined as
an estimate of the possible reduction in GHG emissions or enhancement of removals of CO2.
This presentation summarises the key features of the guidance and methodologies commonly used for carbon
footprinting and life cycle assessment. It examines if and how the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (or other IPCC
guidance) and emission factors have been used to help develop such guidance and methodologies. It considers
the differences in “boundaries” between the IPCC guidelines and other guidance, and explains why this is an
important issue when assessing GHG emissions.
The presentation concludes with a number of key questions which helped shape the session discussing these
aspects. Some key questions include: What might the IPCC be able to learn from other guidance? Could the
IPCC support the development of alternative methodological approaches for different audiences? Is the wider
adoption of consistent reporting methods necessary, or a good idea? Are the IPCC guidelines currently being
used to calculate the emissions reductions that can be achieved – mitigation? Are there lessons to learn from thestyle and form of other guidance that the IPCC could consider adopting?

23

Issues on the Use of IPCC 2006 GL for Sub-national Scale Land Use Mitigation Activities
Viorel Nelu Bellmondo Blujdea
Forest Research and Management Institute, Romania

This presentation is more an analysis on how sub-national, i.e. regional, mitigation contribution might bequantified within the countries with GL 2006. Regions should be encouraged and methodologically supported totake lead in reducing emissions, serving as examples for the other regions within the country. For land use
based mitigation, regional approaches might be more meaningful because of large assessment scale or/and
diverse interregional cultural/traditional/ land resources management patterns. Current analysis looks to risks ofbiased estimates (by use of IPCC methods and default factors, wrong application of IPCC formulas),
implementation scale (land vs. activity based, better compensation of errors when multiple land uses over larger
areas are included), estimation methodology (e.g. stock change difference vs. gain-loss, land vs. activity based),conservativeness (how to implement GL 2006 to avoid overestimation of sink or/and underestimation of emission),leakages risks (complete or partial inventories, consideration of key activities, pools/sources in/exclusion) andpermanence issues (anthropogenic contribution vs. disturbance related). A couple of examples (land conversion
for wooded areas, soil management for croplands) would show how default factors and methodologies can beused to demonstrate, the trend at least, in emissions/removals inventory, as a basis for improved land
management at regional level.

24City-level GHG Emissions Accounting and Reporting
Ana Cristina Alves Marques
ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability

ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability as a membership association which represents over 1000 Local
Governments worldwide, and as the focal point for Local Governments and Municipal Authorities at the UNFCCC,
proposes to give a presentation with two sections: the first giving the background on greenhouse gas (GHG)
measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) by Local Governments, and the second focusing on the technicalaspects which are critical at subnational level, and particularly for cities.
The background section addresses the drivers for GHG MRV by Local Governments, and how the absence of auniversally accepted methodology for subnational GHG inventories, compliant with national inventory
requirements, has been a barrier for integrated climate action across the different levels of government.
The technical section identifies typical deviations from strict use of IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories at local level, and on the additional difficulties encountered by Local Governments while developing
their GHG inventories. Typical deviations from IPCC Guidelines at local level derive from boundary setting issues,
methodological limitations, and access to data / quality data.
ICLEI also draws on its experience operating the carbonn Cities Climate Registry to report on difficulties
encountered in horizontal aggregation of local data to arrive at the inventories of wider regions or country-level.
Different approaches to boundary setting and the use of different methodologies impairs automatic aggregation
as it lead to risk of double counting and/or carbon leakage.
A brief reference is also made to how difficulties are being tackled, through ICLEI’s resources and tools, linking to
the Global Protocol for Community-scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions, a joint effort of WRI, ICLEI and C40(presentation by WRI).

25

GHG Measurement Standards for Cities
Michael Doust
C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, UK

The ability of city leaders and other stakeholders to take effective action depends on access to good quality dataon GHG emissions. Measurement enables cities to assess their risks and opportunities, create a strategy to
reduce GHG emissions in a quantifiable and transparent way, and track their progress.
The C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group (C40) is a network of the world’s megacities committed to addressing
climate change. We believe cities have a critical role to play in tackling climate change, both because of theircontribution to global GHG emissions, and, more significantly, the influence Mayors have in facilitating andenabling action from businesses and residents.
Cities are asking for clear, robust, consistent and comprehensive guidance on:- Developing a GHG inventory that covers the primary urban emission sources and enables benchmarking withother cities. This is being addressed by the Global Protocol for Community-scale GHG emissions (GPC).
- Identifying and quantifying out of boundary GHG emissions using LCA and I-O approaches to generate
consumption-based assessments and help identify opportunities for realizing more efficient urban supply chains.
- Standards for assessing progress towards GHG emission reduction goals and quantifying GHG emissions from
specific policies and other interventions.
Presentation will focus on the latter two as the GPC is already being addressed by ICLEI/WRI, showing examples
from cities and demonstrating challenges.

26

Global Protocol for Community-scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories (GPC)
Wee Kean Fong
World Resources Institute

The GPC is jointly developed by World Resources Institute (WRI), C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group (C40)
and ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI).
It is for use by anyone assessing the GHG emissions of a geographically defined subnational area. Although the
GPC is primarily designed for cities, the accounting framework can also be used for boroughs or wards within acity, as well as towns, districts, counties, prefectures, provinces, states, and other subnational entities.
The GPC builds upon the knowledge, experiences, and practices of existing standards, guidance, and tools usedby cities to measure community-scale GHG emissions. It sets out requirements, and provides guidance, forcalculating and reporting community-scale GHG inventories, consistent with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories with additional guidance to suit the needs of cities such as detailed
guidance on for allocating trans-boundary emissions and bottom-up accounting methodologies to facilitate local
climate action planning.
GHG emissions associated with activities taking place in a city can occur inside the city boundary as well outside
the city boundary. To recognize this distinction, GHG emissions are categorized as scope 1, scope 2 or scope 3
emissions based on the scope framework used in the GHG Protocol. This allows city inventories to beaggregated at regional and national level. This will help to improve the data quality of a national inventories,
measure the contribution of city-scale actions to regional or national GHG emission reduction targets, as well as
identify innovative trans-boundary and cross-sectorial strategies for GHG mitigation.

27

Regular Fugitive Emission Characteristics of HFC-134a from Mobile Air Conditioners (MACs) of
Korea-Made Passenger Vehicles in Korea
Seungdo Kim
Hallym University, Korea

This research describes the regular emission characteristics and model of HFC-134a from the Mobile Air
Conditioners (MACs) of passenger vehicles excluding Van and Sports Utility Vehicle (SUV) at the use- anddisposal-phase. The fugitive emission model of HFC-134a from MAC developed here assumed that the emission
process would be expressed by the first-order kinetics. The apparent fugitive emission constant of HFC-134afrom MAC in passenger vehicles is estimated to be 0.0526±0.0024 yr-1 within a confidence interval of 95%,
leading to the emission factor (EF) of 5.1±0.4% yr-1. The average residual rate of HFC-134a is 55.6±1.1% in
scrap passenger vehicles with an average age of 12.4 years. The average emission rate per vehicle isdetermined to be 24.6 g yr-1 at the use-phase and 383.4 g per scrap passenger. Based on the excellent
duplication of the measured residual rates of scrap passenger vehicles by the predicted ones by the emission
model developed here, it is concluded that the emission model and apparent fugitive emission constants arereasonably appropriate for representing the regular emission characteristics of HFC-134a from MAC ofpassenger vehicles.

28

Indonesia's mitigation potential project: Energy sector
Rohmadi Ridlo
The Agency for the Assessment and Application of Technology (BPPT), Indonesia

The Indonesian government has committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26% and reaches 41% (ifthere is international funding support) in 2020 from the condition without an action plan (bussines as usual / BAU).
This commitment is expressed in Presidential Decree No. 61 Year 2011 about the National Action Plan forGreenhouse Gas Emission Reduction (RAN GRK).
RAN GRK activity include in sector: Agriculture, forestry and peat land, energy and transportation, industry, waste
management industry, and other supporting activities.
Energy sector is one of sources of GHG emission, reached 369.8 million tons CO2eq or contributing 21%(Agriculture for 12%, waste for 9% and Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry and peat fire for 63%) of theemissions in 2005 (Indonesia SNC, 2010).
According to base scenario, total CO2eq from fuels combustion and fugitive emissions in 2011 reached 511
million tons and increased to 1563 million tons by 2030 at a growth rate of 6.1% per year.
To achieve the target cutting GHG emissions in energy sector in around 4% by 2020, it is important to evaluate
quantitatively and specify types and amounts of countermeasures with high mitigation potentials andcountries/regions which we should put priority on. In 2020, in BaU case, total GHG emission in energy is
expected to be 903 million tCO2eq.
Various actions proposed in the RAN GRK Energy Sector include energy conservation and renewable energy
usage which is in line with the Indonesian energy policy.
1. Energy Conservation to improve efficiency in energy utilization from up-stream up to down-stream (DemandSide) i.e. industrial, transportation, household and commercial sector
2. Energy Diversification to increase new renewable energy share in national energy mix (Supply Side)
This presentation will discuss the GHG emissions and mitigation potentials in energy sectors in Indonesia.

29

Chevron Corporation Quantification of GHGs Based on Methods from the American Petroleum
InstituteDavid Shen
Chevron Corporation, USA

Chevron has been tracking and disclosing its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions since early 2000s, as part of its
corporate responsibility reporting. Under its corporate reporting protocol, Chevron makes use of the American
Petroleum Institute (API) Compendium of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Methodologies for the Oil and Gas
Industry as a standard set of quantification methods for the corporation. Flexibility is given for business units to
use regulatory methods so long as those methods do not represent less than what would be required through the
API methodology. A public version of Chevron’s GHG protocol can be made available to the IPCC Experts
Meeting, as well as the latest Chevron Corporate Responsibility report for discussion.
Chevron business units in the past have requested their Corporate Health, Environment and Safety department
for assistance comparing the IPCC’s GHG quantification methods against API or a quantification method requiredby a host government. Chevron has dissuaded its business units from the use of IPCC methods as its original
intent has been for country-level GHG estimations. Where high level comparisons have been done between API
and IPCC methodologies, it was found that similarities could be found especially for simple stationary combustion
sources such as boilers or gas turbines. However, for inherently more uncertain emission calculations such as forfugitive gas emissions, the similarities broke down. IPCC GHG guidelines can be used as a foundation andconsultative tool for industries developing GHG quantification methodologies, but not necessarily used as astandalone tool.

30

A Spatially Explicit Visualisation of Global GHGs for the AFOLU Sector
Rosa Maria Roman-Cuesta
Centre for Geo-Information, Wageningen University, Netherlands

Since year 2000, and in spite of the mitigation options in place, emissions have been growing at larger rates forall sectors except for the AFOLU sector (Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses), that has remained similar.
AFOLU accounts for a quarter (ca. 24%) of the net anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions (in 2010).
Because effective mitigation will not be achieved if emission sources are tackled individually, integrated
assessments of GHGs need to be pursued. This is particularly true for the AFOLU sector where emissions are
particularly intertwined (e.g. different land uses act as the driving forces of the emissions in the others: agriculture
expansion increases forest emissions). The IPCC 2006 Good Practice Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories offer a good framework where to identify key GHGs and emissions sources of the different land usesof the AFOLU sector, in an integrative manner, minimizing the risk of double counting, and improving theunderstanding of drivers and feedbacks. Using the IPCC 2006 GPG framework, we have developed apantropically explicit map of AFOLU emissions which will assist in the identification of regions with larger AFOLU
emissions. Understanding where are the hotspots of emissions will allow a better characterization of theirbiophysical, economic and social contexts and will navigate the selection of most appropriate mitigation options(e.g. in terms of maximized returns on investment, adaptation-mitigation trade-offs, ease of implementation, etc).

31National Greenhouse Gas Inventory for Thailand’s Second National Communication and
Mitigation Aspects
Jakapong Pongthanaisawan
National Science Technology and Innovation Policy Office, Ministry of Science and Technology, Thailand

In 2010, as the non-annex I country, Thailand has to submit national greenhouse gas inventory as part of theSecond National Communication (SNC) to United Nation of Convention in Climate Change (UNFCCC) secretariat.
The inventory is done in accordance with 1996 IPCC Revised Guidelines on National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories, prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on the Climate Change (IPCC). The SNC reports theinventory of base year 2000 covers emission by source and reduction by sink of greenhouse gases in 5 sectors
including energy sector, industrial process sector, agriculture sector, land use, and forestry sector and waste
sectors.
Based on information and data base from the SCN and by employing the 2006 IPCC guideline, Thailand
Greenhouse Gas Management Organization (TGO) sponsored the Joint Graduate School of Energy andEnvironment to conduct a study of Thailand Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model: Mitigation Aspects. The study
aimed to forecast the GHG emissions from five major GHG emitted sectors under the base line business-asusual (BAU) scenario to the year 2030. In addition, the various technologies and measures in order to mitigate
GHG emission in all selected sector were also assessed in two alternative scenarios, including power
development plan scenario – promotion of technologies for electricity generation from renewable energy and lowcarbon fossil fuel - and climate plan scenario – introduction of high energy efficiency technology and renewableenergy for heat in industrial sector, building sector and transport sector.

32

Quantifying the Biophysical Climate Change Mitigation Potential of Canada’s Forest Sector
C. E. Smyth1, G. Stinson1, E. Neilson1, T. C. Lemprière2, M. Hafer1, G. J. Rampley3, W. A. Kurz1
1 Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, 506 Burnside Road West, Victoria, BC, V8Z 1M5,

Canada.
2 Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, 2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada
3 Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, 580 Booth Street, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0E4, Canada

The potential of forests and the forest sector to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is widely recognized,
but challenging to quantify at a national scale. Forests and their carbon (C) sequestration potential are affectedby management practices, where wood harvesting transfers C out of the forest into products, and subsequent
regrowth allows further C sequestration. Here we determine the mitigation potential of the 2.3 x 106 km2 of
Canada’s managed forests from 2015 to 2050 using the Carbon Budget Model of the Canadian Forest Sector(CBM-CFS3), a harvested wood products (HWP) model that estimates emissions based on product half-life
decay times, and an account of emission substitution benefits from the use of wood products and bioenergy. We
examine several mitigation scenarios with different assumptions about forest management activity levels relative
to a base-case scenario, including improved growth from silvicultural activities, increased harvest and residue
management for bioenergy, and reduced harvest for conservation. We combine forest management options withtwo mitigation scenarios for harvested wood product use involving an increase in either long-lived products orbioenergy uses. Results demonstrate large differences among alternative scenarios, and we identify potential
mitigation scenarios with increasing benefits to the atmosphere for many decades into the future, as well as
scenarios with no net benefit over many decades. The greatest mitigation impact was achieved through a mix ofstrategies that varied across the country and had cumulative mitigation of 254 Tg CO2e in 2030, and1180 Tg CO2e in 2050. There was a trade-off between short-term and long-term goals, in that maximizing shortterm emissions reduction could reduce the forest sector’s ability to contribute to longer-term objectives. We
conclude that (i) national-scale forest sector mitigation options need to be assessed rigorously from a systems
perspective to avoid the development of policies that deliver no net benefits to the atmosphere, (ii) a mix ofstrategies implemented across the country achieves the greatest mitigation impact, and (iii) because of the timedelays in achieving carbon benefits for many forest-based mitigation activities, future contributions of the forest
sector to climate mitigation can be maximized if implemented soon.

33

Global and Regional Assessments of GHG Emissions and Mitigation Potential in Livestock
Supply Chains: Modelling management interventions
Anne Mottet
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

The Global Livestock Environmental Model (GLEAM) was developed by the Livestock Information, Sector
Analysis and Policy branch (AGAL) of the FAO to improve the quantification of GHG emissions from livestock
supply chains and to identify low emission pathways. GLEAM is used to produce disaggregated assessments ofemissions and mitigation potential and to carry out economic analyses of mitigation costs and benefits. This
analytical work supports the engagement in multi-stakeholder initiatives on methods and practice change.
GLEAM is a Life Cycle Assessment model, from cradle to retail, and includes all major sources of emissions fromlivestock supply chains. It computes emissions at local level (cells on a map). The GHG emission factors appliedin GLEAM are a combination of IPCC (2006) Tier 1 and Tier 2 approaches. Despite the existence of countryspecific EFs, the study applied the same approach to all countries, to ensure consistency and comparability of
results across regions and farming systems.
IPCC Tier 2 approaches were used to calculate emissions related to enteric fermentation as well as manure
management and storage. The Tier 1 method was used where data was generally lacking, e.g. estimation ofcarbon stocks from LUC and N2O emissions from feed production.
GLEAM can generate averages and ranges at different scales and, because it mostly relies on Tier 2 approach,can be used to analyse mitigation intervention, such as feeding practices, health or manure management.

34

Annex 2.

Agenda09:00 - 9:30

Registration

09:30 - 10:00

Welcome IPCC TFI Co-Chairs
 Vanya Grigorova, Executive Director of the Executive Environment
AgencyPresentations

10:00 - 12:30

Tuesday
1 July12:30 - 14:00

14:00 - 17:00

Introduction (Kiyoto Tanabe, TSU)Introduction to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Baasansuren Jamsranjav,
TSU)

Application of IPCC Guidance to REDD+: Advice from GFOI (JimPenman, UK)U.S. EPA Experience in Applying the IPCC Guidelines (Melissa Weitz,
USA)

Experience Using 2006 GL AFOLU Methods for Estimating Mitigation
Potential for Agriculture and Carbon Footprint of Primary Agricultural
Products (Brian McConkey, Canada)Lessons Learned from the Application of Emission Factors Defined in2006 IPCC Guidelines to the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)(Kazuhisa Koakutsu, Japan)

Lunch breakImplementing IPCC Methodology in Model CASMOFOR to Estimate theForest Carbon Sink (Zoltan Somogyi, Hungary)Implementation of IPCC and Other Carbon Certification Guidelines in
Climate Change Mitigation Projects: Experiences from 20 subnational
initiatives in six countries (Shijo Joseph, CIFOR)

Calculation of Mitigation Potential/Carbon Footprint/ Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA), including Application of 2006 IPCC Guidelines (JohnDavid Watterson, UK)Issues on the Use of IPCC 2006GLs for Sub-national Scale Land Use
Inventories and Mitigation Activities (Viorel Blujdea, Romania)

City-level GHG Emissions accounting and reporting (Ana Cristina Alves
Marques, ICLEI)

GHG Measurement Standards for Cities (Michael Doust, UK)

Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission
Inventories (GPC) (Michael Doust on behalf of Wee Kean Fong, WRI )Regular Fugitive Emission Characteristics of HFC-134a from Mobile Air
Conditioners (MACs) of Korea-Made Passenger Vehicles in Korea(Seungdo Kim, Korea)
35

09:00 - 12:30

Indonesia's Mitigation Potential Project: Energy sector (Rohmadi Ridlo,
Indonesia)

Chevron Corporation Quantification of GHGs Based on Methods from theAmerican Petroleum Institute (David Shen, USA)

A Spatially Explicit Visualization of Global GHGs for the AFOLU Sector(Rosa Maria Roman-Cuesta, Netherlands)

National Greenhouse Gas Inventory for Thailand’s Second National
Communication and Mitigation Aspects (Jakapong Pongthanaisawan,
Thailand)

Quantifying the Biophysical Climate Change Mitigation Potential of
Canada’s Forest Sector (Carolyn Smyth, Canada)Global and Regional Assessments of GHG Emissions and Mitigation
Potential in Livestock Supply Chains: Modelling management
interventions (Anne Mottet, FAO)

Wednesday
2 July12:30 - 14:00

Lunch break
Discussions in break-out groups (BOGs)
All BOGs will discuss the respective topics highlighting issues and goodpractices in application of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.


BOG1: Estimation of GHG emissions/removals in sub-national/
corporate/project level reporting and performance standard-setting, on
non-annual basis



BOG2: Estimation of mitigation
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

BOG3: Estimation of GHG emissions/removals in mitigation projects andprogrammes

14:00 - 17:00

Thursday3 July09:00 - 12:30

Discussions in the BOGs

12:30 - 14:00

Lunch break

14:00 - 17:00

Reporting by BOGs and plenary discussion

Coffee break: 10:30 and 15:30 on 1-3 July36

potential/carbon

footprint/

Annex 3.

Questions and Answers

1. Can the methods and default data of the IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
be used in estimation of emissions/removals at scales other than national?
Aspects of the emissions estimation methods of the IPCC Guidelines are often applicable for use at a regional,
corporate, facility or project level and their use for these purposes often assists in fostering consistency between
estimation methods within a country’s emissions estimation and reporting system.
Categorization of sources/sinks may not directly apply for GHG accounting at level other than national (e.g.
corporate-level), particularly where boundaries are different, and where it is necessary to take account ofemissions offsite (e.g. from electricity generation and waste disposal). In national GHG inventories such offsite
emissions affecting the national total are allocated to the sector in which they occur (e.g. energy and waste). To
take account of offsite emissions it may be necessary to attribute a part of emissions elsewhere in the national
GHG inventory, using some rule or procedure to decide what is appropriate, for example a proportional or
marginal share.
It is also possible that more detailed information available at the corporate, facility or project level can give resultsthat are more accurate or precise than if, for example, IPCC defaults are used. Practical approaches to using
such detailed information are discussed in the following publications available at http://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/public/index.html:-

TFI Technical Bulletin: Use of Facility–Specific Data in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2012)-

Expert meeting report: Use of Models and Facility-Level Data in Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2011)

The Global Protocol for Community-Scale GHG Emission Inventories (GPC) - a GHG Protocol standard for cities(http://ghgprotocol.org/city-accounting) references methods in the IPCC Guidelines and recommends for somesource categories to use IPCC default factors if local, regional, or country-specific sources are unavailable.
2. What are the major types of GHG inventories and what are their key differences?
In addition to national GHG inventories, there are inventories which are prepared at other geographic scales, e.g.
sub-national inventories for administrative regions, or cities, or at the corporate or facility level. GHG
assessments may also be made on a product life cycle basis. In general, key differences in the inventories
include inventory boundary, categorization of emissions/removals, reporting period and approach used (e.g. topdown, bottom-up) in estimation of emissions/removals. Life-cycle estimates are likely to introduce additional
complexities because of interactions and feed-backs between categories.
3. Where can we find EFs and parameters other than IPCC default values that can be used in estimationof emissions and removals?
Research conducted at a national level, by industries or trade associations and by environment agencies areuseful sources. Users of the IPCC Guidelines should also consult the IPCC Emission Factor Database (EFDB),
which is a library of various emission factors and other parameters with background technical information that can37be used for estimation of GHG emissions/removals. The database is developed and maintained by IPCC Task
Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (TFI). The EFDB can be accessed at http://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/EFDB/main.php and the EFDB user manual can be downloaded from http://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/EFDB/documents.php. Experts with country-specific data not currently represented in the EFDB,
are encouraged to submit the data/information for consideration by the EFDB Editorial Board.
4. What is a conservative estimate of emissions/removals? Do the IPCC Guidelines provide
methodological guidance for conservative estimates?
The IPCC Guidelines do not provide methodological guidance for conservative estimates. According to the IPCC
Guidelines, inventories consistent with good practice are those which contain neither over- nor under-estimates
so far as can be judged, and in which uncertainties are reduced as far as practicable. This means that the IPCC
Guidelines are intended to provide guidance for developing inventory estimates that are accurate, but notconservative.
Conservativeness aims at minimizing the environmental risk of under-estimation or in some cases (e.g. base year
estimates) over-estimation for specific accounting applications. For example:-

Under the Kyoto Protocol, in the case that expert review teams cannot agree with national estimates, anadjustment procedure applied to a Party’s national GHG inventory according to the Article 5.2 shall result in
estimates that are conservative for the Party concerned so as to ensure that anthropogenic emissions are
not underestimated and anthropogenic removals by sinks and anthropogenic base year emissions are notoverestimated.

-

For a CDM project activity which is not afforestation or reforestation, the establishment of a baseline isconsidered conservative if the resulting projection of the baseline does not lead to an overestimation of
GHG emission reductions attributable to the CDM project activity.

The rules for producing these conservative estimates are sometimes derived from consideration of IPCC
uncertainty ranges.
5. What is good practice and where we can find good practice guidance in the IPCC Guidelines?
Inventories consistent with good practice are those which contain neither over- nor under-estimates so far as canbe judged, and in which uncertainties are reduced as far as practicable. Good practice also entails producing
inventories that are transparent, complete, consistent, comparable and accurate, and IPCC provides crosscutting guidance on achieving these characteristics. The concept was defined and elaborated in the Good
Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (GPG 2000) via acollection of methodological principles, actions and procedures, and then retained in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
Good Practice has achieved general acceptance amongst countries as the basis for inventory development.
Volume 1 (General Guidance and Reporting) of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines provides good practice guidance on
issues that are common to all the estimation methods covered by the sector-specific guidance provided inVolumes 2 to 5.
38

6. What is time series consistency of emissions/removals estimates and where I can find guidance in
the IPCC Guidelines?
A time series is a central component of the GHG inventory. It provides information on emissions trends (e.g.,annually from a base year to the most recent year) and tracks changes in emissions over the period covered. Inorder to reflect real changes in emissions/removals, all estimates in a time series should be estimatedconsistently, which means that as far as possible and appropriate, the time series should be calculated using thesame method and data sources in all years. Developing a consistent time series is essential for establishingconfidence in reported inventory trends. Chapter 5 (Time Series Consistency) of Volume1 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines provides methods for ensuring time-series consistency. This chapter also provides good practiceguidance on when to recalculate estimates for previous years and methods for tracking changes in emissions andremovals over time.
7. Are there any IPCC calculation tools for estimation of emissions/removals and can these tools be
used in inventories other than national level?
The IPCC TFI produced new inventory software (IPCC Inventory Software) in 2012 to assist countries incompiling, documenting and archiving a national GHG inventory. The software is based on the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines. It can also be used for checking the estimates or estimating emissions/removals from particularsources/categories. This software cannot necessarily be used at sub-national scales, because of the coverage
and other issues identified in Q.2 above. The IPCC Inventory Software and its user manual are freely available at
http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/software/index.html
8. Where we can find in the IPCC Guidelines guidance on how to deal with confidential data/information
when preparing inventories?
Chapter 2 (Approaches to Data Collection) of Volume1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines provides guidance on how to
use restricted data in compiling inventories while ensuring both confidentiality and methodological transparency.
9. What is a difference between direct and indirect emissions when these terms are used in the context
of national inventories, as opposed to their usage in the context of corporate inventories?
In national GHG inventories, direct emissions are those taking place directly from a source as consequence of anactivity resulting in the emissions while indirect emissions are those occurring through indirect pathways. For
example, N2O emissions from managed soils occur through both a direct pathway (i.e., directly from the soils towhich the N is added/released), and through two indirect pathways: (i) following volatilisation of NH3 and NOx
from managed soils and the subsequent redeposition of these gases and their products NH4+ and NO3- to soils
and waters; and (ii) after leaching and runoff of N, mainly as NO3-, from managed soils.
By contrast the GHG Protocol produced by World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) andthe World Resources Institute (WRI) (http://ghgprotocol.org/calculation-tools/faq#directindirect) defines direct andindirect emissions as follows:-

Direct GHG emissions are emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by the reporting entity
39-Indirect GHG emissions are emissions that are a consequence of the activities of the reporting entity, but
occur at sources owned or controlled by another entity

10. Is there a quick guide to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines?
The Overview Chapter and Chapter 1 of Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines serve as a quick guide. The
Overview Chapter (http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/0_Overview/V0_1_Overview.pdf) broadly
describes the background, structure and major features of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Chapter 1 of Volume 1(http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/1_Volume1/V1_1_Ch1_Introduction.pdf)

providesanintroduction to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for a broad range of users, including countries and inventory compilers
setting out to prepare inventory estimates for the first time.
In addition, a primer to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, available at TFI website (http://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/support/support.html), introduces the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, summarises the basic approach forinventory development, and provides guidance on their use. The primer helps the reader to understand the 2006
IPCC Guidelines, but is not on its own IPCC guidance.

40Annex 4.

List of Participants

Argentina

Detelina Rumyanova Petrova
Executive Environment Agency
136 Tzar Boris III blvd., Sofia, 1618 Bulgaria
Tel: +359 886 222 097 / +359 2 940 64 88
Fax: +359 2 955 90 15

Laura Elena Dawidowski
National Atomic Energy Commission
Avda. General Paz 1499, San Martin,
Buenos Aires Province, B1650KNA
Argentina
Tel: +54 11 6772 7182
Fax: +54 11 6772 7154

Hristo Vassilev
Hr. Vasilev (NGO Fondation)
17, Leonardo da Vinci Street, Sofia, 1134 Bulgaria
Tel: +359 8 882 83890

Leonidas Osvaldo Girardin
Fundación Bariloche
Piedras 482 2H - Buenos Aires, 1070 Argentina
Tel: +54 11 4331 2021
Fax: +54 11 4331 2021

CanadaBrian McConkey
Ministry of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Box 1030, Swift Current, SK, S9H 3X2 Canada
Tel: +1 306 778 7281
Fax: +1 306 778 3188

Benin

G. H. Sabin Guendehou
Benin Centre for Scientific and Technical Research
03 P.O. Box 1665 / 2048, Cotonou, BJ
Benin
Tel: +229 95 05 93 91
Fax: +229 21 32 36 71

Carolyn Smyth
Natural Resources Canada
506 Burnside Rd. W., Victoria, BC. V8Z 1M5
CanadaTel: +1 250 298 2313
Fax: +1 250 363 0775

BrazilThelma Krug (TFI Co-chair)
INPE-Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais
Av. Dos Astronautas, 1758 - Jardim da Granja,
San Jose dos Campos - Sao Paulo, 12227-010
BrazilTel: +55 12 3208 6005 / +55 12 3208 6863
Fax: +55 12 3941 2077

China

Lingxi Zhou
Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences(CAMS),
China Meteorological Administration (CMA)
CAMS, 46 Zhongguancun Nandajie,
Beijing, 100081 China
Tel: +86 10 58995279
Fax: +86 10 62176414

Newton Paciornik
Rua São Clemente 272, ap. 501-I ,Rio de Janeiro, 22260-000 Brazil
Tel: +55 21 25351266
Fax: +55 21 22868486

Hungary

Zoltán Somogyi
Hungarian Forest Research Institute1 Frankel L. u., Budapest, H-1027
Hungary
Tel: +36 30 463 5143
Fax: +36 1 326 1639

Adriana dos Santos Siqueira Scolastrici
FUNCATE - Foundation of Science, Applications
and Spatial Technologies
Av Doutor João Guilhermino, 429 - 18º andar,
12.210-131 Brazil
Tel: +55 12 3925 1389
Fax: +55 12 3941 2829

Indonesia

Rizaldi Boer
Centre for Climate Risk and Opportunity
Management in Southeast Asia and Pacific(CCROM SEAP) - IPB, Bogor Agriculture University
2nd Floor, Botani Building, Kampus IPB
Baranangsiang, Jalan Raya Pajajaran, Bogor 16143
Indonesia
Tel: +62 251 8313709
Fax: +62 251 8310779

Bulgaria

Rayna Angelova
Ministry of Environment and Water
22 Maria Luiza Blvd., 1000 Sofia
Bulgaria
Tel: +359 2 9406133
Fax: +359 2 9818107

Rohmadi Ridlo

41

The Agency for the Assessment and Application ofTechnology (BPPT)
Komplek Kimia Farma Hankam Blok E5 #4, Ciledug,
Tangerang, 15153
Indonesia
Tel: +62 21 7311 546

Romania

Viorel Nelu Bellmondo Blujdea
Forest Research and Management Institute
Bd. Eroilor 128, Voluntari, Ilfov 077190 Romania
Tel: +40 740 993 492
Fax: +40 21 350 32 45

Muhammad Ridwan
Carbon and Environmental Research Indonesia(CER Indonesia)
Jl. Aryawidura 8, No. 2, Aryawidura Residence
Bogor, 16152 Indonesia
Tel: +62 251 8352787 / +62 8128200754
Fax: +62 251 8394486

RussiaIrina Govor
Institute of Global Climate and Ecology under theFederal Service of Russian Federation for
Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring
and Russian Academy of Sciences
20-B Glebovskaya Str., Moscow, 107258 Russia
Tel: +7 495 734 53 04 (office)Tel: +7 905 558 57 76 (mobile)
Fax: +7 499 160 08 31

Japan

Taka Hiraishi (TFI Co-chair)
C/o Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies (IGES)
2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama, Kanagawa,
240-0115 Japan
Tel: +81 46 855 3758
Fax: +81 46 855 3808

South Africa

Stanford Mwakasonda
Engen Petroleum Ltd
Engen Court, Thibault Square, PO Box 35, 8000
South Africa
Tel: +27 21 403 4382
Fax: +27 21 403 4199

Kazuhisa Koakutsu
Climate and Energy Area
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama, Kanagawa, 2400115 Japan
Tel: +81 46 855 3825
Fax: +81 46 855 3809

Tanzania

Emmanuel Jonathan Mpeta
Tanzania Meteorological Agency
Ubungo Plaza, Morogoro Road,
P.O. BOX 3056, Dar es Salaam
Tanzania
Tel: +255 78 4645337
Fax: +255 22 2460735

Korea, Republic of

Seungdo Kim
Dept. of Environmental Sciences and Biotechnology,
Hallym University
39 Hallymdaehak-gil, Chuncheon, 200-702 Republicof Korea
Tel: +82 33 248 3285
Fax: +82 33 242 1536

ThailandJakapong Pongthanaisawan
National Science Technology and Innovation Policy
Office319 Chamchuri Square Building 14th Fl., PhayathaiRd., Patumwan, Bangkok, 10330 Thailand
Tel: +66 2165432 ext:302
Tel: +66 815687011 (mobile)
Fax: +66 2165439

Malaysia

Elizabeth M.P. Philip
Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM)
FRIM, Kepong, Kuala Lumpur, 52109 Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 6279 7249 / +60 3 8886 1074
Fax: +60 3 6280 4625

Sirintornthep Towprayoon
Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment,
Center of Excellence of Energy Technology andEnvironment (JGSEE-CEE)
King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi(KMUTT)
126 Pracha-utit Road, Bangmod, Tungkru, Bangkok
10140 Thailand
Tel: +66 817514159

Netherlands

Rosa Maria Roman-Cuesta
Centre for Geo-Information,
Wageningen University
Room C314, GAIA, Building 101,
Droevendaalsesteeg 3, 6708PB
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 317 48 59 19

UK

Michael Doust
C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group42

North West Entrance, City-Gate House,
39-45 Finsbury Square, London EC2A 1PX
UK
Tel: +44 203 525 8565

Ana Cristina Alves Marques
ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability
Kaiser Friedrich Str. 7, 53113 Bonn
Germany
Tel: +49 228 976 299 25
Fax: +49 228 976 299 01

Jim Penman
University College London
Environment Institute,
Office of the Vice Chancellor (Research),
2 Taviton St., London WC1H 0BT
UK
Tel: +44 77 66 14 51 52

IPCC TFI TSU

C/o Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies (IGES)
2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama, Kanagawa,
240-0115 Japan
Fax: +81 46 855 3808

John David Watterson
Ricardo-AEA
Gemini Building, Fermi Ave,
Didcot OX11 0RA UK
Tel: +44 7968 707417

Kiyoto Tanabe
Tel: +81 46 855 3752
Nalin Srivastava
Tel: +81 46 855 3754

USADavid Shen
Chevron Corporation
6001 Bollinger Canyon Rd. K2107,
San Ramon, CA 94583 USA
Tel: +1 925 842 2807

Baasansuren Jamsranjav
Tel: +81 46 855 3757

Melissa Weitz
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW (6207-J), 20460 USA
Tel: +1 202 343 9897

Naima Oumoussa
Tel: +81 46 855 3759

Koh Mikuni
Tel: +81 46 855 3876

Nina Uvarova
Tel: +81 46 855 3756

Center for International Forestry Research(CIFOR)

Shijo Joseph (India)
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)
Jl. CIFOR, Situ Gede, Sintang Barang, Bogor, 16115
Indonesia
Tel: +62 251 8622 622 (office)Tel: +62 81314007601 (mobile)
Fax: +62 251 8622 100

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
Anne Mottet
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla s/n, 00153
Rome Italy
Tel: +39 6 570 55068
Anne.mottet@fao.org
Maria Jose Sanz Sanchez
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla s/n, 00153
Rome Italy
Tel: +39 65 705 4121 (office)International Council for Local
Environmental Initiatives, ICLEI - Local
Governments for Sustainability
43Annex 5.

References

IPCC (1997). Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Houghton
J.T., Meira Filho L.G., Lim B., Treanton K., Mamaty I., Bonduki Y., Griggs D.J., and Callander B.A. (Eds),
IPCC/OECD/IEA, Paris, France.
IPCC (2000). Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories, Penman J., Kruger D., Galbally I., Hiraishi T., Nyenzi B., Emmanuel S., Buendia L., HoppausR., Martinsen T., Meijer J., Miwa K., and Tanabe K. (Eds), IPCC/OECD/IEA/IGES, Hayama, Japan.
IPCC (2003). Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry, Penman J.,
Gytarsky M., Hiraishi T., Krug T., Kruger D.,Pipatti R., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T., Tanabe K. and
Wagner F. (Eds.), IPCC/IGES, Hayama, Japan.
IIPCC (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. andTanabe K. (eds). Published: IGES, Japan

44